! #**• PRINCETON, N. J. * I BX 9192 .J35 1867 James, T. S. 1809-1874. The history of the s*'0 litigation and legislation I THE HISTORY LITIGATION AND LEGISLATION HEsrECTIXU PRESBYTERIAN CHAPELS AND CHARITIES ENGLAND AND IRELAND BETWEEN 1816 AND 1849 BY T. S. JAMES. LONDON: HAMILTON ADAMS «fc Co. BIRMINGHAM : HUDSON & SON. MDCCCLXVII. " Progression, though slow, being uniform, the reign of George the Second might not disadvantageoualy be compared for the real happiness of the community with that more brilliant, but uncertain and oscillatory condition which has ensued (Hallam, Const. Eistory, ii, -1G 4 ). This is the aspect which that period of history wears to the political philosopher. The historian of moral and religious progress on the other hand, is under the necessity of depicting the same period as one of decay of religion, licentiousness of morals, public corruption, profaneness of language — a day of 'rebuke and blasphemy.' Even those who look with suspicion on the contemporary complaints from the Jacobite clergy of 'decay of religion' will not hesitate to say that it was an age destitute of depth or earnestness ; an age whose poetry was without romance, whose philosophy was without insight, and whose public men were without character; an age of 'light without love,' whose very merits were of the 'earth earthy.' In their estimate the followers of Mill and Carlyle will agree with those of Dr. Newman." "Tendencies of Religious Thought in England, 1688-1750," by the Rev. Mark Fatteson, B.D., Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford. "Essays and Reviews." PREFACE. i This volume contains an account of suits in English and Irish Courts of Equity, by which chapels and religious charities were recovered from the control of trustees not holding the Trinitarian faith of the founders ; of the passing of an Act of Parliament which, by limiting the time for filing informations so far as congregational properties and endowments were concerned, rendered inoperative in other cases the rule which had been recognized in those suits; and of a secondary suit to determine the proper objects of a fund, which one of the extinct body of English Presbyterians had settled in 1704 for the benefit of Dissenters generally, and which had been previously at the disposal of Anti-Trinitarians. This litigation and legislation not only at the time deeply interested the Nonconformist bodies affected by them, but will be of importance as long as there remain in England any places of worship or religious charities not connected with the Establishment; for the decisions were, Avith the exception of a Scotch case, altogether sui generis, decided by the House of Lords, the first enunciation of the law on the subject ; and the doings of the Parliament may furnish a guide in the attack or defence of other endowments. All property devoted to the support of religion must necessarily be in the power of Parliament, and it is well that it should not be forgotten how that power was exercised in the case of the old Presbyterian chapels. The judgments of the courts are scattered through several volumes, some of which are to be found only in public libraries, or are best reported in pamphlets or ephemeral publications not to be met with even there. Two of the suits, and those not the least important ones, did not come to a hearing ; the particulars of the one have been obtained from the pleadings and evidence, but only slight ex parte notices have been obtained of the other. A full account of what took place in both Houses with reference to the Act, with copies of the chief documents relating to it, was published at the time by the party which it rendered IV triumphant, but books of that kind soon perish, and while extant are rarely to be seen out of the circle for which they are written. It has therefore been determined to publish a condensed account of the cases and debates, that aftertimes may possess in a single volume the means of judging of the contest, and the manner in which it was brought to a close. There is a peculiar fitness in this publication at the present time. The English Unitarians are fast discarding all that is supernatural in religion, even the mission and resurrection of Christ ; and as the doctrines now heard from their pulpits are not such as were preached from them twenty years ago, it may be considered that the act of 1844 has ceased to preserve the old meeting-houses from informations claiming them for Trinitarian worship. Nor are the lessons taught by the first half of the eighteenth century without instruction for the Independents of the present day, for there are among them in some quarters symptoms of a departure from the old Calvinistic faith, which, in all KefQrmed communions, has ever proved the first step to an abandonment of all Evangelical doctrines, for with such Armi- nianisinhas proved only a resting place on the road to Socinianism. But unwarranted suspicions of unsoundness in George the Second's time drove many a minister from the fellowship of the orthodox, and many a chapel has been recovered by bearing with an old minister's shortcomings. The subjects we have to treat of naturally range themselves in four divisions. 1. Two English cases between Independents and Sociuians : A.G. v. Pearson relating to the Wolverhampton chapel, and A.G. v. Shore relating to the Hewley charity. 2. Four Irish cases between the orthodox and heterodox Presbyterians : Dill v. Watson relating to the Clough Chapel, Anderson v. Watson relating to the Killinchy Chapel, A.G. v. Druinmond relating to the Dublin General Fund, and A.G. v. Hutton relating to Eustace Street Chapel Dublin, with a notice of the suit relating to Strand Street Chapel Dublin. 3. The proceedings connected with the passing of the Act. 4. The suit A.G. v. Wilson between Independents in behalf of themselves and the Baptists, as the English denominations of Lady Hewley's times, against Scotch Presbyterians, then Kirkmen and Seceders, now the Presby- teriaD Church in England, and the United Presbyterian Church. The first second and third divisions are all preceded by an historical introduction, giving an account of Presbyterianism (English, Irish, or Scotch, according to the subject) sufficient to enable the reader to understand the suits, and are followed by remarks on the judgments or their results. The third division commences with a statement of the law as it stood before the Act, and closes with observations on the doings in Parliament, and an explanation of the course which it is submitted ought to have been pursued in respect to the old meeting-houses. It is trusted that the order adopted will facilitate the perusal of the volume, and still more reference to it, but as there are no chapters, chapter headings, running titles or marginal titles, a full table of contents, having the leading subjects indicated by- capitals, and a minute index of subjects, as well as names, have been given ; but names occurring only in lists, unless otherwise noticed, will not be found in the Index. There is a very long Appendix, containing quotations not known in time for their appearance in the text, or best placed by themselves, because relied on in answer to both classes of opponents ; copies of documents which it is necessary to give, but which would have broken in upon an argument or narrative ; and lists of ministers in the early part of the last century, com- prising the chief actors in the times with which we have to do. In the suits comprised in the first and second divisions, the chief points in the contest were the doctrinal opinions of the English and Irish Presbyterians between 1688 and 1720; the plaintiffs or relators asserting, and the defendants denying, that they con- sidered Trinitarianism an essential tenet of Christianity. In Dill v. Watson, Anderson v. Watson, and A.G. v. Wilson, the system of Church government and discipline practised by the same parties also came into dispute. The Independents and the English Socinians held that the English Presbyterians after the Revolution had no one characteristic of real Presbyterians, but were congregational, though they did not adopt the system of the Independents. The Irish Arians contended that the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland were only nominally subject to local presbyteries, and were independent of all interference by any sy nodical assembly, their assertions being descriptive of a real, though disguised, Congregationalism The Scotchmen contended that the English Presbyterians, from their first existence until after the year 1719 or 1720, were strict and regular Presbyterians of the Scotch model ; and the orthodox Presbyterians of Ireland, that the Synod of Ulster had all along VI been such, and that this was proved by its synodical acts, or as we should call them resolutions. The Independents had thus the singular fortune that their allegations as to the English Presbyterians were corroborated by their opponents in both particulars of doctrine and church govern- ment, one party agreeing with one half of their statement, and the other party agreeing with the other half of it. The Independents were themselves the subjects of contradictory charges, the Soci- nians under the mistaken notion of their being subscribers, (i.e., subscriptionists), reproaching them with imposing on all whom they admitted to their fellowship the dogmas of a past age ; and the true Presbyterians, because the Independents were not subscriptionists, asserting that they had no fixed belief, but received as members of their body persons of all opinions indifferently. Such mutually destructive claims, and such contra- dictory accusations against the same parties must, it is thought, when brought together in one volume, refute and neutralize each other. A third point will be found underlying the arguments in all the suits though, in law phrase, it was not one of the issues raised. The Socinians and the Scotch Presbyterians agreed that a denomination, by the non-use of creeds (non-subscription as it was called) showed indifference to the doctrines which it professed. The Independents agreed with the Socinians in being themselves a non-subscribing body, and in asserting that the English Presby- terians were so also; but the reason for their objecting to the use of any formula was their anxiety to preserve their faith in purity and energy. These questions were certainly alien to those which usually demand the attention of the Judges, but the manner in which they were discussed in all the Courts except the highest, may convince every reader of the perfect competency of our tribunals to decide any suit relating to adherence or non-adherence either to a theological standard or to a traditionary system of doctrine. This is a matter of great importance to Nonconformists, as notwithstanding any forum of their own which they' may set up, all disputes as to doctrine arising among them may, as affecting property or the duties of trustees, come to be decided in Westminster Hall. Nor is there any hardship in this, for difficulties in the Establishment are brought before Courts, the •Judges of which are laymen, although, with the exception of the Vll Court of Appeal, they are called Spiritual Courts. In all these cases alike it is better to have questions as to the doctrines of individuals decided by men whose lives have been devoted to judicial enquiries, rather than by the soundest and clearest divines ; for in none of these cases is theological truth the object aimed at, but the Judges decide in conformity with some standard of orthodoxy by which the parties are bound, ascertaining agree- ment or disagreement with that as a matter of fact only. The proceedings in the House of Lords sitting as the Final Court of Appeal, on the contrary, read like a cai-icature of English justice. Although the questions put to the Judges embraced all the points in the case, the law lords did not .bestow one word on the merits, and they did not even decide all the points as to evidence, or rather as to construction, which the Judges disagreed on after* having three years to consider them. If the appeal had been to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, they would have decided all doubts presented to them, so as to guide the inferior courts in disposing of, and counsel in advising upon, the many causes which were stated to be awaiting the issue of that relating to the Hewley charity. It would have disgusted a stranger with English methods of procedure to see reserved for the final appeal the objection to almost all the evidence in the cause, after in the Courts below it had been relied on as the foundation of the decree; but most of all woidd he have wondered to see the rules of construction and evidence discussed by nearly all the Common Law Judges, as if they were observed for their own sakes only, as a transcendental method of reasoning to be carried on for its own inherent worthiness, without reference to f * It was decided that persons peculiarly conversant with ecclesiastical history should not give the courts the benefit of their knowledge, on the ground that the Judges must be supposed to have that knowledge already, or to be able to acquire it at pleasure. The consequence is that they must either glean their information of that description from the culled and perhaps garbled quotations with which counsel are crammed for the occasion, or from their private reading, which, on subjects new to them, will be most likely equally one-sided and subject to accident or misdirection. It would be much better tp obtain the evidence of men having devoted themselves to that particular branch of learning, who would know that misrepresentation or concealment would destroy their reputation as authorities in their own peculiar provinces of know- ledge. Experts as to handwriting are allowed, though they give only their own opinions, in cross-examination at any rate, as they would refer to books or documents which might be referred to in contradiction of their evidence if wrong. Professor Campbell detailed the volumes which he had mastered in respect to the subject, as if to frighten the Court into deference to his opinions, under the penalty of reading all that he had vend. the discovery of truth or the securing justice, and as if words, not the notions conveyed by them, were the realities of lawyers. Mr Justice Coleridge alone declared that old rules, when applied to matters to which they were inapplicable, must be expanded and. modified until they subserved the purposes of ascertaining the facts to be discovered, and the rights to be enforced. When we come to what was done in the legislature,* we make the appalling discovery that law lords, as law makers, not only shake off the technicalities of their courts, but the notions of right and conscience which they know they must observe there. Those who supported the bill carried the vote of their House by asser- tions and reasonings which they had themselves rejected and exposed as false and fallacious. The Chancellor misrepresented the decision in the Hewley case, forgetting the point of it, and grossly exaggerating details which he entered into. He even insinuated a doubt of its correctness, even when he had himself confirmed it, and joined in a second confirmation of it, and had volunteered the remark that he saw little difficulty in it. Although the Vice-Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Lord Cot- tenham, seven English Common Law Judges, the Chancellor of Ireland, and three Judges of the Irish Exchequer, (who were con- versant with Equity as well as Common Law, as was also Mr Baron Alderson of the English Exchequer), had all agreed on the law laid down, and although Mr Justice Maule, who stood alone in opposing it, rested his dissent upon the narrowest rule of construc- tion, such as in common life would never have been followed or endured, Sir William Follett had the effrontery to assert that all the lawyers (meaning no doubt the law lords) supported the bill, not because they felt that a period of limitation was proper, but because they thought that the decision in the Hewley case was wrong. These statements of the Chancellor and Attorney- General seem to evince a consciousness that if the judgment was right, the Bill was not justified by principle. The Premier supported it only by assertions which were the exact opposite of the facts, not only as to the opinions of the builders of the old chapels, but even as to the nature of the recent suits. ' Every stage of the Bill in each House was equally signalized by some new trick or deception on the part of its noble, right honourable, " The reader is particularly requested to observe that all the remarks on parliamen- tary matters are founded on the volume of the debates already mentioned, which was published by the Socinian party in commemoration of its triumph. IX or honourable supporters, and by some disaster or mismanage- ment on the part of its opponents, who seem to have acted throughout without any plan or mutual understanding. It was read a second time in the Lords without opposition, and the single division upon it there, before it Was sent down to the lower House, showed a minority of nine, and yet the rule which it laid down so plainly admitted the iniquity which it worked, that the House of Commons agreed to the second reading only on condition of the government proposing in committee a more decent method of accomplishing the end proposed* That all parties might be left without excuse, the Chancellor had promised the Moderator of the Synod of Ulster that the whole subject should be investigated by a select committee of the Lords, and he seems to have suggested that course after bringing in the Bill, but to have immediately abandoned it, evidently because it was certain to be fatal to the scheme, and he managed instead that there should be a committee, authorized only to consider whether the measure should extend to Ireland. Sir Eobert Peel knew that while such a committee should have considered the general question, yet that enquiry into each single case by a com- mission was also necessary, for he had himself previously urged the adoption of that course with regard to Ireland. Instead of acting on the principles Which they had thus recognized, these heads of the government and of the law intimated they would fain, if they dared, have made the Bill apply to cases in which Trinitarian doctrines had been most carefully and clearly pre- scribed by the trust deeds. They no doubt saw that to restrict it to a particular class of foundations was virtually to admit that it was not founded on principle, but brought in only to serve a turn. Most persons will consider that this disregard of founders' intentions evinced by the authors of the Bill, deprives their opinions with respect to it of all authority. The period of limitation was determined for the same reason, and it is in most disgraceful contrast with that which applies tu property of the Establishment, while reason would have enjoined the inverse treatment of the two cases. But any limitation would have been a mockery of all right until a cheap and speedy method of procedure in such matters had been established by Parliament, and had been in operation for the selected period of tweuty-fivc years. The hypocrisy and insult of speaking of the Bill as not intended b to affect Presbyterian chapels alone, and as a benefit to any other Dissenters than the Socinians, was utterly inconsistent with all the reasons by which it was supported, which were all founded on the vagueness which it was asserted (altogether wrongly) characterised the trust deeds of the Presbyterians as distin- guished from those of other denominations. The pretext for all this wrong was the scandal and uncertainty of the litigation which had taken place; but the litigation had done away with all uncertainty, and the only scandal was that which attached to the Bill, and its reception by the Parliament, as was shown by most of the speeches in its favour. The best commentary on the act is afforded by the following cases. It has secured £100 a year of the Dublin Fund to promote not Arianism but Socinianism, in Strand Street Chapel, Dublin, which yearly sum Sir Edward Sugden had excepted from the rest of the General Fund, to be dealt with in the suit respecting that chapel, which had then been instituted, and was stopped by the act. The rest of that fund was secured to Trinitarians, among other evidence, by the following extract from the address or pro- spectus upon which it was founded. " All possible precaution will be used to secure the application of the fund to the uses for which it is designed, the remote .suspicion or a bare possibility of this fund falling into other hands, or being misapplied, should not discom-age any pious donors, and the wisest of men has cautioned us against delaying our present duty from a bare suspicion about future events by telling us that ' he that observeth the winds shall never sow, and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap/ If what is thus barely possible should ever happen after the best precautions used, it will not lessen the present acceptance or future reward of the pious donors. Do not be apprehensive of this fund being perverted ftom its pui'pose, for we will use all human means to keep the funds in the right channel. A trust must be reposed somewhere, in all charitable gifts, and no donor can easily propose greater security for the honesty and fidelity of the trustees than what this scheme affords." There can be no mistake in seeing in Socinianism, the worst of all the evils which these founders, the men who prosecuted Emlyn, gould have feared as possible to befall the fund which they created. Mr Lowton, of the Eustace Street congregation, left his property to maintain "a gospel minister of the Presbyterian XI persuasion to preach the Gospel to the Presbyterian congre- gation, whereof he was a member, and to instruct them anil their successors for ever in the true principles of the Christian religion, and he implored his trustees to discharge their trust as became Christians and lovers of Christ and his church." Similar expressions were, in the Hewley case, held sufficient to denote Puritan opinions, but Lord St. Leonards felt himself compelled to decide that the act rendered such expressions of no avail in construing gifts after it came into operation. Both these cases, if the act had not been drawn with special reference to the Dublin chapel cases, would have been left to be dealt with in suits already instituted. Surely it is not illiberal to speculate as to the notions of honour and honesty entertained by trustees who can apply any part of the General Fund, or of Lowton's endowments, to the support of Anti- Trinitarian doctrines, or could first defend suits instituted by men of the founders' opinions/ to secure the application of their gifts according to their intentions ; and when defeated in those suits, deceive the government and the Parliament into the belief that the Dublin chapels and their endowments were being perverted by legal technicalities from the purposes to which they were originally devoted. Yet the hardship of depriving Unitarians of these two chapels, and the charities and endowments connected with them, was the argument which told upon both Houses, and the facts are so misunderstood in England that, to this day, there may be found there the traces of the notion that the general cause was injured by the claim made to the Eustace Street and Strand Street chapels. The reader may expect to know whether any new document, fact, or argument, is brought forward in this volume. This is not pretended, but some matters are urged which, though set in their proper light by previous publications, especially those of Mr Joshua Wilson, were not fully stated to the Courts or to Parlia- ment. First of all should be mentioned the associations of Presby- terians and Independents which were formed throughout England in 1G91 or 1692, in imitation of the London Union, and remained in full operation until dissolved on the prevalence of Arianism among the Presbyterians, that is, long after the death of Lady Hewley, and the close of the chapel-building period. Yet down to Mr Gladstone's speech and the answers on the A.G. v. Wilson, the dissolution in 1695 of the London Union, which was owing to a local quarrel, was on all occasions insisted on by the opponents of the Independents as showing the irreconcileable difference between the two denominations, while the permanence of the country associations was altogether passed over, no doubt in utter ignorance of their ever having existed. In no other book is there to be found so complete an account of the facts connected with the Salters' Hall Assembly. Mr Gladstone and the defendants in both the suits connected with the Hewley charity gave most erroneous and contradictory accounts of the vote of the ministers who met there. In no other publication is there brought together the pith of the various authoritative statements put forth by the parties whose opinions are here controverted, viz., the answers in all the suits; the case on the appeal as to the Hewley charity ; the signed reasons for the same appeal, and for the one as to the Dublin General Fund ; the Historical Proofs and Illustrations ; the memorial which induced Sir Robert Peel's government to endow the heterodox parties in England and Ireland with Trinitarian foundations; the petitions in which the various parties stated their claims to Parliament; and the protest of Bishop Phillpotts, which appro- priately closes the series. The exact words of all the parties whom this volume opposes are given so fully and fairly, that it is very likely persons agreeing with them will say that the method here adopted is suicidal, and that the opponents' cases have been given but not answered.* That risk is willingly encountered in consideration of the advan- tages secured by letting Trinitarian and Congregational readers see for themselves the most that their antagonists could (not prove but) say in support of their claims. The remarks of the Judges, other than Mr Justice Maule, which are all on the side advocated here of the various questions which arose, the quota- tions given (chiefly from Mr Joshua Wilson's treatise), and the documents printed in the Appendix supply all deficiencies in the The small type in the text is reserved for pleadings, the acts of the Synod, and quotations made by the party for the time opposed except that at pp. 43-44, extracts cited in the Proofs are employed for the author's purposes. Other quotations by the .author are in large type in the text, or are to be found in the notes. The reader bearing these direc- tions in mind can, on opening a page, tell on which side a book is quoted. Another rule has been observed : a series of extracts have no other quotation in like type between them, though they may be interrupted by comments in large type ; so that by turning over the leaves they may be read continuously. author's arguments. It is not known that any writer on the Trinitarian side, unless it may be in a newspaper or magazine, has published in England any detailed remarks on the kindred stratagems of reserving in the A.G. v. Shore the objections to the evidence till the final appeal, and of insisting in the A.G. v. Drummond at the same stage for the first time, on the original illegality of the General Fund;* or on the deceptions by which Sir Robert Peel's government blinded the members of both Houses as to the subject on which they were legislating, and the effect of their votes, or on the absurd and iniquitous provisions of the act : particularly the clause (altogether without precedent in a Bill relating to property) defeating pending suits ; or on the still greater irregularity of a Judge deferring judgment to allow an appeal to the legislature from the unanimous decision of all the Chancellors and ex- Chancellors, and the House of Lords. Nor, except in Mr Simons's Reports and the newspapers, has any account been printed of the A.G. v. Wilson, which raised the question whether the English Presbyterians after the Revolution maintained a really Presbyterian form of church government and method of discipline. The same contest was carried on in the Master's Office in the A.G. v. Shore by affidavits, published as mentioned at p. 578, but they were superseded by the answers in the subsequent suit, and the examinations of six carefully selected witnesses. The Vice- Chancellor decided only that the Presby- terian defendants in that suit belonged to Scotch denominations Avhich were not entitled to receive any benefit from the charity, as it was founded for the support of English Dissenters ; and Lord Cottenham avoided deciding any point by compelling a com- promise of the suit. The question will probably never receive a judicial solution, and this gives additional importance and interest to the case made out by the Scotchmen in this suit, when thev were fighting for a great booty, with a certainty of having their costs paid. Their answers alleged that English Presbyterianism was identical with Scotch Presbyterianism, but their evidence consisted only of the assertions of the witnesses, unsupported by fact or authority, and quotations from Independent writers, which * "When the opinion of Lord Elclon on the Wolverhampton case first showed the Socinians their situation, their outcry was the Independents were resting their pro- ceedings on persecuting statutes ; but the Socinians and Arians, when they found them- selves losing by the mouth of their counsel, (he was Attorney-General), or by their printed reasons of appeal, set up the right of the Crown to dispose of the Hewhy charity and the General Fund, thus putting all the endowments in jeopardy. XIV proved nothing more than that the parties who brought them forward must have been in sad need of arguments. The case of Craigdallie v. Aikinan, which was the first case which established that a chapel must not be used for the support of any other principles than those of the founders, is now first rendered intelligible, not as to the points decided, but as to the position of Mr Jervis's party, who really maintained the opinion of the old Burghers, though by a false step in the Synod they had estopped themselves from excepting (as they otherwise might have done) to the preamble authorized by its vote, and from ousting those who adhered to it. Thus the question, whether the New Light or the Old Light Burghers were entitled to the chapels, was not settled by that suit, as was intended. This explanation is given through the kindness of Mr Wilson, solicitor of Perth, who kindly lent the memorial for Mr Aikman's party, and supplied the key to the difficulty of the case, in the circum- stance that Mr Jervis's party in the congregation had, for some party purpose, proposed or supported in the Synod a preamble (or authoritative interpretation of part of their confession) to the same effect as the one which, when carried, they with reason represented to be subversive of this standard in the particular point it related to. Having done this it was not for them to say that persons approving the Synod's preamble lost by doing so all right to the chapel. But in truth both preambles resembled that Eussian Ukase which explained a previous one by directing that it should be read with the addition of the word "not" in every sentence containing any direction. The judgment forbidding a Presby- terian chapel to break off from its Synod and become an Inde- pendent one, has this collateral effect, it establishes, by parity of reasoning, the converse proposition that a chapel once governed by its own congregation only, cannot legally be subjected to a Presbytery. The Author is anxious to escape the charge of presumption in undertaking a task of such difficulty and delicacy, and he trusts that a statement of the manner in which he was led step by step to encounter it, will induce a candid, and even kind reception of what he has written. His father was the chief adviser of Mr Benjamin Mander in his suit for recovery of the "Wolverhampton chapel, and moreover published a pamphlet in defence of himself and several ministers in his neighbourhood who encouraged that gentleman's proceedings ; yet his Autobiography was silent XV on the subject, (though, beyond all doubt, from inadvertence only), and that pamphlet was omitted from his Collected Works because no object could be answered by its being reprinted. The present writer felt it therefore requisite to add to the Autobiography a note of sixteen pages, in which he gave particulars of the course of liti- gation in which Mr Mander was involved, and alluded to the suit as to the Hewley charity, as instituted in imitation of his courage aud public spirit, and with all the advantages afforded by the prece- dent which he established. The Author's interest in the subject being thus shown, he received from one friend a collection of publi- cations connected with the Hewley case, which he was enabled to complete by the kindness of another. . Supplied with this addi- tional information, when he had formed the plan of publish- ing his father's Autobiography with his own notes or additions to it, increased in the length of the remarks and the number of topics noticed, he determined to include in the same volume, as a separate tract, a short account of the litigation for the English Presbyterian chapels and endowments, and an examination more in detail of the main position of the Historical Proofs and Illustrations, that there were no doctrines in Christia- nity which the English Presbyterians considered as essential to it. With a view to the execution of his purpose, he applied to Mr George Hadfield, member of Parliament for his native town of Sheffield, the chief originator of the Hewley charity suit, for papers and information respecting it. Mr Hadfield replied that the application arrived at a singularly opportune time, for he had lately expressed his desire that the history of the case should be written, and could think of no one to whom to propose the labour but the individual who thus offered to engage in it, and he promised all help in the matter, a promise which he has faithfully performed. This answer from Mr Hadfield, who had " risked a large fortune and spent a small one in the cause," coupled with an offer to share the expense of publishing a volmne so certain not to find many purchasers, was not to be resisted. What had been written was then recast, so as to embrace the whole subject, as was necessary in a work which was to be invested with somewhat of authority, as the party's record of the whole contest. At first it was thought it would be sufficient to prepare a report of the English cases fitted for the non-legal public, with such explanations as were necessary for ordinary readers to judge of them, and remarks exposing the XVI nature and effects of the act. But the Irish suits were put forward in Parliament as the chief reasons for passing the act; and the Irish Judges entered much more fully into the general question than their brethren on the English Bench had done, and the Author, though against his friend's opinion, deter- mined to make his work complete by relating the defensive and offensive warfare in the same cause waged by the orthodox Presbyterians of the sister island. That part of the work being- done, it became imperative to show that no valid reasons were adduced in Parliament for arresting the courts in the restoration of property devoted to the support of the Trinitarian faith, as otherwise it Would have been easy to destroy the effect of all that had been written by stating that the real merits of the ques- tion were first brought out in Parliament, which felt compelled to set aside the narrow and technical reasonings and rulings of the Courts. For the majority in the Commons, after a oue-sided debate was so overwhelming as to crush all attempts to rectify the Bill in Committee, except in the one particular in which even the ministry were anxious to change it ; and the far abler support which the cause of orthodoxy received in the House of Lords was so utterly ineffective, that when the Bill was sent down to the Lower House only nine peers had voted against it. These circumstances are prima facie so conclusive in favour of the Bill, that not to show the hollow and fallacious nature of all the arguments for it, and the tricks and accidents by aid of which it was passed, would have been to let judgment go by default. This rendered necessary a detailed account of all that was done in Parliament ; long extracts from the speeches of the ministers, with answers to them ; a statement of the law as it previously stood, and the reasons for it; and remarks on the false pretences on which the act was passed, and on the effect of its provisions. It further seemed requisite to show the manner in which the subject ought to have been dealt with. It is not to be supposed that credit is taken for the scheme suggested, as the basis of it will be found in the promises or suggestions of Lord Lyndhurst and Sir Robert Peel, and the notices of amendments given on behalf of the Synod of Ulster. When this also had been accomplished, it was thought that the history of the struggle which the Independents had to sustain, and of one main branch of the controversy, would be incomplete, if the suit with the Scotch Presbyterians were not told at sufficient, though not at equal length. XV 11 The result has been a volume so large as to forfeit all chance of being read, except by persons specially desiring full informa- tion on the subject. Yet every method of condensation short of reducing what had been written to a mere string of quotations, has been adopted. To have further abridged the remarks of the Judges and the speeches in Parliament, would have destroyed the effect of quoting from them at all. The original matter will be found not to exceed a third of the whole volume ; and speeches or docu- ments delivered or written on the side of the controversy espoused in these pages have not been cited at greater length than 18 pages (ool to 337, and 785 to 795), notwithstanding the length to which the arguments of contemporary opponents have been copied. The original plan, and the request under which it was modi- fied, equally led the Author to dwell on the controversy, chiefly as it affected matters in England ; but as the paramount question was settled in the English suits, the account of them, and remarks introductory and explanatory of it, must in any case have formed the staple of the book, while as to the Irish branch of the subject, it was not necessary to do more than defend the orthodoxy of the founders of the Presbytery of Antrim equally against their own spiritual descendants, as against those of the men who expelled them from the Synod, to set out the acts of the Synod in refer- ence to doctrines, and give a short historical sketch of a state of things so different from that which prevails either in Eno-land or Scotland. This done, the case of 'the orthodox party seems placed above all cavil, for the title of their antagonists being dis- proved, their own right arose as a consequence. On the contrary, it lay upon the Independents, in order to their success, to prove that the English Presbyterians, though calling themselves by a different name, were identical with Congregationalists, so far ;is regards the only point important in the present enquiry, the autonomy of their congregations. The Author has further to say in excuse for his venturing to grapple with a subject which demanded greater acquirements and facilities, theological and legal, than a country attorney can pretend to, that he has come forward (now that abler men have failed in their duty), only to prevent this chapter of ecclesiastical history from remaining altogether unwritten on the side which he considers that of truth and justice. He had the advantage of having XV1U watched the litigation as to the Hewley charity from its com- mencement, without having been actually engaged in it. When the information was filed he lived in London in habits of intimacy with Mr Wilson, the relator, and Mr Joshua Wilson, and Mr Blower, the solicitor, and his son, then in his father's office. He heard the appeal to Lord Brougham as to the exceptions to the first answer, and after he had left London he was careful to keep himself informed of the course which matters were taking from time to time. The first affair connected with the law which he recollects was the race to Stafford between Mr Mander and Mr Pearson, as described by his father, and this gave him an interest in the old chapels which he never lost. It was strengthened by the remembrance ever warmly cherished in his father's congregation that they represented the old Presbyterians, their predecessors having, in 1 746, seceded from the Old Meeting in consequence of the choice of an Ai'ian as successor to Daniel Mattocks, whose evangelical opinions were well known. The Author's other places of residence all conspired to carry back his thoughts to the old state of things. During some months spent at Blandford he attended one of the old meetings which had become semi-Arian and recovered its orthodoxy during the pastorate of Mr Field, whom he heard preach there, and who was the immediate successor of his father-in-law, Malachi Blake, settled in 1716, whose name occurs in Dr. Evans's list, so that his pastorate and Mr Field's connected the end of George the Third's reign with the commencement of the Hanoverian dynasty. The Author afterwards lived in Stourbridge, where he looked from the Independent chapel across the street to the Presbyterian one, the minister of which was a high Arian ; in Stafford where the old meeting- house was shut up ; near St. Alban's, where he heard the Socinian possession of Matthew Clarke's chapel particularly lamented ; at Shrewsbury where the chapel front bore the protest of the majority of the old Presbyterian congregation, overborne in the choice of a minister by Arian trustees ; and in London, where he attended Daniel Burgess's and Thomas Brad- bury's chapel in New Court, the history of which explained the usual manner of a Presbyterian congregation becoming an Independent one. He acknowledges, therefore, his strong feeling on the subject, but he ti'usts that it has not betrayed him into any expressions to which exception can reasonably be taken. Bather than incur this charge he has chosen to run the risk that persons of his own views should accuse him of indifference ; if however he has offended against fairness or charity, he regrets it most sincerely, and the more that he will have no opportunity of correcting the fault. Very free remarks are made on men in high place : if just they defend themselves ; for if those influential men did wrong, against whom was the wrong done ? Two imputations of discourtesy he will anticipate, and defend himself against. He cannot allow that he had any option in using the word Socinian, (Arian seems not to be resented), for in the appeal case the appellants adopted the term themselves. Some of the defendants, and of the wit- nesses in the A.Gr. v. Shore, disowned the name Unitarian, and it is not sufficiently specific for the purposes of a disquisition such as this. Presbyterian conveys so wrong a notion that the use of it at least approximates to an offence against truth. Besides Mr Howe's remarks on the use of the word Socinian should protect all other persons from reprehension for employing it. Two other terms used here are Orthodox, to include all those who hold opinions which may be described as the common faith of Christendom,* and Heterodox , to designate the very small number of those who differ from those opinions, and aver that there are no doctrines essential to Christianity and distinctive of it. Heterodoxy, as meaning simply the other opinion, has also long been adopted by some at least of the persons to whom it has been applied. These words save from a long periphrasis, and there seem little assumption, and no intolerance, in them, but still they would have been avoided if harmless synonymes existed for them. Several defects require acknowledgment. The scattered notices of the church government of the English presbyterians should have formed part of the description of them given at the outset; they will for the most part be found where they best support the side of the doctrinal question which is the main subject of the enquiry. The volume in a great degree consists of answers (section by section, or paragraph by paragraph,) to authoritative statements in behalf of the two parties whose claims are con- tested, and to the speeches by which the government persuaded the parliament to pass the act. The facts and reasonings here adduced are thus presented in a disjointed and fragmentary state, with frequent repetitions, and the accounts of several matters * These differences are not as to the nature of the Godhead and original sin. bu1 as to the nature of sin in general, so that they pervade all ideas as to the relations between the Deity and the human race. C * XX are to be found part in one place and part in another ; but on the whole this seemed the most satisfactory method of dealing with the opponents, and the heterodoxy and Presbyterianism of the body cannot have been disproved without showing them to be Calvinistical in their doctrines and congregational in their polity. The case of Craigdallie v. Aikman should have been stated in the text, as an introduction to the litigation detailed here. Extracts are given from the pleadings in the Hewley case to a length which may seem needless, but very few sentences, if any, could have been omitted without danger of misconstruction. It would have been much better in the Killinchy case to have given the extracts from the answer set out in the Appendix, instead of deducing from the evidence the points apparently intended to be made ; for the method adopted in the Clough case, which came to a hearing, was not applicable in reference to a suit which was stopped by the defendants' submission. Greater prominence was given to the line of argument indicated by the papers in the last mentioned case, because though not irrelevant, it was not noticed by the judges, and scarcely by the counsel. The long extracts from the debates were rendered necessary by the contradictoiy arguments by which the bill was supported. The abridgment of Dr. Evans's MS. may require to be studied, but it gives more information than the extracts from it to be found elsewhere. The chief defect is the omission, for printer's reasons, of £ or /. as to payments from the fund. The analysis of the beneficiaries in 1 830 of the Hewley charity was disjoined from the list only from necessity. Through oversight the extracts from the MS. of the Anony- mous from Northampton, as to the Salters' Hall Assembly, have been confined to the sentences at p. 709. Grateful acknowledgment must be made of the great assist- ance derived from Dr. Daniel Williams's library ; particularly for the MSS. of the lists compiled by Dr. Evans, and of the classifi- cation of the London ministers by an anonymous Independent from Northampton. The rules for the use of the Library are as liberal as they can be, consistently with due care of the books. The same facilities which had been afforded to the Author of the Historical Proofs and Illustrations was allowed for the remarks here found in answer to them, and his pencil marks guided to the passages transcribed for him from Bury's Sermons and Bennet's Irenicum. The kindness and assistance of the Libra- XXI nan, the Rev. Thomas Hunter, can never be forgotten. The Author is indebted for the list of the Presbyterian Board, in 1 72 7, to the Rev. Dr. Sadler, of Hanipstead, and the greater regret is felt that the reference to his chapel has been printed as if it had been in the hands of the Scotch, thus, in modern phrase, ignoring him. The Author's uncle, the Rev. Thomas James, so well known as successively of Woolwich and the Colonial Missionary Society, allowed the opportunity of extracting particulars respect- ing the formation of the Congregational Board. The warmest thanks are due to Adam John Macrory, Esq., of Duucairn, near Belfast, solicitor to the Synod of Ulster, for the use of pamphlets and briefs, and still more for numerous letters written in spite of the large demands on his time ; without his help the part of this volume relating to Ireland would have been a very meagre affair. He was also so good as to read the sheets containing the account of Irish matters, and to allow it to be stated that he considered them fair and impartial ; a testimony which was the more highly valued, as great pains had been taken to state truly and fully the ai'guments of the Arian party because they were gathered from the evidence. It was determined afterwards to add numbers 12 and 13 of the Appendix. Mr Hadfield's MSS. collections as to Lady Hewley, her property and her charity, supplied all the materials for the remarks with which the suit with the Socinians is introduced, and the statements as to the arrangement made with the Scotchmen, and this seems a fitting place to mention that he has deposited a complete series of all papers connected with both suits in the Library of the Independent College at Manchester. Messrs. Vizard and Anstice, of Lincoln's-Inn-Fields, have lent papers which greatly assisted in the account of A.G. v. Shore, and A.G. v. Wilson. Messrs. White and Son, of Bedford Row, were also so kind as to supply briefs connected with the last stages of the A.G. v. Pearson. Application as to every suit has been made to head quarters. A circular requesting information as to the provisions of chape] trust deeds, and historical notices of congregations, was sent to tin? ministers of all churches in existence before 1750, and the returns showed the correctness of the statements here made as to the trust deeds of Presbyterian and Independent chapels. Other ministers have given assistance of various kinds, for great efforts have been made to secure full and accurate information on all points discussed ; and hearty thanks are here offered to them all. To name them would be very pleasant to the Author, except that he fears he should forget some, and this fear prevents his acknowledging any obligations of this nature, except that he must not pass over the Rev. Dr. Hoppus, and the Rev. Robert Ashton, of London, and the Rev. Richard Slate, of Preston. Yet with all this assistance the number of errata is out of all proportion to the size of the work, especially in the spelling of names, and is confessed to be occasioned by the bad copy supplied to the printers. Authors generally, no doubt, write better than formerly, and may have spoiled printers ; for it used to be said that compositors could decipher any scrawl, but this is not true now ; at least those to be found in country printing offices have not the art. An author may be the worst corrector of the press ; if to the last revision, instead of being satisfied with what he has written, he thinks of improving both ideas and language, repetitions, omissions, and mistakes will escape him; for when the sentence in the mind is satisfactory, the eye is likely to see the words intended in any others at all resembling them. Perhaps the additions will provoke more than the corrections, but when a book is two years in the press, new facts and illustrations must present themselves, and a man must be strangely indifferent to his work to omit them. What has been done, with all its imperfections, is offered to the Author's denomination, with regret that it is not more worthy, but still with the hope that the labour bestowed on it has not been altogether in vain ; and perhaps the fact that he could not do what he has accomplished without permanent detriment to his health, may ensure a lenient censure of the many faults and imperfections which will be discovered, though indeed they might be expected in the first work of an Author commencing in the decline of life with so difficult a subject. Communications in correction or corroboration of statements in the following pages are solicited by the Author, as, though there is no probability of his using them in print, they will, if of sufficient importance, be preserved in the Congregational Library. It is well in all such cases that there should be a person for the collection, and a place for the preservation, of those small items of information which together afford the most valuable illustration of every subject. Birmingham, March, 186 7. ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. THE ERECTION OF THE OLD PRESBYTERIAN MEETING-HOUSES, AND THE PARTIES ASSERTING A RIGHT TO THEM. PAGE Nonconformist meeting-houses built throughout England by the generation in whose times the Toleration Act was passed 9 Those built by the Presbyterians now occupied by Scotch Presbyterians, Socinians, and Independents, each body claiming to represent the buildei*s of them . .10 The present volume an Independent's account of the liti- gation to determine the parties entitled to them, and the legislation which put a stop to it . . .11 Abridgment of the arguments of the three parties . .11 THE ASSOCIATIONS AND THE NEONOMIAN CONTROVERSY . 14 Difference between Presbyterians and Independents . .15 The "Happy Union" of the London Ministers in 1G91 . 18 The associations on that model formed throughout England 19 The rupture of the Union in London, in consequence of a controversy occasioned by Dr. Crisp's posthumous sermons 21 THE EXETER CONTROVERSY AND THE SALTERS' HALL ASSEMBLY. Mr Pierce and Mr Hallet, of Exeter, charged with Arianism 23 The proceedings of the meeting of the Loudon ministers at Salters' Hall, and their division into Subscribers and Non-Subscribers 2-1 Resolutions of the non-subscribing majority . . .26 The consequent proceedings of the Western Assembly . .29 The subsequent history of the Exeter congregations . . 29 " Objection to creeds thenceforth entertained by Presbyterians 30 This objection declared by Savoy Conference of Independents, 1658 30 But not by Presbyterians till many years after the revolution 31 Twenty Non-Subscribers conformed within two years of the meeting 3 1 Non-Subscribers mostly Presbyterians : yet Presbyterians still trinitarians and calvinists, although their spirit changed 33 Moderate Calvinism, according to Mr Hallam, always orthodoxy in the Latin communions . . ■•■ . .33 XXIV PAGE Anonymous classification of London ministers in 1731 . 35 The Westminster catechism taught in all the Presbyterian congregations until 1735, then revised by Mr Strong, and this revision reprinted by Mr Bennett, with a preface which was the first manifesto of the Arian party . 35 A doption of Watts' s hymns by Presbyterians, proof of trinitarianism 3G Alteration of them on arianism being avowed by congrega- tions, and again on their profession of socinianism . 37 Two parties (strict and lax) formed after Salters' Hall Assembly 37 THE PREVALENCE OF ARIANISM. Its appearance in the Establishment . . . .38 Its adoption by some Presbyterians . . . .39 The first Arians, young men from academies . . .40 Their concealment of their opinions . . . .40 Contest on next choice of minister, and secession of weaker party, which was generally that of the Trinitarians . 41 Arian ministers introduced either as assistants, or by orthodox ministers, their relatives, as their assistants or successors, or by trustees . . . . . .42 The bulk of the congregations attached to the old faith . 42 In large towns dissatisfied hearers would leave the chapels ; in small towns an Arian minister would be supported by the contributions of the rich or by an endowment . 42 The opinions of the first Arians not far removed from orthodoxy, instanced in Tomkins, Pierce, and Bourn . . 43 Socinians claim all not Athanasians, but the truer division into Humanitarians, and those who believe in the Saviour's deity 44 THE PREVALENCE OF SOCINIANISM. Socinianism rarely preached before Dr. Priestley's time . 44 The rapidity with which it then succeeded Arianism in England 4-3 The later Arians and their congregations . . .45 The connexion kept up between them and Independents . 46 Accession to Independents from labours of Whitfield and Wesley 47 Subsequent relations between the Socinians and Independents 47 Reasons discouraging litigation with the Arians . . 47 Difficulties in a contest with Socinians during the war with revolutionary France, and in Lord Eldon's time . 49 XXV PAGK THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE HETERODOX PARTY, THAT THE PRESBYTERIANS CONSIDERED NO DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIA- NITY AS ESSENTIAL. . . ... 49 The necessity of their taking this ground . . .50 The Apostles' Creed not adopted by them as their standard 50 Individuals or denominations holding adiaphorist views would never found chapels or charities . . . .51 Community of faith a condition necessary to the formation of a religious body . . > . . .51 The Presbyterians would not have undertaken the burden of found- ing a denomination if they considered doctrines immaterial 53 The Establishment would have suited them, as it did Newton and Locke . . . . . . .53 They would certainly not have endured persecution . . 53 This indifference particularly alien to all recorded of Presbyterians 54 Their trust deeds would have guarded this principle when taken up by them, as it was opposed to their whole history . ■'>■) Trusts securing it would have been construed so as not to be illegal 56 So novel a notion would have been carefully proclaimed . 56 Yet in no one deed has a trace of the principle been found 50 That they were heterodox is at variance with everything known of them, and was not asserted by the Socinians . .57 Reasons for the vagueness of their trust deeds as to doctrine 57 Disregard by Socinians of directions or indications as to doctrines which were contained in trust deeds . . .58 A declaration that the chapels were for the use of Dissenters or Presbyterians (synonymous in general society) sufficiently betokened faith and church order . . . .01 The deeds of the chapels at Hapton, Worcester, Marchfield, Windle, Horwich (and Whitehaven p. 626), mention Presb}'- terians and Independents as if identical or in equal estimation 61 Reason for the Presbyterians retaining their name . . 62 The trust deeds of early Independent chapels, even those built by Sece The letter sent with the Nonsubscribers' advices ; their trini- tarianism admitted by Dr. Kippis ; their reasons for not subscribing ; and Mr B. A. Atkinson's preface to his republication of his Confession of Faith . .111 Section continued . . . . . .111 Proofs' Section, "The Occasional Papers" . . . 1 1 (J Proofs' Section, "As to the peculiar circumstances of Lady He wley's charity" . . . • • .117 Proofs' Section, " Early state of congregations affected by the charity" . . . . . .120 Notices of Mr Hotham, Mr Buck, Mr Brooks, Dr. John Taylor, Mr Root (see also p. 805), and Mr Cappe and the ministers who ordained him . . . . . .125 Proofs' Section, " As to the opinions of James Wyndlow Esq., survi- ving original trustee, and one of the York congregation" 127 Proofs' Supplement No. 1, "The distribution by the original trustees in the four northern counties, and the opinions and position of the parties engaged therein" . .129 Notice of Dr. Gilpin, Mr Bennet, Dr. Lawrence, Mr Threlkeld, 128 Mr Lowthion, Mr Dodson, Mr Dickson, and Mr Bourn . 129 List of recipients in the northern counties in 1728 . .129 Section continued . . . . . .129 Proofs' Section, " Essentials of Christianity considered to be involved" . . . . . • .131 Supplement to the Proofs, " On the doctrines of Original Sin and Atonement" . . .... 135 Proofs' Section, " Separation of Presbyterians and Independents in 1G96, and its grounds" ..... 137 The nature of the Neonomian controversy, and Mr Howe's account of its settlement . . . • .138 The Presbyterians, in 1715 according to Mr Peirce's account, and in 1717 according to Dr. Calamy's, were Calvinists . 139 Classification as to doctrine of the London ministers in 1731 . 090 XXV111 PAGE Note. References by Presbyterians to their subscription to the thirty-nine articles . . . . . .139 Dr. Benson's dismissal for Arminianism in 1729 one of the earliest instances of its avowal . . . .140 Mr Baxter's approbation of the Assembly's Catechism and the decrees of the Synod of Dort . . . .140 Proofs' Section, " Testimonies as to the enlarged spirit of the early Presbyterians," and quotations from Mr Baxter . 141 Quotations from Mr Baxter in answer . . . .148 Proofs' Supplement, "The Apostles' Creed" . . .149 Quotations from Mr Baxter in respect to it . . .151 Proofs' Section continued, quotations from Mr Brooks and Mr Howe . . . . . . .153 Proofs' Section continued, quotations from Mr Tomkius not applicable to the subject . . . . .157 Proofs' Section continued, quotations from Dr. Calamy . Note, containing passage from Dr. Calamy's sermons on the Trinity 159 Proofs' Section continued, quotation from funeral sermon for Mr Oldfield by Mr Shower . . . . .161 Proofs' Section continued, quotations from Dr. Oldfield, Mr Tallents and Matthew Henry . . . .101 Notice of statements that Mr Henry was no Calvinist, and the misrepresentation "of moderate" as meaning doubtful or heterodox opinions . . . . . .163 Mr Henry's entries in his diary as to Emlyn and Socinus, and his confession of faith, stating his views as to the Trinity in the words of the Assembly's Catechism . .163 His full explanation of these words in his Scripture Catechism 164 Biographies of Philip Henry and Matthew Henry, best authori- ties as to English Presbyterianism, not quoted in the Proofs 805 Proofs' Section continued, quotation from " Layman's reasons for his joining in communion with a congregation of moderate Dissenters" . .. . . .164 The tract shewn to be Matthew Henry's, and not to have the meaning ascribed to it . . . . .165 Proofs' Section continued, quotations from Mr Bury . .165 Notice of him and Lewin's Mead Chapel, Bristol . .167 Quotations from his work in answer .... U34 Proofs' Section continued, quotations from Mr Bennet . .169 Quotations from his works in answer .... 805 Remarks on the quotations from Mr Bennet and on his views, with sentence from Drs. Bogue and Bennett's notice of him 171 Proofs section continued, statements as to Dr. Colton in John Dun ton's Life . . . . . .175 Quotation from Dr. Colton's will, and mention of two printed sermons by him in Dunton's life . . . .170 " Concluding observations" of the Proofs . . . 178 List of authors referred to in the Proofs, with the years of their births and deaths ..... 800 References to the Proofs' quotations containing expressions of the distinction between fundamentals and indifferent matters in religion . . . . . . .179 Mr Lowmau's desire for a list of fundamentals supplied from Mr Howe's sermons on occasion of the Neonomian conti'oversy 180 Note containing passages from Mr Howe, showing his views as to standards of faith and terms of communion . 181 Baxter's opinion as to essentials . . . .181 Baxter and Howe, the only Presbyterians before the Revolution who could be represented as "liberal" in their views . 183 The Non-subscribers' advices conclusive against Socinians' position 183 So also the form of Presbyterian ordination to the midst of the 18th century . . . . . .181 And the Racovian Catechism . . . . .184 Subscription approved by Mr Baxter . . . .184 Presbyterians dispensed with subscription at ordination because they required minute confession of faith, according to Westminster Directory . . . . .1 83 Mr Lowman first protested against creeds, and did so as if it was a new idea . . . . . .185 The quotations in the Proofs all from authors later than the period in question, (except those from Baxter, who was for subscription), and one Independent . . 186 The rejection of the use of a creed not a rejection of the doctrine it teaches; reference to the Independents' practice . 186 Formularies prescribed in their deeds not imposed as creeds, anil would not be SO used against their practice . . .187 XXX That free enquiry produces latitudinarianism mere assumption . 189 Review of the quotations, section by section, showing that they prove nothing as to the chapel-building age . .189 A congregation does not decide when the minister conceals his opinions ...... 191 Congregations in the power of their ministers . . .192 Socinians do not recognize the right of a congregation to decide as to doctrine, as shown in the cases of Stannington and Wareham chapels . . . . . .193 The connexion of a definite creed with a chapel consistent with mental freedom . . . . . .195 Enforcement of it by law not inconsistent with nonconformist principles . . . . . . .195 The assertions in the Proofs not supported by the facts . .196 "Very few of the quotations bear at all on the question . .197 Unfairness of the attacks on the orthodoxy of Dr. Manton, Mr Baxter, Dr. Calamy, and Mr Bennet .. . .197 Mistakes in the Proofs brought forward again after refutation 198 Such errors occasioned by non-acquaintance with evangelical writers 198 Disingenuousness as to Baxter's opinions, the Neonouiian contro- versy, and the Salters' Hall Assembly . . .198 Episcopalian writers not fairly dealt by . . .198 The ambiguous and indefinite manner in which the Proofs are written . . . . . . .198 The Proofs must have had a divine and a lawyer for their author's 200 Note as to Rev. Joseph Hunter and his unsatisfactory way of writing . . . . . . .201 His life of Oliver Heywood although written for the purposes of the controversy, decisive against the Socinians . .201 Condensed statement of Socinian arguments from the printed case on the appeal to the House of Lords as to the Hewley charity 203 Terrors of the litigation necessary to decide the question . 209 THE WOLVERHAMPTON CHAPEL CASE. Statement of the facts ...... 209 Note as to the appearance of the old meeting-houses . 210 The information and answer . . . . .212 Extracts from Lord Eldon's judgment on motion for injunction to stay proceedings at law . . . . .807 XXXI PAGE Note. Statement of the case of Craigdallie v. Aikman, which first decided that a chapel always remained dedicated to the purposes designed by the founders . . .217 Remarks on Lord Eldon's judgment . . . .219 The second information as to the Wolverhampton chapel, and the answer ....... 221 Extracts from the Vice-Chancellor's judgment . . . 224 Minute of Lord Cottenham confirming it 225 The subsequent proceedings, mortgage of the chapel for the costs, foreclosure by the mortgagee, and its purchase for a chapel of ease of the Establishment .... 226 THE CASE OF THE HEWLEY CHARITY. Lady Hewley's opinions as evidenced by her will and Dr. Colton's funeral sermon for her . . . . .227 Her foundation of a charity chiefly for poor ministers and then- widows, by deeds dated in 1704 .... 228 Her foundation and endowment by deed of 1707 of an alms-house, with settlement of any surplus of the endowment on the trusts of the former deeds, and rules for the alms-women . 233 Short account of her will ..... 235 Bill in chancery by the Mott family, as her real and personal representatives, against her executor Dr. Colton . . 236 His answer and the abandonment of the proceedings . . 239 Lists of the trustees, and short account of their proceedings . 240 Memorial to them from a congregation of Wesleyans who had embraced Socinianism ..... 244 List of the recipients on the last distribution before the suit : 737 Analysis of it . . . . . . 824 Extract from speech of the Rev. George Harris at a public dinner in Manchester in 1820, the controversy originated by it, and Mr Hadfield's volume respecting it . . . . 249 The report of the Charity Commissioners respecting the Hewley Charity suggesting proceedings . . . .251 The refusal of Sir James Scarlett, A.G., on Mr Pemberton's advice, to interfere . . " . . . .251 Publication of a copy of the report with notes by Mr Hadfield, at the request of the Lancashire County Union . 251 Mr Blower's consent to undertake proceedings . . .251 Extracts from the information filed 30th June, 1831 Extracts from the grand trustees' original answer Extract from Mr Wellbeloved's original answer Allowance of exceptions to the answer for insufficiency Extracts from Mr Wellbeloved's second answer Extracts from the second answer of the Grand Trustees Mr J. P. Heywood's separate statement . Mr P. Heywood's separate statement Amendment of the information .... Extracts from the answer of the sub-trustees to the amended information . . . . • . Extracts from Mr Wellbeloved's and Mr Kenrick's part of it 273 Exceptions to these answers for insufficiency allowed Extracts from the grand trustees' second answer to the amended information ...... Abandonment of all further attempts to get a satisfatory answer from the defendants .... Mr Bowles's Catechism ..... Witnesses examined by the relators Extracts from the evidence of Mr Hincks, Mr Grundy, and Mr Darbishire ...... List of Socinian sermons, addresses, and tracts, put in evidence Extracts from Mr Wellbeloved's and Mr Kenrick's sermons Gratuitous concessions of the relators at the hearing Judgment of the Vice-Chancellor Shadwell Part hearing of appeal by Lord Brougham assisted by Mr Justice Littledale and Mr Baron Parke, and his Lordship's eulogy on Mr Wellbeloved ...... His Lordship's character of the Presbyterians of the Common- wealth ....... His lordship's eulogy of the Independents. Hearing before Lord Lyndhurst, assisted by Mr Baron Alderson and Mr Justice Pattison ..... Exti-acts from the ai'gument ..... Extracts from the speech of Mr Booth, one of the defendants' counsel ....... The opinions of Mr Baron Alderson and Mr Justice Pattison The judgment of Lord Lyndhurst .... PAGE 252 261 26G 266 267 271 272 272 273 273 276 280 280 281 730 283 283 285 285 287 287 294 297 297 297 297 303 304 311 XXXU1 PAGB Defendants' reasons of appeal to the Honse of Lords . .321 Hearing . . . . . . . .325 Discussion as to the admissibility of evidence received . 325 Extract from the argument as to Arminianism and Calvinism . 328 Extract from the speech of the Attorney-General, leading counsel for the appellants, as to the irreconcilable difference between the Presbyterians and the Independents . . . 329 Extract from the speech of Mr Kindersley, counsel for the res- pondents, as to the number of cases dependent on the decision 331 Extracts from the speech of Mr Knight Bruce, leading counsel for the respondents, as to teaching theology without inculcating any particular doctrines ; as to Lady Hewley's meaning in the phrases "godly preachers" and "preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel ;" and as to the costs of the appeal . . 332 The first question put to the Judges, as to the admissibility of evidence to explain those phrases (see also p. 515) . 338 The third question, whether the foundation deed of 1707 might be referred to in construing that of 1704 . . . 347 The second question, as to the proper objects of the trusts . 347 The fourth and fifth questions, whether Unitarians should be excluded from the benefit of the charity . . .351 The sixth question, whether Unitarians were, in the then state of the law, incapable of pai'taking of such charities . .360 The speeches of Lords Cotteuham and Brougham on moving and supporting the dismissal of the appeal . . . 360 Observations on the judgment . . . . .362 The great lawyers connected with the case, as Judges or Counsel 366 PRESBYTERIANISM IN IRELAND. The Dublin congregations and Synod of Munster (see also p. 818) 369 The Synod of Ulster, or General Synod . . . .371 Formation of the Belfast Society in 1705 . . .371 The Synod require subscription before license or ordination . 371 The Synod, in 1716, accept toleration on conditions . . 373 The Pacific Act of 1720, allowing ministers to express their belief in their own words . . . . . .377 Act of Synod, in 1723, rescinding the Pacific Act . . 378 Mr Nevin's case in 1724 ..... 378 e XXXIV Dr. Colvile's suspension by the Synod for obtaining ordination in Dr. Calamy's vestry in London . . . .370 Exclusion by the Synod of the Non-Subscribers, 1726 . . 382 Formation of the Presbytery of Antrim . . . 383 Their doctrinal opinions then and "subsequently . . 383 Subsequent history of the Synod of Ulster . . . 383 The code of discipline of 1824, not requiring subscription . 386 Acts of Synod, in 1827, ordering subscription, examination by committee of Synod prior to license or ordination, and expulsion of persons not preaching prescribed doctrines . 389 Members of Synod not agreeing to the act of 1828 allowed by act of Synod, in 1829, to withdraw from the body . . 389 Congregations withdrawing from the Remonstrant Synod 389 and 815 THE CLOUGH CHAPEL CASE: DILL v. WATSON, (THE PRESBYTERY OF ANTRIM.) Statement of case . . . . . .391 Purport of Bill . . . . . . .393 Extract from answer . . . . . .7-13 Statement of evidence and reasons on each side . . .394 Argument as to the doctrines of the Presbytery and subscription 396 Chief Baron Joy's judgment ..... 403 Baron Smith's judgment . . . . . .411 Baron Foster's judgment . . . . .416 Note. Second hearing in the Lords of Craigdallie v. Aikman . 419 THE KILLINCHY CHAPEL CASE: ANDERSON v. WATSON, (THE REMONSTRANT SYNOD.) Statement of case ...... 425 Prayer of information . . . . . .430 Extracts from answer ...... 746 Evidence and case made by it . . . . . 433 The defendants submit to a decree . . . .433 THE CASE OF THE GENERAL FUND : THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. DRUMMOND, (THE SYNOD OF MUNSTER.) Statement of information and answer .... 435 Judgment of the Chancellor ..... 438 XXXV Reasons of appeal to the House of Lords .... 456 Dismissal of the appeal . . . . . .457 Second information raising the question of subscription . 4-">7 Rejection of claim by Independents .... 458 THE CASE OF THE CHAPEL IN EUSTACE STREET, DUBLIN : THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. HUTTON. Statement of the facts . . . .. . .459 Substance of information, answer, and evidence . . . 463 Note on Dr. Iceland's opinions, from Dr. Killen's continuation of Dr. Reid's history . . . . . . .403 The Irish Chancellor's i-emarks at the close of the argument . 40 4 Observations on his delaying judgment, and on the facts . 4 7 THE CASE OF THE CHAPEL IN STRAND STREET DUBLIN. Statement of the facts (see also p. 761,3) . . . .4 7!) Petition to Parliament from the Dublin chapels . . 701 Petition from Mrs Armstrong ..... 763 SOCINIANS' APPLICATION TO GOVERNMENT FOR RELIEF. Memorial of the heterodox party to the Government . .775 Kind reception of it . . . . . .181 Application by the Remonstrant Synod and Presbytery of Antrim to the Irish government, and other measures adopted by them . . . . . . .481 Latitudinarianism of the classes governing public opinion . 486 The agreement of the Opposition leaders with Government . 1!*1 The rule that length of time is no bar to pi*oceedings for remedy of a breach of trust as to a charity . . .491 Founders not competent to vary the disposition of property once settled, less so those adding to it, much less those reconstruct- ing it, still less those merely enjoying and repairing it generation after generation . . . .!'.*! Joint contribution to a chapel does not create a partnership . 195 Note. Explanation of Craigdallie v. Aikeman . . 196 XXXVI PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT. PAGE Introduction in the Lords of the hill, restricted to England . 497 Reference to select committee of petitions for extension of the relief to Ireland and committee's report . . .497 Remarks on the manoeuvre . . . . .498 Petitions in opposition to the bill . . . .785 Petitions in favour of the bill ..... 759 Remarks on petitions and the peers presenting them . . 499 Second reading unopposed ..... 500 Lord Chancellor's speech on going into committee . .501 Lord Teynham's exposure of the evils of the bill, and his quotation of Lord Lyndhurst's words .... 507 Notice of the speeches of the Bishops of London and Exeter, and Lords Brougham, Cottenham, and Campbell . 508 The bill passes with clause bringing within its provisions suits already depending ...... 509 The Bishop of Exeter's protest . . . . .793 The bill hurried on by government in the Commons . .510 Extracts from Sir W. Follett's speech on moving the second reading 511 Short account of speeches by Mr Macaulay, (Mr Colquhoun p. 545), Mr Monckton Milnes, and Mr Fox Maule . .518 Extracts from Mr Gladstone's speech .... 520 Short account of Mr Shed's speech .... 534 Extracts from Sir Robert Peel's speech . . . . 534 Notice of Lord John Russell's and Lord Sandon's speeches ; the second reading carried . . . . .539 Notice of amendments all negatived or dropped . . 539 Debate on third reading ..... 540 Lords' debate on consideration of Commons' amendments . 547 The act as it passed ...... 792 Analysis of prelates' votes, list of peers in the minorities, analy- sis of votes in the Commons, and names of the members who voted against the bill on every division . . 548 False pretences on which the bill passed . . . .549 That Presbyterians had no fixed doctrines their doctrines had been judicially ascertained ..... 549 That private founders' opinions cuuld not bo discovered— — it had been decided they were not to be enquired into . . 549 xxxvn PAGB That after all the Socinians miglit be found entitled to the chapels the highest courts in both countries had settled the matter on the ground of facts which were notorious . 549 That no other body had a claim to the chapels if Independents were not entitled, Scotch Presbytei'iaus must be . . 550 That Socinians had rebuilt chapels or endowed them their gifts gave them no rights in derogation of those of the founders 550 That the bill was for the benefit of Dissenters generally the speeches, except the Chancellor's, admit, what the facts prove, that the benefit of Socinians only was intended . .551 That the bill saved charities from speculative lawyers such had not been employed, and would not have been tempted by suits for chapels . . . . . .551 That a limitation ought to be put to suits respecting chai-ities ■ the proposal was restricted to foundations the objects of which were undefined . . . . .552 That the objects of Presbytei-ian foundations were not defined, "Presbyterian" had been decided to be a sufficient definition 552 That the founders' intentions were preserved by the bill as introduced it prevented them from being fulfilled again . 552 That a suit would have been necessary in each case not if wrongful holders or claimants had once been fixed with costs 553 That the bill prevented the discussion in court or in chambers of the most sacred doctrines of religion all such questions in relation to the chapels had been disposed of, and such dis- cussions were a less evil than the misapplication of the charity 553 All the scandal and uncertainty pretended to be dreaded attached, with still greater evils, to proceedings governed by the act . 553 The only proper proceeding a reference to a select committee of the Lords, as promised by Lord Lyndhurst . . 557 The change of the main provisiou of the act, after it had passed the Lords, and been read a second time in the Commons 55!J The hopelessness of any attempt to amend the bill in committee in the Commons . ... . . .560 The absence of the members who had given notice of amendments 560 The dereliction of all principle by the Socinians in being willing to accept the bill ...... 560 The act not applicable to the cases of the Hewley charity, the XXXV111 PAGE General Fund, or the Clough and Killinchy chapels, nor, except in violation of all principle, to cases like that of the Wolverhampton chapel . . . . .561 Independents should have petitioned that deeds containing a trust for their denomination should be exempted from the act . 562 Dismissal, under the act, of the suits as to the Eustace Street chapel 563 Difficulty suggested on Sir E. Sugden's statement of the facts 569 The true plan a commission to ascertain the facts of each case, and a special tribunal to deal with them . . . 569 Enactments and regulations which would have secured justice to all parties ....... 570 The results of the act .... 490 and 573 Doubt whether if recent discussions in the Unitarian Association had been foreseen the act would have passed . .573 State of the congregations of the old meeting-houses in the hands of Socinians, related by one of themselves in 1830 . . 574 Lists of the old meeting-houses having settled ministers and two services on the Lord's day, of those having two services but habitually supplied by different preachers, of those having only one service a day, or not having service every Lord's day. 575 -s Lists of the congregations of the Remonstrant Synod and the Presbytery of Antrim, and the Northern Presbytery of Antrim 576 ^ List of London chapels, "Presbyterians" 1796, and Unitarians 1865 819 Account of publications counected with the contest . .56 CLAIM OF SCOTCH PRESBYTERIANS TO THE ENTIRE BENEFIT OF THE HEVfLEY CHARITY: THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. WILSON. /Denominations of Scotch Presbyterians .... 581 Old meeting-houses in England held by Scotcli Presbyterians, as stated by Mr Hall solicitor of Manchester . . . 583 No presbytery even in Northumberland after the Restoration until established by a Scotch denomination . . . 584 Proceedings of Presbyterians to obtain the trusteeship of the Hewley fund . . .. . . . h^ The Baptists leave their interests in the care of the Independents 586 Proceedings in the Master's office .... 586 XXXIX PAGE The Master appoints as trustees four Presbyterians, two Inde- pendents, and one Baptist ..... 589 The Vice-Chancellor, on exceptions by the relators to the Master's report, refuses to decide as to the proper objects of the charity, but confirms the Master's appointment of trustees 586 Extracts from information necessary to determine the question . 590 Extracts from answers of Kirkmen and Seceders . . 593 Evidence . . . . . . .617 Vice-Chancellor's judgment . . . . 627 Appeal and compromise before Lord Chancellor, on his desire that the matter should be arranged, giving the Independents and Presbyterians three trustees each, and the Baptists one . 630 Extract from decree . . . . . .631 Written understanding between solicitors of all parties to the suit that the fund was not to be divided, but each case presented considered on its merits . . . .631 Charity faithfully managed ..... 632 Numbers of beneficiaries of each class in 1864-5 . . . 632 Doubt as to the desirableness of its division in such small sums . 632 Question as to the propriety and utility of chapel endowments . 632 APPENDIX. 1. Extracts from the exhox-tation at the ordination of Mr Savage, erroneously ascribed to Mr Bury in the Proofs . . 634 Extracts from Mr Bury's sermons .... 635 Extracts from Mr Benjamin Bennet's Irenicum and sermon on Christian charity ..... 636 2. Particular account of Presbyterian chapels, and list of Baptist chapels in England, 1718-1729 .... 643 Like account of Presbyterian chapels in Wales . . 685 Like account of Independent chapels in England . . 686 3. List of London Presbyterian ministers in 1731, classified according to doctrine . . . . .696 List of London Independent ministers in 1731 . . 699 4. List of non-subscribers at Salters' Hall Assembly in 1719 . 705 List of subscribers ...... 707 List of neutrals and non-attendants .... 708 •">. The first list (1727) of the members of the London Presby- terian Board . . . . . .710 xl 6. The first list (1727) of the members of the Loudon Congfe gational Board ..... The list for 1734-5 ..... 7. List from the Proofs of ministers in course of education befon 1710, there alleged to have been anti-trinitarian 8. Dr. Calamy's opinions, as shown by extracts from his auto biography ...... 9. Mr Bowles's Catechism .... 10. List of recipients of the Hewley Fund in May 1830 . Analysis of it 11. Extracts from the answer of the defendants in Dill v. Watson 12. Extracts from the answer of the defendants in Anderson v, Watson ...... 1 3. Petitions in favour of the bill From members of the Presbytery of Antrim and of the Remonstrant Synod .... From the congregations of the chapels in Eustace Street and Strand Street Dublin .... From Mrs Armstrong, widow of deceased pastor of Strand Street chapel ..... From the General Assembly of General Baptist churches Analysis of seventy-six petitions from English congregations 14. Reasons submitted to government in favour of the bill for limiting suits for Dissenters' chapels 15. Petitions in opposition to the bill From Dr. Cooke, Moderator of the Synod of Ulster (two) From the Committee for protection of Wesley ans' privileges From the Congregational Union of England and Wales From the United Synod of Original Seceders 1 6. Protest of Bishop Phillpotts of Exeter 17. The act, with notes explaining the variations from the bill introduced, (see 497) 18. The birth-years and death-years of authors referred to in the Proofs ...... coriucctions and additions .... Errata ....... Index . V The Revolution of 1688, among the other advantages which it secured to the British Islands, and the other Englands now scattered over the globe, first gave separatists from the Established Church unlimited liberty to erect places of worship. The last Tudor, and the Stuarts, and the prelates to whom they delegated their power, had prevented dissidents in religion from obtaining legal existence as separate communions; and when toleration of religious, as distinguished from political, parties was secured by the ascendancy of Cromwell, Presbyterian and Congregational ministers, instead of having chapels built for them, were gradually put in possession of national benefices, as vacancies arose on death, or deprivation for opposition to the ruling powers, or for incom- petency or immorality. When perfect liberty of conscience, (except for the Romanists), was insisted on by William, the three denomi- nations of protestant dissenters first became distinct and self- supporting communions. There were no churches for them to occupy, and they had to start on their new career by supplying themselves with places of worship. They had built a few during the persecution or on the Indulgence, (two or three of them of wood were tabernacles to serve until a happier age could exchange them for temples,) but for the most part throughout the evil times their assemblies had either been suspended, or had taken place in the open air or private buildings. They came out of the trial however sufficiently numerous to count on the permanence of their communions, and having all to do, they set themselves to do it. They found themselves in the same situation as the first con- verts of the apostles, with the disadvantage of a northern climate, and greater demands upon them from a more advanced state of society. In no previous age had there been an instance of such a burden being borne by one generation. Of the Protestants of Western Europe the French alone had been like them dissenters from an established church; and they had built temples, (indeed, there had been time for them to be destroyed), 1 10 but those temples had been built as they were needed, and were besides confined to particular districts in France. Only one like effort has been witnessed since, and this also has taken place in our own island and, what is still more to us, in our own day. That has been on a grander scale, for the Free Church of Scotland has not only built churches, but endowed them. The English Nonconformists had no example to excite them, and they had not been trained to make free-will offerings to religion, and had just been delivered from being plundered and harassed under the persecuting statutes. The generosity and care for posterity which they evinced under such circumstances should invest with interest the chapels which they founded. There were a thousand of them ; indeed it has been said two thousand ; but any person who endeavours to identify them, or the chapels which have replaced them, or to give an account of their disappearance, will find his task quite sufficient if he is con- tent with the smaller number. It is generally admitted that at least two thirds of them were built by the Presbyterians. Some of those in London were held for leases which have expired; others, in various places, have been abandoned by their congrega- tions for larger chapels. Many of them, situate in villages, have been taken down, on failure of their congregations, or the falling off to the Establishment of the gentry who supported them, and all traces of them have perished. Scotch Presbyterians are in possession of about forty of them, through their congregations or ministers having, (long after they were built,) become connected with a Presbytery. Two or three of these are held by "the Synod of the Church of Scotland in England," and the remainder are nearly equally divided between "the United Presbyterian Church" and "the Presbyterian Church in England." All these three bodies will here be called Scotch Presbyterians, though two of them, coming into existence while litigation was in progress, un- filially sunk all allusion in their names to Scotland, while it re- mained in doubt whether the Court of Chancery would, with regard to our English charities, acknowledge the Union of the ancient kingdoms divided by religion and the Tweed. About -one hundred and fifty are in the hands of Socinians. All others which are now in existence as chapels may be taken to be occupied by Independents. If the Baptists have any, which they may have as the history of some of their old places is obscure to strangers, they must be very few indeed. 11 Thus three denominations claim each'to be the nearest in suc- cession to the English Presbyterians, the Independents, the Socinians, and the Scotch Presbyterians. Further than this the three divisions of these last would seem each to make the claim to the exclusion of the other ; at least, the Kirk, while as yet it included the Free Church and its English branch or off-shoot, and the Seceders denied each other's rights. These pages contain an account by an Independent of pro- ceedings, some by Independents and some by Presbyterians, in which it was decided by the English and Irish Courts of Chancery, and the House of Lords, that Socinians were not entitled to the chapels and charities in question; and also a statement of the manner in which an Act of Parliament was then obtained to confirm Socinians in their possession of all the chapels and chapel endowments not previously recovered from them, with remarks on the effect of its provisions. A short notice is added of the litigation between the Independents and the Kirkmen and the Seceders, as to the appointment of trustees of the Hewley Estates, which constitute the chief charitable foundation of the English Presbyterians, and of the present state and management of that charity. The controversy and litigation will be best understood by commencing with a summary of the arguments by which the parties supported their claims, and a notice of the principal points in the history, principles, and practices of the English Presbyte- rians, which bear upon them, and then dwelling at greater length on the main position taken up by the Socinians. The Independents or Congregationalists say, that the English Dissenters who built the old meeting'-houses were Presbyterians only in name : that they held so loosely to any notions of church government that they were willing to join the Episcopal establish- ment on very slight changes in it, if exception from its rules as to orders were made in favour of their ministers having received Pres- byterian ordination. That when they failed in this hope, they be- came Congregational, their congregations being entirely inde- pendent of each other, and united together only as they were united with Independent congregations. That in many places men of both denominations joined in building a chapel, and that many Presbyterian congregations became Independents. That they made no effort whatever in anyplace to setup a Presbyterian system, but gave up the exclusive spirit and principle of coercion 12 which formerly led them to disown and attempt to put down the Independents ; and adopted in practice many of their opinions and methods, especially their rejection of creeds. That, in fact, the only difference between the bodies was that among Independents all power was vested in the communicants ; while with Presby- terians the affairs of the congregation were managed by the trustees or a committee, or the seatholders, who would all, in most cases, be communicants. That the faith of the Presbyterians, the builders of the chapels, was identical with that of the modern Independents, both being, though decided Calvinists, much less rigidly so than the Scotch Presb}Tterians of the present day, and the first Independents. That while the English Presbyterians kept their old faith, their ministers and those of the Independents without admixture from the other dissenting body the Bap- tists, throughout almost all parts of the country, certainly in, all parts of it in which dissenters were numerous (except in London where local quarrels kept the ministers apart,) had peri- odical meetings for their government, so far as they could act without their congregations; and they so met and acted as United Brethren, to the exclusion, in each denomination, of any other union or regulation of its ministers among themselves. That under these circumstances, the Independents are to be regarded as the relict, the continuing part, of the two bodies so united by the union of their ministers. That the worshippers in those Inde- pendent congregations which are a hundred years old, continue the line of the like-minded descendants of the first Presbyterians, as their ancesters left the old meeting-houses when Arianism took possession of them, either founding a new chapel, or seceding to one which retained the old faith. That it is among the Inde- pendents that the memory of the Presbyterians of the revolution is most warmly cherished, and their books most highly prized. That they are the chief readers of Baxter, Howe, and Henry, whom the Socinians would fain represent to be their predecessors. That they have the larger chapel with which they have replaced Oliver Heywood's ; and that they still use it for the diffusion of his faith. That though they have not Calamy's, they are' the readers of his portraitures of the old Confessors, sympathising in all their sentiments, and using the same language whether devotional or doctrinal; that they have allowed few of the meet- ing-houses which came into their hands to decay without replace- ment, or to be closed for want of worshippers. 13 The Socinians, congregational themselves, admit the old Presby- terians were so too, and therefore consider that as they have succeeded to the chapels they do no wrong in retaining the name Presbyterian, as it is as correctly applied to them as it was to their predecessors. They say that the men who gloried in the name of Presbyterians, did not impose on their successors the creed framed for that communion, but in their own day claimed, and supposed they had secured for themselves and their successors, free enquiry and unfettered judgment as to the meaning of God's revelation to man. That the holding aloof or breaking off of the Independent ministers in London from the union, and the manner in which they drove the leading Presby- terians from the Pinner's Hall Lecture, shewed that the latter were then Arminian. That the Presbyterians, by refusing to subscribe the declaration in support of the doctrine of the Trinity at Salter's Hall, proclaimed they had become Arians. That of this body, the sole characteristic of which from the first was that they were free in speculation, and by nature progressive in their opinions, the Socinians are the only natural and consistent representatives, as they admittedly are their successors. That they are also the lineal descendants of the men whose contributions built the chapels and founded the charities. That their intermediate ancestors and themselves have in most cases rebuilt, repaired, or added to the old edifices and their sites; that their dead have been interred in the yards surrounding them from generation to genera- tion, and thus they have in all fairness and conscience made the premises their own, whosesoever they were previously, and might otherwise have continued to be. That the Independents have already chapels of their own in the same towns, and can not advantageously occupy any others. That Scotch Presbyterians can not successfully introduce their foreign polity, and then- alien habits and notions. That the first act of any new occupants would be to take down the old historic meeting-houses and make the grave-yards the sites of new buildings, most likely mere school-rooms, but at best, so many more Bethesdas, Ebenezers, or Scotch churches; and so all traces of the English Presby- terians, and the sepulchres in which they repose, would be involved in one general destruction. That thus innocent persons, holding by a century's title, would be spoiled of their chapels and family graves, and see them pass into the hands of those who would almost think it a duty, and certainly feel it a triumph, to remove 14 all that liad been connected with heresy; and that this great misery would be inflicted on many persons in every town for a very slight benefit to any one. The Scotchmen aver that the English Presbyterians were in all things like the men who shared their name beyond the Tweed, holding the same standards of doctrine, government, and discipline, except as the iniquity of the times prevented them from putting forth the full force and vigour of their system. That the Scotch and English Presbyterians, until the latter fell away from the faith through want of perfect organization, kept up an interchange of sympathy, kind offices and miuistrations. That in the northern counties of England many of the old meeting- houses are still occupied by congregations in connection with one or other of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That the Independents, so far from being the successors of the Presby- terians, were the descendents of their rivals and persecutors. That among Independents any man can receive what they call ordination; that it is or was the act of the church alone, and therefore mere laymen, or men as unlearned, preach among them, while the Scotch system, by prescribing education at a chartered university, and providing for trial of a candidate's minis- terial abilities and learning, secures a learned and able ministry, and that the English Presbyterians always asserted this principle as to ordination in opposition to the Independents. That the Inde- pendents are not orthodox, and their declaration of faith of 1833, in order to secure its passing, was made so vague that a Socinian may sign it, and that it deviates from the doctrines of the Assembly (and the Savoy Confession also) in other particulars tending to Arminianism. That among the Independents, ministers and laymen have been always in a state of discord and heresy ; or if it has been otherwise, they might at any moment have become so for want of subscription to a creed. The Kirkmen add that the English Presbyterians all held that Presbyterian- ism ought to be upheld by the civil power, as they say it was in England from 1646 to 1660, and that no voluntaries can be their successors. In the following historical sketch, authorities will rarely be quoted, as the books relied on are those to which any one conversant with the subject will turn as a matter of course. Eeferences will be made only to details too long to be inserted here. Baxter says, that when the Long Parliament first met, it 15 contained only one avowed Presbyterian, Mr Tate, member for Northampton borough. The body however increased rapidly after the civil war began, and at one time trusted, with the influence which the Westminster Assembly gave them, to carry all before them. The ascendancy of Cromwell and the Independents defeated their projects. Though the parliamentary ordinance of 6th June, 1646, decided that all England should be divided into classes, as presbyteries were called, classes were set up only in London and Lancashire, and they apparently did not assume to be church courts, but pretty much confined themselves to ordinations. The Assembly's Directory contains a confession that Presbyterianism was not really established, as it provided for ordination by an extemporized, self-constituted, tie facto Presby- tery, " in these present exigencies while we cannot have any Presbyteries framed up to their whole power and work." The Committee of Triers had Independents and laymen among its members, and its operations afford conclusive evidence that the classes had no power in the latter days of the Interregnum. Presbyterianism never was the national religion of England. During the Protectorate the national benefices were enjoyed by ministers of all denominations. There were among them very many Presbyterians, but they were chiefly Episcopalians, with some Independents, and a very few Baptists. What the Presbyterians could not accomplish when they had the civil power on their side during the Commonwealth, they did not attempt when they came out of the persecution with their numbers and their wealth diminished, and their influence in society destroyed. It has been suggested that they delayed organizing presbyteries in hope that the pale of the Church would be enlarged so as to include them ; but such a hope, if it had governed their proceedings, would equally have restrained them from building chapels. They no doubt had arrived at the conclusion that Scotch Presbyterianism would not suit Englishmen, and they seem to have given it up without an effort, and for any thing which appears in their writings without regret. Nor is this surprising when it is recollected that their ministers were ejected from the Establishment, and did not willingly leave it ; that most of them would have remained in it, using the Prayer Book, governed by bishops, and legislated for by Parlia- ment,- if this had been all that was required of them. It is also 16 to be recollected that after tlie spirit of the Establishment had been manifested during the persecution, they were still willing to have returned to it ; though they might then have required greater changes than would have been sufficient to have retained them in it on Charles the Second's return. They longed to be established, and would have sacrificed all Presbyterian principles to have secured that advantage. They prized a position in the State, with the Legislature and the Government at their back. They disliked the voluntary system, and would fain have been parish ministers. It is doubtful whether they would have tolerated dis- sent : it is certain they would have wished it discouraged in every way. It is not asserted that this is true of every individual minister, much less that it is true of their flocks, for dissenting laymen had by the Revolution contracted a dislike to the Anglican church, its priests, and its service, and they would have lost all their advantages by being absorbed into it. The ministers on the other hand, would have been delighted by means of a compre- hension to regain the exercise of their ministry in a national church. Happily they were doomed to disappointment. When they renounced the attempt to form presbyteries with juris- diction and authority, they necessarily adopted, not the system of Congregationalists, yet certainly Congregationalism ; that is, each congregation managed its own affairs without control. It is idle to speak of men as Presbyterians, who had been willing to become episcopal, and had really become congregational. They must have been almost indifferent as to church government. There is however no ground for charging them with being latitudinarian as to doctrine, and indeed this has not been attempted with regard to the ministers or the lay- men of the Revolution. The Independents of this period on the contrary were rigid and formal in doctrine and discipline, and all their habits and usages. They were never deceived as to Charles the Second ; they had no hand in bringing him back ; they had no wish to belong to his church; and no one ever thought of getting them back to the Establishment by any change in it. They saw all other parties opposed to their system, and were too jealous for it. Perhaps also their laymen were too suspicious of the ministerial office and character, but they had the experience of sixteen hundred years to warrant caution, if not fear. Their minis- ters seem to have differed very little from their Presbyterian 17 brethren, except in the habits of mind induced by the longing- to be ministers of a National Established Church. They were a little cautious at first, in deference to their Hocks, as to joining Pesby- terians in ordinations and clerical meetings, and they were slow to adopt new plans and new notions in religion, for the same reason ; and we cannot say, after all that we know now, that their instincts were wrong in this respect. Their churches were no doubt at first entirely democratic, admitting little influence in their ministers; but in one generation, as the spirit of the old Commonwealth's men died out, they seem to have become pretty much what they are. Their methods of worship were exactly the same as those of the Presbyterians, except that they admitted lay preachers, calling them in justification of the practice, " gifted brethren ;" but it does not appear they did so otherwise than upon necessity, which would often be occasioned by the small num- ber of their ministers. The differences between the denominations respected church power. With Presbyterians the qualifica- tions for admission to the Lord's Supper were a moral life and the possession of right opinions on religion ; or rather, it should be said, freedom from a reputation for wrong sentiments, for a man attending their worship regularly would otherwise be taken to have correct belief and sufficient instruction in re- ligion. The minister, with his elders if he had any, judged of the possession of these qualifications, and admitted or rejected an applicant. These practices exactly agree with the necessary conditions of a National Church, and seem to have been derived either from the Scotch Establishment, or from a time and state of things when it was hoped that Presbyterianism would be the established religion of England. The minister was chosen in many congregations by the Trustees ; in others, perhaps in most, by the seatholders or subscribers to the worship, whichever method of providing the necessary funds was adopted. The latter method is now practised by the Socinians, and it may have come down to them from orthodox times. Many difficulties must have attended ascertaining a constituency of subscribers or seat- holders, and nothing has been found in print throwing any light upon the matter. It seems most likely that the trustees, being the only permanent and easily ascertainable body, had the real power, but consulted the notables of the congregation, and that the poorer members of it had no voice in the matter. While dissenters remained so depressed in society as they were at the 2 18 beginning of the last century, the influence of property would be great, especially in the poorer or smaller congregations, and few Presbyterian congregations were without some influential persons among them. Many congregations committed their affairs to a committee, who would no doubt be nearly the same body as the trustees. Presbyterianism seems to have admitted very little of the democratic spirit, and to have been an hereditary, family sort -of an affair. They were whigs in religion, and opposed radicals. A Presbyterian minister once chosen seems to have been almost without check or control. The Independent churches themselves admitted to their fellow- ship, and they required credible evidence of real piety. The choice of a minister with them, in almost all cases, devolved upon the church. In some instances the seatholders or subscribers joined in it, but this was a departure from their vital principle, and generally proved fatal to the existence of the church in the end. These differences, it will occur to every body, were sufficient to keep the two bodies apart. Those who had felt the brotherhood resulting from strictness of admission to fellowship would not be willing to give it up, while those who had not been accustomed to it would not submit to inquisition into their hearts and minds, and would object to a numerous body of different ranks sitting in judgment upon their religious character. Immediately however that the bodies began working side by side, it occurred to them that with such affinities between them there was a necessity for some method of union between them, not to incorporate them into one body, but to secure them from estrangement, and consequent rivalry and ill feeling, and to enable them to co-operate the better in works of piety and usefulness, and also if need were in self-defence, for the next heir was still a Stuart. Heads of an agreement to that effect between the London ministers were drawn up. It was called the happy union ; so that it must have been formed with much manifestation of good feeling, and good augury for the future. The professed ob- ject was, that as united brethren they might " meet and consult without the shadow of distinct parties," and that they might "forbear condemning the different practices they expressly allowed for." The stipulation that no churches or their officers should exercise power over any other church seems almost a renunciation of the Presbyterian principle : on the other hand, the root of 19 the Independent system may be considered ambiguously stated. " In the administration of church power it belongs to the pastor and elders of every particular church, if any such there be, to rule and govern, and to the brotherhood to consent according to the rule of the gospel." The fair construction however of the clause seems to make the consent of the brotherhood referred to a consultative consent, and not one that they are bound to give, and therefore a formal and unmeaning one. If this be so, it describes exactly the proceedings at a church meeting of Inde- pendents. Very few indeed are the proposals made at their church meetings which require, nay, which admit of discussion. They may and should be always, and. they are almost universally, such and so proposed that the brethren feel that they can do no otherwise than consent to them. The power of the church is surely sufficiently secured where every matter requires their consent. This proceeding was followed in the country. In Lancashire and Cheshire classes or associations of Presbyterian and Congre- gational ministers were formed, which continued in full operation until the Independent ministers withdrew on Arianism becoming- rife among the Presbyterians. The minute-book of the Lanca- shire Association is to be found in the Cheetham Library ; and that of the Cheshire Association in the vestry of the old meeting-house in Knutsford, the place of its assembling. The Exeter Assembly of Ministers was formed at the same time, and it still continues, but composed entirely of Socinians. Similar unions took place in most parts of England ; the West Riding of Yorkshire is perhaps that most to our purpose ; but strange to say, Dr. Colton of York does not appear to have joined it ; Mr. Hunter suggests that it may not have been reckoned in the West Riding. Mr. Stretton, his friend, was particularly active in forming the Union in London. Cumberland and Westmoreland had an Association of their own ; so had Norfolk and Suffolk, and there was one combining several Midland Counties. These Associations were strictly meetings of ministers for conference and mutual recognition and assistance. The Cheshire Association seems to have been con- sulted with regard to a removal of any of their number from one congregation to another ; and to have exercised a general over- sight of all the members. They censured Mr. De la Rose's sermon printed in 1721 for its hyper-Calvinism. Mr. Slate, of Preston, the Editor of Oliver Heywood's Works, has stated that he had authority for saying that Matthew Henry, as 20 one of bis last acts in Cheshire, joined in expelling a minister for A nan ism. This expulsion must have been from the Association, as no Presbyterian congregation in Cheshire after the commence- ment of the eighteenth century ever permitted any jurisdiction over its affairs. But with regard to its members, this Association seems to have been very vigorous, and to have censured them, or suspended or cancelled their membership for any cause they thought sufficient ; and it seems not to have met again upon the old footing after it was found that the ancient strictness could not be maintained. It has been stated that in one of these North- Western Assemblies, long after it became exclusively Socinian, the question was regularly put at the annual meeting, " Do all the brethren remain orthodox t" The chief business of all or most of these Associations was to regulate Ordinations ; and in this they followed the Assembly's Directory, but always without requiring the candidates to sign any articles of faith. Instead of this subscription they required the candidate to state in his own words all cardinal points of doc- trine ; and the practice was continued by the Arian successors of the old Presbyterians down to Dr. Priestley's time, as he mentions in his sermon at the ordination of the Eev. Mr Field of Warwick. The Scotch church seem at one time to have allowed this method, but they soon insisted on subscription to their standards. In England the service was conducted just as such services are among Independents at the present day; except that before ordination the candidates were examined as to their scholar- ship and general learning; and they had to deliver a sermon and sustain a disputation. This would have been out of place in Independent ordinations, as the call of the church had previously determined the sufficiency of the gifts of the person to be ordained over them. It appears, however, that in the eighteenth century some Independent students on leaving college underwent an examination as to their learning and preaching talents, which was called "passing trials," and obtained from their examiners a certificate, on the strength of which they pre- sented them to the notice of the churches. This seems, a preferable plan to deferring the examination until ordination, as we cannot suppose the ordaining minister would have rejected any minister who had been elected by an influential congregation, and if they did not feel themselves free to do so, the examination, however satisfactory ii might chance fco prove, would scarcely be 21 bona fide. Dr. Doddridge gives an account of the Independent method of ordination in his day, exactly agreeing with that of the English Presbyterians. It seems that congregational ordination by a church was not practised by more than one generation after the revolution. The churches in the west seem to have required before a minister's ordination that he should obtain a certificate from some members of the Exeter Assembly, but not to have required the judgment of that body collectively. It should be noticed that in these associations, and indeed previously to their formation, Inde- pendent and Presbyterian ministers joined in ordination services of Presbyterians and Independents, without distinction. Thus Gamaliel Lloyd, an Independent of Chadkirke, il prayed over " Joseph Mottershed, by whose influence the chapel in Cross Street Manchester, which had been built by Henry Newcome, was lost to the Evangelical faith. In accordance with this union of their ministers, the two bodies throughout the country not only lived in harmony, but Independent churches or congregations on finding themselves too weak to exist alone, joined in a body a neighbouring Presbyterian congregation. This happened with regard to Matthew Henry's congregation at Chester, and to Francis Tallents's at Shrewsbury. At the first building of a chapel, if there were both parties in the town, and each was not strong enough to set up its worship, they joined in forming a congregation and building the meeting- house. A junction of this kind was made with Oliver Heywood's congregation in 1672, when Captain Hodgson and Joshua Horton and "the Congregational men present sat down with them." In all these cases the Independents seem to have kept together in the Presbyterian congregation, and when an Arian minister was settled over it, to have left it together and formed a new Inde- pendent church. In the Chester case the junction was in 1708, and the secession in 1768; in the Shrewsbury case the dates were 1741 and 1766. The Northowram congregation became an Independent one, and therefore was preserved to the old faith. Mr. Heywood was a thorough-going friend of Establishments and Presbyterianism ; but excepting Mr. Angier his relative, no friends seem to have shared his labours and his affection more than the old Cromwellian Captain already mentioned, Mr. Jollie of Attercliffe, and Mr. Root, the leading Independents in Yorkshire. The union in London did not endure four years, being destroyed by a controversy which arose concerning the works 9,9, of Dr. Crisp. Dr. Daniel Williams published a protest against many antinomian positions of this despicable writer, upon which he was in his turn assailed in print, as running into heresy in the contrary direction, and derogating from the work of Christ, and impugning the operations of Divine grace. Thus a secondary dispute arose, of which Dr. Williams was the subject, Crisp being forgotten as he deserved to be. The assailants of Dr. Williams were all of them Independents, and they invented hard names, such as semi-socinian and neonomian, for him and his defenders. These last were chiefly Presbyterians, and they in their own defence sought to fix upon their opponents the charge of antinomianism. Each party drew their own inferences from the works they were controverting, and represented theseinfer- ences as the opinions of their antagonists. In seven years the strife ceased, and the Doctor could fairly close it by his discourse " Peace with Truth, or an end to Discord •" but the Union had been shattered not to be restored, for another disruption had also taken place. During the contest, Dr. Williams had been compelled to retire from the lectureship at Pinner's Hall, and Dr. Bates, Mr Howe, and Mr Alsop retired with him and founded a new lecture at Salter's Hall. These all ranked as Presbyterians, though Mr Howe's biographer, Mr Rogers, contends that he was more of an Independent. Whether that was so or not, he could not remain with the brethren who took the narrow view of the question. He printed two sermons to stay the contention, and to show each side that the errors of their opponents were not such as to justify the cry of heresy which had been raised, and the evil passions which had been cherished. No expostulations however availed to make the brethren one again. Had their mutual charges been capable of proof, they perhaps might have been admitted, amended, and forgiven : but they were only suspicions of antinomianism on the one hand, and of arminianism on the other. No man easily gives up such suspicions. They are more peculiarly his own than his other notions ; they are formed or confirmed by his own observa- tion, and his good opinion of his own foresight is involved in his persisting in them. The Independents prophesied further defections, and such prophetic imputations of heresy tend to verify themselves by disgusting their objects with orthodoxy. It must not however be supposed that all the Presbyterians were on one side, nor all the Independents on the other, as Timothy Cruso, a Presbyterian, filled a vacancy in the Pinner's Hall lecture : but 23 in the main the Independents rallied round the Pinner's Hall lecturers, and the Presbyterians round those of Salter's Hall. The chief mark of separation was the formation of the Presby- terian and Independent boards for support of weak congregations in the country. The joining the one or other of these boards by a minister determined which party his congregation was classed with, and in this way as well as by the formation of a church some Presbyterian churches from time to time became Inde- pendents ; and on the other hand the Pinner's Hall congregation and perhaps three or four others in England, as those at Dickin- field and in Call Lane, Leeds, may have become Presbyterian, so far as allowing the power of the church to be shared or usurped by the seatholders. The rupture of the union in London seems not to have affected any country association, the controversy being local and personal. The next question on which parties were formed arose in con- nection with a more vital point, the Deity of Christ. Not that this was the question on which the division took place, for no London minister as yet denied the old faith on that point; the issue taken was on the propriety of requiring subscription to any human formula of doctrine. It arose thus. The committee of management acting for the united Presbyterian congregations at Exeter, of James's Meeting, Bow Meeting, George's Meeting*, Castle Lane Meeting, and Little Meeting, after taking into consider- ation doubts which were entertained of the faith of three of their ministers, determined that they should be requested to preach in defence of " The Eternal Deity of Jesus Christ." It seems they did so, but all people were not satisfied. The matter was then brought before the Exeter Assembly, and it was determined that a decla- ration should be taken from each member and the Assembly as to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Mr Hallett's declaration it seems was regarded as unsatisfactory, though he admitted Christ to be God, and the Holy Ghost to be God, because he gave no explanation. Mr Withers's declaration was more approved, as it was that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were one in deity, nature, essence, and substance, with distinction of persons. Mr. Pierce said, " I am not of the opinion of Sabellius, Arius, * James's Meeting was so called, because opened in the year of James the Second's Indulgence, and George's, (in order to take a name for another chapel from the Brunswick line), from George the Third, as it was built in the year of his accession. The compli- ment to each King ended in a most unceremonious use of his name. 24 Socinus or Sherlock [as if the last had superseded Athanasius] : I believe there is but one God, and can be no more. I believcthe Son and the Holy Ghost to be Divine persons, but subordinate to the Father ; and the unity of God is, I think, to be resolved into the Father's being the fountain of the Divinity of the Son and Spirit." Some ministers agreed with Mr Hallett, others used the words of the Assembly's Catechism, adding phrases of their own. Three refused to make any declaration at all, and disowned the authority of any body of men to demand their opinion. At length the clerk entered on the dictation of Mr Lavington, " 'Tis the general sense of this Assembly, that there is but one living and true God, and that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are that one God."* Two months afterwards the Committee again applied to the three ministers, and their answers being unsatisfactory, applied to five London divines, all Presbyterians, Dr.Calamy, Jeremiah Smith, William Tong, Benjamin Robinson, and Thomas Reynolds ; they advised that neighbouring ministers should be called in. Seven of these met and advised separation from the three ministers. Mr Withers, however, gave the " requisite satisfaction," as it would seem to the committee. The trustees of all the three chapels then notified to Mr Hallett and Mr Pierce that they would not be permitted to preach again in either of their chapels. Upon this their friends built for them a new meeting, called the Mint Meet- ing, and seceded to it. The history is worth pursuing shortly. The old meetings continued orthodox till Micaiah Towgood was brought in at James's Meeting by an orthodox cousin, as his assistant. That congregation removed to George's Meeting in 1760, and James's Meeting was taken down. The Mint Meeting was sold in 1810, and the congregation re-joined George's Meeting. The congrega- tion at Bow Meeting, of which Mr Withers and Mr Lavington were ministers, at some time or other became Independent (Castle Lane Meeting was originally so), and removed to Castle Street in 1795. Mr Tozer, Mr Lavington's successor, seems to have been orthodox, yet during the few years of his ministry which elapsed while James's meeting was standing, he preached in all the chapels in rotation. Mr Murch's account is by no means clear on several points. The five London ministers seem not to have given up the * We shall see that this declaration of Lavington's would have rendered him sus- pected for a Socinian by Scotchmen. Mr Pierce thought differently, and he has had few superiors in acumen, and was himself a high Arian. matter, although they had advised calling in the neighbouring ministers, but drew up a letter to heal the breach, and screen Pierce and Hallett. Mr Pierce, it should be borne in mind, was the recognised champion of the Dissenters against the Establish- ment, (Dr. Nichol and he had carried on the controversy in Latin,) and there was very naturally great unwillingness to condemn him. This letter was signed by several gentlemen and then brought before the Committee of the Three Denominations, who called together the whole body of the Dissenting Ministers of London, at Salters' Hall, 19th February, 1719. It was felt by some that the letter, prepared as it was, gave no opinion upon the point of doctrine which had been raised, but merely preached peace and was, however it was intended, so tender with regard to the ministers that it might be considered to favour the error imputed to them. Mr. Bradbury* (under whom the Presbyterian congregation in New Court, founded by Daniel Burgess, had become Independent) at the first meeting proposed "that instead of meeting as a council they should repeatedly assemble for fasting and prayer ; that they should then choose a few of the wisest and best of their number and send them down to Exeter, to see and hear upon the spot, and give such counsel for the maintenance of truth and harmony as an accurate and personal knowledge of the whole should dictate." He could not prevail, and at the second meeting he moved that the letter should begin with this sentence : " That we may not suffer by misrepresentation, as if our endeavours for peace and charity proceeded from any indifference to the truth, we declare our continuance in the things which we have heard and been assured of, that there is but one only the living and true God, and that there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; and that these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory." A division was taken, and there appeared fifty four ayes and fifty seven noes. It was not proposed to suggest that subscription to. these words should be required of the suspected ministers at Exeter : but the objectors may perhaps have feared that these expressions would be tendered to them, or would * Mr Bradbury's name recalls the recollection of the practices at New Court Chapel, no doubt begun by him and continued only by his descendant and successor there. Dr. Robert Winter. The Doctor always prayed for "our only rightful king, King William, and our gracious Queen, Queen Adelaide." He also always gave out the " Mercbanl Lecture" at New Broad Street (originally at Pinners' Hall), announcing the preacher. 26 be otherwise used as a test. No one objected to profess attach- ment to the doctrines in question, so that they were not formally stated. Yet, taken as the clause proposed was from the Assembly's catechism, it was nevertheless objected to. When this decision became known to the laity it occasioned great indignation in them ; and at the next meeting the proposition was brought forward again, but the moderator declined to put it to a second vote. Sixty three ministers then went up into the gallery and signed a declaration that they adhered to the First Article of the Church of England, and the Fifth and Sixth Articles of the Assembly's Catechism. These " subscribers " did not again meet at Salters' Hall, but all or most of them met afterwards in a separate place, from which they sent a letter of their own preparation to the Exeter churches. There are contradictory statements whether the subscribers were the larger or the smaller party at this third meeting. Several ministers on this day withdrew, resolving not to belong to either of the two parties, and some had declined attending from the first, under a foreboding that no good could come from the meeting. Of one or other of these two neutral classes were Doctors Calamy, Watts, and Marryatt, and Mr Daniel Neal, Mr Price, Mr Hale, Mr Bayes and Mr Munkley. The decision of the residuary Assembly seems to have been to guard against the danger of dissensions in the Dissenting body as the greatest possible evil, and for that purpose to lay down rules for settlement of all cases of difficulties in congre- gations arising from differences of opinion, and not to deal with the Exeter case particularly, which indeed had been already decided by the trustees of the chapels refusing the two ministers access to the pulpits. By the paper purporting to be rules and advices, finished and agreed to on 16th May, 1718-19, after several meetings of the ministers of the three denominations at Salters' Hall, convened by summons of the whole body, it is declared: 1. "That there are errors in doctrine of that important nature as will not only warrant, but even oblige, a Christian congregation to withdraw from the minister or ministers that maintain and defend those doctrines. 2. That the people have a right to judge for them- selves what those errors are, and when they are so taught and propagated, as will justify them in withdrawing from such their minister." Then there follow Advices the pith of which is, 1. That offence, rash judging, and unreasonable jealousy of the 27 sentiments of others should be avoided. 2. That accusation of not holding the Christian faith should not be received, by any to whom application should be made for advice upon such occasions, unless it were reduced to certainty, and not until witnesses should declare themselves ready to support it. 3. That the person accused should be privately admonished before the matter come under examination of any public assembly. 4. "If, after all, a public hearing be insisted on, we think the Protestant principle, that the Bible is the only and the perfect rule of faith, obliges those who have the case before them, not to condemn any man upon the authority of human decisions, or because he consents not to human forms or phrases ; but then only is he to be censured as not holding the faith necessary to salvation when it appears that he contradicts or refuses to own the plain and express declarations of Holy Scripture in what is there made necessary to be believed, and in matters there solely revealed ; and we trust that all will treat the servants of their common Lord as they who expect the final decision at His appearing." 5. That catechisms and other summaries of Christianity with expositions of Scripture should be regarded as great helps to understand the mind of God in the Scriptures. ' ' We also desire to secure the evidence arising from Scripture, though no man should be charged with holding those consequences of his opinions which he expressly disclaims. 6. That when any, either ministers or other Christians, think themselves bound in conscience to declare against such a sense of Scripture as the body of that Christian society to which they belong apprehend to be a truth of great importance, they should, after proper methods have been tried for mutual satisfaction, rather quietly withdraw from it, and seek communion or service in some other Christian society, than disturb the peace of that congregation ; and that there be no censure of the person who withdraws, or of the congregation which receives him. 7. That minister and people both endeavour to know, maintain, and propagate the truth in love, insisting most on those things wherein Christians are generally agreed ; more sparingly and with greater modesty and charity on those on which good men may and do differ. 8. If any minister or congregation shall differ as to the expediency of these methods, or shall think any other more proper, we hope they will as intending the same good, still preserve charity and communion with those ministers and congregations that shall think fit to pursue these advices." 28 These advices were despatched on the 17th March with a letter by Dr. Oldfield, the Moderator, signed by him in the name and by the appointment of the ministers in and about London. In it occurs this clause, ' ' We add our earnest supplications that God would accompany them with his blessing to establish peace and truth amongst us ; and freely declare that we utterly disown the Arian doctrine, and sincerely believe the doctrine of the blessed Trinity, and the proper divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, which we apprehend to be clearly revealed in the Holy Scriptures ; but are far from condemning any who appear to be with us in the main, though they choose not to declare themselves in other than Scripture terms or not in any." Seventy-three ministers are said to have signed these advices, and it is added that several other brethren consented to them, though they did not add their names. No explanation is given as to the area from which signatures were obtained. The metropolis, however widely the word might be in- terpreted, could not have so many ministers on this side after de- duction of the subscribers and neutrals. The paper presented to the committee of the three denominations, Dr. Oldfield tells us was signed by ' ' several of the principal gentlemen and citizens," and perhaps some of them signed the advices, as for instance the com- mittee, or as we should say now, the deputies. Sir Joseph Jekyll wrote as if he was present and voted. The form originally presented to the meeting (as Mr Bradbury thought with a chief, if not a sole, desire to screen Pierce and Hallett) seems to have been adopted. However this might be, it was prepared by some one who foresaw the dangers which threatened ' ' the Dissenting Interest," and who was really a well-wisher to it; the last clauses were evidently added in all sincerity, and it is painful to read them even now. It may be that the sentence quoted from the Moderator's letter left the door open to error, perhaps even more certainly than any expres- sions in the advices, but we may surely be allowed to turn wist- fully to the time when as yet the English Nonconformists were of one language and of one speech. This reference of the Exeter Churches to the ministers of the three denominations shows that there was no real Presbyterianism in the land. The Exeter Assembly met in the following May, and fifty-seven of the ministers present signed the first Anglican article, but nineteen refused to sign it. Among these last were Hallett and Pierce, and it does not appear there was any effort made to expel them from the Assembly, although dismissed by their congrega- 20 tions. It was however resolved that no minister should thence- forth be ordained or recommended to congregations by the Assembly unless he subscribed that Article, or the 5th and 6th answers of the Assembly's Catechism ; or assented to the Declara- tion of Faith made as we have seen by the Exeter Assembly ; or " sufficiently expressed the same sense in words of his own." Thus the result was against subscription, since any minister who objected to it might state his belief in his own language, contrary to the previous rule of the Assembly. The voluntary subscription by way of protestation by the members of the Assembly, since refusal to concur was not followed by any penal consequences, was a very different thing from requiring subscription as a preliminary test in any case. This, no doubt, was exactly what was intended by the London subscribers, but the whole matter has been much misrepresented. The Exeter Assembly maintained their rule till 1 753, when it was got rid of, after Micaiah Towgood's influence had been brought to bear upon the matter for four years. The subject was propounded for discus- sion "whether the Assembly will recommend any candidates who refuse to declare their faith in the Deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit ;" and the previous question (whether that question should be put) was moved, and was determined in the negative. The question discussed was framed as if had been proposed by a Trinitarian seeking to obtain the adoption of a new restric- tion, and the vote (which really was that the Assembly would not interfere in such matters) negatived the adoption of such a rule. Upon the minute of that day's meeting every thing is regular and conclusive in favour of the "liberal " view on the subject, and it was sufficient to prevent for the future any enquiry as to a candi- date's belief on the controverted points, and a fortiori in any others. Yet, in point of law and legal fact, it settled nothing, as a vote that an enquiry should not be put to a meeting cannot affect a previous regulation of the body on the subject. It is not meant that the ministers who voted on the previous question at that meeting, and who in subsequent meetings carried out their policy, could not have passed a simple and direct repeal of the obnoxious regulation of 1719, nor is it suggested that any one present at the meeting was ignorant what was the design, and would be the effect, of the above day's proceedings ; on the con- trary, the reader's attention is drawn to the fact that Mr Towgood, though so clear and determined in his opinions, and supported by 30 a majority, chose his disingenuous and faltering course with sinister wisdom. In very few instances have resolutions introducing heterodoxy come down to us; and there is much to be learnt from the language of those we have, and the circumstances attending their passing. These proceedings fixed, if they did not produce, in the minds of the Presbyterians, a dislike to all human formulas of the doctrines which they held. Their forefathers, from their first appearance as an avowed and recognised body to the time when the Act of Uniformity laid them low, were ever eager to invoke the civil power to help them in imposing on the king- dom the form of words in which they had embodied their dogmas. No doubt the ministers from whom that Act required a consent to all the contents of the Prayer Book, began to see in all stereo- typed expressions of religious opinion evils which had never before occurred to them. But the rejection of all human thoughts and words as authoritative declarations of faith did not originate with them, or with Presbyterians of any age. It had been pro- claimed by Independents for sixty years before the Exeter con- troversy, and that not only by individual ministers in private or public discourses, or even in printed treatises ; but by the whole denomination in their confession of faith. This document was drawn up, by a general meeting of then ministers and delegates from their churches, at the palace of the Savoy on 12th October, 1658. In the preface it is said "Such a transaction [a confession] was to be looked upon as a meet or fit medium or means whereby to express their common faith and salvation, and no way to be made use of as an imposition upon any. Whatever is of force or con- straint in matters of this nature causeth them to degenerate from the name and nature of confessions, and turns them from beings confessions of faith into exactions and impositions of faith. " They declare that they published and recorded in the face of Christendom " the faith and order which they owned and prac- tised" for the information of their fellow Christians, and not for any practical use among themselves. That such a document was necessary to defend them from the attacks of the enemies of their religious and political opinions may be learnt from the calumnies against them noticed by Mosheim and Rapin. If they had followed the example of all other bodies they would have legislated for their infant churches under the notion of giving definiteness and per- manence to their opinions, but they trusted their chinches and the 31 truths they held, to the blessing and protection of God, being satisfied that they were according to His will, and they disregarded the devices and safeguards which human affection and foresight could supply. It should be remembered that the declaration copied above is to be found in a synopsis of Calvinistic doctrine, published in the middle of the seventeenth century, by men on the one hand supported by the party then in power, and on the other fully convinced that the belief of great part of what they stated was necessary to salvation, and that no part of it could even be doubted without peril to the soul. The non-use of creeds by such men is a very different matter to the rejection of them by persons who hold that there are no essential and fundamental doc- trines of Christianity. With the latter it is a matter of course ; with the former it is a proof of the highest wisdom. The condemnation of articles of faith as terms of communion, is notwithstanding represented by the Socinians as having been, since the revolution, the distinguishing tenet of the English Presbyterians. They asserted this throughout all the litigation of which we have to trace the history, but they did not produce any declaration of the principle on behalf of the body, or by any leading ministers among them, within thirty years after that era. The English Presbyterians did not generally re- quire from ministers, at their ordination, subscriptions to any articles or confessions, preferring a statement of their faith in their own words, but, as we have seen, the Exeter Assembly before they granted a minister the certificate necessary for his ordination, required liim to subscribe to the doctrinal articles of the Anglican Church, not the Westminster Confession, as the Scotch should notice. The Heads of Union referred to the three English formulas without any protest against creeds. Oliver Hey wood drew up articles of faith for his com- municants. Throughout the controversy Pierce and his friends in their protest against creeds did not refer to the opinions of their predecessors, but reasoned as if the question was a new and open one. One most singular thing happened to the non- subscribers ; at least twenty of them, within a year or two after they had voted against Mr Bradbury's proposed declaration, sub- scribed the thirty-nine articles, and gave then consent to the Athanasian creed. The non- subscribers and neutrals were for the most part Presbyterians, and if old enough had followed Dr. Williams and 32 his friends to their new lecture at Salters' Hall ; while there were very few Independents besides Dr. Watts and Mr Neal who were not found among the subscribers, just as they twenty years before adhered to the original lecture at Pinners' Hall. Mr Joshua Wilson says that at least half of the subscribers were Presby- terians. Among them were Tong, Robinson, Jeremiah Smith, and Reynolds, all Salters' Hall lecturers. Several of the non- subscribers eventually avowed themselves Arians, but not one of their number did so at the meeting, or can be shown to have introduced heterodox doctrines into his sermons at that time. Dr. Oldfield, the Moderator at the Salters' Hall Assembly, ancf Dr. Calamy, the chief among the neutrals, immediately set them- selves to preach and print sermons on the doctrine of the Trinity, which, though they aimed to stop the dispute which had arisen, and to inculcate charity and brotherly feeling in it, are perfectly orthodox. In 1705 Thomas Emlyn came to England after his imprisonment in Dublin for preaching Arianism, and found no minister to associate with ; and when he gave up his chapel in London, having survived his friends there, he received no invitation from any other congregation than Mr Pierce's, on his death in 1 726. From these facts we gather that as far as outward appear- ances, all remained orthodox, and it might be said almost entirely Calvinistical. Even Arminian opinions seem not to have been openly, certainly they were not controversially, preached at the period of the Salters' Hall Assembly. Phrase- ology and modes of thinking might be changed by that time," and in the discourses of that day, compared with those which were heard thirty years previously, there might be less of doctrine, and what there was might be inculcated more as a matter of reason than of revelation ; duties might be dwelt on rather with reference to man than in relation to God ; the spirit of the confessors in the Stuart reigns might be represented by Howe, and sermons preached after the accession of the Guelphs might be modelled after Tillotson; yet the difference was neither in omission of the old themes of Christian contemplation, nor in expression of any thing contra- dictory to the old belief. If there was a concealed change ' of opinion on important points, it existed only in a few young men, as yet unmarked and uninfluential. Great pains have been taken to produce the belief that by 1 720 the Presbyterians were not only Arminian but also " Unitarian.'" It is not exactly said that opinions to be called by those names were preached then ; but it 33 is at one time intimated, and at another assumed, that they were secretly held by most of the Presbyterians. It will however be found that those who do this also assert that the body had ceased to be Calvinistic before the Revolution, as if their sufferings taught them candour and charity, and freed them from gloomy, rigid, and narrow notions, but no passages, it is needless to say, have been quoted from any of the heavy folios or thick duodecimos of the seventeenth century to prove as much. On the contrary, we have the fact that, in 1691, the Presbyterian ministers of London joined their Independent brethren in acknowledging the West- minster and Savoy Confessions, and that of itself should have prevented the attempt to produce such an impression. The Neonomian controversy began not by denunciation of Arminianism in Presbyterians, but by reprehension of Antinomianism in the posthumous works of an Episcopalian, and the statements of Dr. Williams which were questioned were made by him in controverting what all admitted to be most pernicious errors. After some years of angry dispute, in which nothing was proved by either party, each withdrew its charges, and it was admitted that the supporters of the old lecture did not intend to favour perver- sions of the doctrine of grace, or the founders of the new lecture to impugn it. The result no doubt was to show that men who were careful of their words and thoughts were adopting a safer and more correct statement of the doctrine of the African Augustine, such as had then been sketched by Richard Baxter, and having in our century been more precisely expressed and defined by Dr. Edward Williams and Andrew Fuller, true fathers of the Church, is now held by the great party which is called by the name of John Calvin, because of all the reformers he was its chief though not its only exponent. It may not be without advantage to quote the sentences which Mr Hallam, impelled by conviction and not partiality, wrote of this theological system. " This, in some or other of its modifications, used to be deemed the ortho- dox scheme of doctrine. It was established in the Latin Church by the influence of Augustine; it was generally held by the schoolmen and by most of the early reformers ; and seems to be inculcated by the decrees of the Council of Trent, as much as by the articles of the Church of England. In a loose and modern acceptation of the word, it often goes by the name of Calvinism, which may, perhaps, be less improper, if we do not use the term in an exclusive sense ; but if it is meant to imply a 4 34 particular relation to Calvin, leads to controversial chicane, and is a mis-statement of the historical part of the question." Mr Hallam intimates that the notion of orthodoxy which he thus states was scarcely current when he wrote ; and as it has not perhaps gained greater acceptance since, there is the more reason that care should be taken to bear it in mind, when dealing with the opinions of those who have been for a century in their graves. The departure from this time-honoured belief with the Presbyterians, as in all other cases, was first to Arminianism ; but that change through- out the body was so slow that in 1731 the London ministers, according to a manuscript in Dr. Williams's library, quoted by all parties as correct, were divided into three classes: "1st, deemed Calvinists, that is such as agree with the Assembly's Catechism; 2nd, accounted Arminians, or such as are far gone that way, by which are meant such as are against particular election and redemption, original sin, at least the imputation of it ; for the power of man's will in opposition to efficacious grace ; and for justification by sincere obedience in the room of Christ's righteous- ness ; and 3rd, of the middle way partly Arminian and partly Calvinistic, or that sometimes preach one doctrine and partly look to the other." Mr Joshua Wilson adds " the first list contains nineteen names, the second thirteen, the third twelve. Of the lecturers at Salters' Hall at that time (Drs. Harris, Gill, Grosvenor, and Wright, and Messrs. Bayes and John Newman) the names of the two first and two last are found in the list containing the Calvinists ; those of Drs. Grosvenor and Wright are among those belonging to the intermediate class." Dr. Bogue and Dr. Bennett say that the classifier was evidently himself a high Calvinist.* We have seen that in 1719 there was not an avowed Arian among the London ministers; and that even the non-subscribers agreed to a form of words, professing without explaining the Trinitarian doctrine. The doctrines of a religious body are chiefly to be ascertained from its formularies, and a communion which does not use a prayer book, creed, or articles of faith, has none beside its catechism and hymn-book. Until about 1740, the Assembly's Catechism, * All the Independents are in this account stated to be Calvinists, twenty-seven thoroughly and one somewhat dubiously so, three inclined to Antinomianism, and two (who are described as disorderly) not deserving any particular remark. Of the two Seventh-day Baptist ministers, one was a Calvinist, the other an Arminian. Of the sixteen Particular Baptists seven were Calvinists, and nine " inclined to the Antinomian strain." Five of the eight General Baptists were Arminians and three Socinians. 35 in all the sternness of its Calvinism, was the manual for youth in all Presbyterian Chapels in England. When here and there a minister felt it operated as a standing protest against the lack of doctrine in his sermons, he dared not attempt to lay it aside. The Rev. James Strong, of Ilminster, made the first attack upon it ; but all he did was to alter it, and publish it as the Assembly's Catechism revised. His alterations were anti-calvinistic and Arian. He prefaced it by remarks of Baxter, Dr. Cotton Mather, and Dr. Bates, which we may be sure did not impugn the doc- trines of the venerable Assembly, even when they expressed wishes for a Catechism more adapted to the faculties of children and ignorant people. The revision . however was not allowed to obtain circulation without an alarm being given as to its real nature, that no one might be deceived into the notion that those great men countenanced such an attempt. This service was per- formed by Dr. Guyse, successively of Hertford and New Broad Street, London. The biographical notices of both Mr Strong and Dr. Guyse omit the dates of their works, but Mr Strong died in 1738. The Rev. Samuel Bourn, of Birmingham (often distin- guished as the elder), in 1 736 published " An address to Protestant Dissenters, or an inquiry into the grounds of their attachment to the Assembly's Catechism, whether they act upon bigotry or reason; being a calm examination of the sixth answer in the Assembly's Shorter Catechism, by a Protestant Dissenter." He followed this up in 1738 by reprinting Mr Strong's revision with three Catechisms, or as he styles them, " Lectures in a Cateche- tical method," by himself, and recommendations of the whole volume by men who afterwards were the heads of the Arian School. These were Mr Mothershead of Manchester, Mr Roger- son of Derby, Mr Grove and Dr. Amory of Taunton, and Drs. Chandler and Benson of London. Their recommendations seem like the first manifesto of the party. Dr. Toulmin, in his notice of Mr Bourn's book, says, that " Mr Bourn though he did not think it proper to lay aside the Assembly's Catechism, which initiatory piece of religious instruction carried with it at that day a very undue authority, yet in his catechetical lectures in his chapel freely censured the doctrines which he believed to be erroneous." These few particulars show more forcibly than anything else could have done the esteem in which the catechism was held in that* age. Mr Strong dared not tamper with it without attempting to give a colour to his interpolations from expressions used, with 36 far different intentions, by the orthodox leaders of the past genera- tion. Mr Bourn did not think it prudent to propose its total disuse ; and his brother Arians deemed the perversion of such a witness for the truth a fitting occasion for their first appeal to all like-minded men among their body. Dr. Toulmin's odd and spiteful fling, made when it might be safely ventured, completes the unwilling testimony borne by all these men to the hold which the old faith had on the congregations, even after the ministers had shaken it off. In the case of the Hewley Charity, a great deal was said, (though incorrectly in the opinion of thejuages,) as to the difference between the Assembly's Catechism and Mr Bowles's later one ; and it was urged that those who meant to teach Calvinism used the old standard manual. We see that it retained its supremacy nearly thirty years after Lady Hewley's death. As to the hymn books of the Presbyterians, they immediately availed themselves of Dr. Watts's hymns published in 1 707, and his psalms which first appeared in 1 719. Their congregations as Arian- ism prevailed in them adopted new hymn-books, in which the doctor's hymns, though they formed the staple, underwent alterations thought necessary to accommodate them to the new notions, these however were not so numerous as perhaps might be expected. When Socinianism had extinguished Arianism, new selections supplanted the old ones, and in them the doctor's hymns relating to the person of Christ were either omitted or so altered as to lose their identity. The party which took its rise from those men of undoubted orthodoxy who stood by Dr. Williams, when he was persecuted because his language and reasoning varied from the old forms of thought and expression, almost of necessity contracted a tendency to diverge from the letter of the old theology. In process of time, when its old leaders were no more, some few of its ministers avowed themselves Arminians ; and the others, without having themselves changed their opinions, continued to fraternize with them, more or less, from habit, friendship, or fear of a new disruption. All then felt themselves compromised together, and drew closer together for mutual support and encouragement. This could not be done on the part of the Calvinists, without some reserve and danger to their consciences and principles. The other party, seeing this result of the association of brethren of their own opinions with men of laxer notions, withdrew more and 37 more from those who either held error or consorted with such as did so. They might themselves so far yield to the influence of the age as to relax the rigid formality of their scientific theology ; but they held the truth itself the firmer that they saw it in peril all around them. The Salters' Hall controversy found neither party in a situation to judge rightly. The laxer party, long accustomed to variances as to doctrine, were too ready to treat Pierce and Hallett's opinions as right in the main, and to make the differences verbal only, forgetting that the doctrine then in dispute was a cardinal one. They felt the full force of the argument against requiring subscription, and setting up as authoritative definitions of doctrine by uninspired men ; but they did not see that the vote they came to would subject them to the imputation of shielding the assailants of the Saviour's deity, and shrinking from the assertion of the truth which they really believed, and which was taught every Lord's day in all their congregations.. The charge of actual heresy against any of the non-subscibers was unfounded and unjust according to Dr. Oldfield's letter and Dr. Calamy's autobiography, and we cannot suspect either of them of simulating orthodoxy themselves, or giving false characters for it to others ; yet it must be allowed that strong-minded and cool- headed men might be prevented, alike by their feelings and their fears, from associating with the party which at such a crisis was contented with the vague advices sent from Salters' Hall. Nor was the controversy, as in the former case, confined to London ; but the Presbyterian body through the kingdom was broken up into two hostile sections, one claiming to be the only supporters of the true Protestant principle of the sole authority of the Bible to the exclusion of all human formulas, though at the same time professing perfect orthodoxy : the other proclaiming themselves the only maintainers of the old faith, and denouncing those who shrank from avowing it, and only cared to screen their friends who denied it. Every minister desiring to secure the aid or sympathy of any of his brethren found it necessary to take and keep his side ; and when a man makes his choice of a party, he is influ- enced not so much by a sense of truth and duty as by taste and sentiment, and even they are not so potent as the ascendancy which other men have obtained over him. Those who took the non-sub- cribers' view of the question could boast in their ranks most learn- ing, eloquence, and power of mind ; but the old-fashioned party included the more saintly and devotional men. The latter lost 38 the mental benefit which they would have derived from the greater acquirements and more expanded views of the brethren from whom they were then separated ; and this produced in them an inferiority which repelled young men of vigorous and ambitious minds. This cause seems to have operated to swell the ranks of the other party, and also those of the Establishment. The ministers who cast in their lot with the subscribers had the advantage in contending for the old forms of faith as they were still held by the laity in love and veneration ; but the non- subscribers were more firmly united together by the suspicion entertained of them all in common, perhaps it should rather be said by their enduring needless unkindness and positive injustice. It might be seen that the two Associations must soon regard each other as the Pharisees and the Sadducees of the time of our Lord. The immediate effect was to spread Arminianism among the Pres- byterians, and thus to prepare them in time to embrace Arianism, which was at that time widely spreading among that portion of the established clergy who troubled themselves at all about doctrine. If Whiston was expelled from his mathematical professorship in 1710, convocation failed in procuring the condemnation of his doctrine by the Queen ; and that Queen was Anne. Dr. Samuel Clarke published his " Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity" in 1712, and, after an equivocal submission to convocation, which they were fain to accept, on an understanding that he would thenceforth keep silence on the controversy, died rector of St. James's. He, however, held himself out as a Trinitarian ; and surely an Arian is no Unitarian, to some minds he may appear less so than an Athanasian. His arguments were urged with the greatest sagacity and caution, and they had the strong recommendation of pro- ceeding from the rector of the royal parish, but the chief reason of their success was that they appeared just at the right time for their general acceptance. The age being itself destitute of deep faith and vivid feeling and imagination, was impatient of all strong opinions and passionate sentiments, and boasted that it tried them all by the standard of common sense : that is, every man was ready to settle every question, moral or religious, by an off-hand decision, without study and without experience. It turned from all lofty speculation to topics of common society, and its highest aim was to avoid and discountenance fanaticism, and to discern and teach what was prudence and utility for the passing day. The men of such an age take the high road or go 39 with the tide, and are too wise to encounter risk or even ill- will for their opinions. The non-subscribing part of the English Presbyterian ministers were not only acted upon by the age as their neighbours were but, from their living in perpetual opposition to their Presbyterian and Independent brethren who adhered to the old notions, were in a manner prepared and almost pledged to support the new opinions. Arianism with its vagueness and flexibility just met their case. It allowed every man to be just as much of a superna- turalist or of a rationalist as he pleased, and to employ Scripture in either way with as much or as little meaning as suited his purpose. It would be unfair not to state that many Arians were men of saintly lives and eminently devotional habits, and no doubt, if their scheme of doctrine could be ascertained, it would be found very difficult to express with precision and accuracy the difference between them and the Trinitarians, from whom they stood aloof to consort with men with whom they had much less in common. The imperfection of human language, and the inadequacy of man's intellect to reason upon its ideas of the Godhead, rather than any real difference of opinion, occa- sioned their seeming variations from the old doctrine. With others the profession of Arianism was the convenient disguise by which to conceal a denial of all that is super- natural in Christianity, and carry on war with it to the best advantage. For there is a freemasonry in unbelief, those regu- larly entered can soon make themselves known to each other, initiate any willing to join their camp or take part in their orgies, and pass each other through the degrees of illumination. Some ministers, under the influences of the time and their party, yielded to doubts infused by Manning, Emlyn, or Pierce, or suggested by the works ofWhiston, Clarke, or those fountains of heresy, the Racovian divines ; but Arianism was chiefly diffused by ministers fresh from the academies. The nature of the next age can always be told when the abler men all leave the seats of education with the same general character. In the Nonconfor- mist Colleges of the early part of the last century the tone of piety was lowered by students for the ministry meeting in their classes nearly equal numbers of young gentlemen training for secular pursuits ; and the force of truth was much weakened by orthodox tutors making it their practice to press the heter- odox side of a question as much as that which they themselves 40 believed. The newer and the bolder notions had most attraction for the more vigorous and lively minds, and they left their academies, (orthodox or heterodox,) determined to work a revolution in the body to which they affected to adhere, and possessed of sufficient worldly wisdom to wait till their purpose could be effectually and safely accomplished. Thus at the time we have to do with many young men entered the ministry among Non- conformists prejudiced against the old principles, prepossessed in favour of new schemes of doctrine, and with a want of devotion and elevated views, for which their hardihood of speculation, though conjoined with the greatest discretion and reserve, afforded but poor compensation. They took the oversight of congregations with the de- termination to wean themfrom the old system, andbringthem to their own state of mind and feeling. They attempted this, not by instilling their own opinions, but by observing a guarded silence on all matters on which their flocks differed from them ; they preached on the love and mercy of God, the example of Christ, and the dignity and perfectibility of man, but they were peculiarly fond of stating and illustrating the evidences of religion in opposition to atheists and deists. This was neutral ground between ortho- dox and heterodox, and there was great advantage in occupying it, and they maintained it very well, just as German rationalists have taken wonderful pains with the philology of the Bible, while seeking to deprive it of all serious meaning. The men who played this part in the old meeting houses might be, as they called each other, moderate, judicious, rational, and practical divines, but it was their deliberate purpose to counteract the labours of the men for whom those buildings were raised. This concealment of opinion does not tell well now, and perhaps it may be denied, but in all notices by Socinians of the first Arians it is mentioned as their praise that they rarely preached doctrinal sermons. Emlyn states that he was several years before he allowed his adoption of Arian opinions to become known, although he became the martyr of the cause. Hallett and Pierce denied the right of any man to interrogate them as to what they believed, yet the parties who questioned them were, first the managing committee of their chapels, and afterwards their fellow- members of the Exeter Assembly, who took part with them in ordination services and in all ministerial business. Dr. Toulmin published, as worthy of all admiration, the scornful and angry rebuke administered by Samuel Bourn to two members of the 41 church at Kidderminster, for addressing to a friend of his, who was a candidate for the pulpit, written queries on the main points in dispute between the orthodox and the Arians. No one would at the present day say that there is anything unreason- able in desiring to know a minister's opinions when he proposes to become the pastor of the person desiring the information. In no other body could such concealment have been practised, or would it have been justified, and it is to be explained only by supposing an entirely different view of truth and honour on theo- logical matters from that entertained at present. This reserve was practised in the hope that congregations which for years had not heard any doctrine from the pulpit must become indifferent to it, or that at any rate a new generation would spring up in ignorance of the old theology. But the books and sermons of the great divines who lived while epis- copacy was overthrown, and during the persecution which sig- nalised its revival, remained to make up for defects and errors in the pulpits ; and faithful men still resorted to the old chapels, for in the parish churches matters were no better as to doctrine, and often much worse in other respects. Such men showed their dissatisfaction with the new state of things at the next choice of . a minister, and opposed the election of a candidate if he avowed himself an Arian, as generally happened. In most cases the effort was in vain, and then the orthodox minority seceded and founded a new chapel. Sometimes even a majority, if opposed by the trustees and chief men in the congregation, found themselves under the necessity of being the retiring party, as at Shrewsbury and Wolverhampton. In a few instances the Arians were the smaller and weaker body, and then they left and built for them- selves, as at Kidderminster and Taunton. Trinitarians thus' coming out of a Presbyterian congregation always founded a regular Independent church, and thus bore the strongest testimony to the different results of the two systems in the preser- vation of the truth. It was customary in large congregations to have an assistant minister as well as the pastor, and perhaps less care was taken in the selection of men for the inferior office. Certainly many of such assistants eventually brought in Arianism, even where no doubt can be entertained of the orthodoxy of the senior ministers with whom they were associated. It is to be borne in mind that the choice of an assistant, except in the largest con- 5 42 grogations, took place in the latter part of the pastor's time, and though he might not concur with the congregation in their preference, there would be great difficulty in his opposing it. In some cases, and those not a few, an improper choice is to be attributed to an evangelical minister preferring the interest of his family to that of his flock, and causing or providing for the election of a son, nephew, or cousin, as his assistant or successor. The hereditary principle works well in no profession except those of royalty and legislation, so far as they are exceptions. The choice of a minister depended, in some congregations entirely, and in all mainly, on the trustees who, succeeding their fathers by quasi inheritance, were often entirely destitute of per- sonal religion. The circumstance of the trust deeds containing no other provision as to the chapel than that it was for the use of Dissenters or Presbyterians, added to the utter want of organiza- tion in the congregation, might seem to leave the selection of the minister to them. They had the legal ownership of the chapel and, what was sometimes of more importance, of every endowment con- nected with it, and in those days when the world and the world's law were not the friends of Nonconformists, to speak lawyer's lan- guage, the power would go with the legal estate. Beside their official position, they were very often persons of high stand- ing in society and of considerable wealth, and how could a small or poor congregation contest any matter with them? In choosing a minister they naturally thought of themselves, and sought a man who would be an agreeable companion for their families, and perhaps also a good tutor for their sons. If they had any higher considerations they thought only of pulpit talents. A young man of i ' liberal" opinions would generally meet their purpose best in all respects. In all or almost all cases it will be found that the general body of a congregation was more attached to the old faith than the ministers and the richer men were, and in very few indeed was the vacancy occasioned by the death of an uncompromising and outspoken Trinitarian filled by the choice of an avowed Arian. Where deceit was practised it cannot be said that the change in the opinions of the congregation took place freely and fairly. In London and the large towns dissatisfied hearers would find elsewhere preaching to their mind, and leave a minister whom they suspected of unsoundness ; thus it happened that the 43 most important cliapels were the most easily gained by the heterodox. In small places a minister would be more forward and bold in preaching Arianism if he was supported in it by the trustees or influential families, or was rendered comparatively independent by an endowment. A minister of superior ability, and possessed of qualities which endeared him to his people, would not fail to bring them to his own way of thinking. It should however be known what the opinions of these first Arians were. They did not make as great a departure from orthodoxy as had been made by their day j Socinianism in indivi- duals was no new thing in England, and abroad it had ripened into opinions anticipatory of the rationalism of the next century. There had long been congregations, indeed sects, of Anti-Trini- tarians ; it had been a popular belief in Transylvania that Christ was a mere man, and a body in Poland had gloried in calling themselves by the name of Socinians. In England not only was all reserve and caution, but the deviation from orthodoxy was comparatively slight. Emlyn resisted the attempts of Manning to bring him to humanitarianism, and Mothershead finally re- fused to go the lengths of Seddon, his son-in-law. Martin Tomkins we shall have to do with. He was dismissed from Newington Green for Arianism in 1 71 8, yet in 1 732 published a volume on the atonement of Christ, which Dr. Doddridge highly re- commended. It perhaps, in fairness, should be mentioned that he also wrote against the common doxology as nnscriptural, and did not confine his remarks to the Gloria Patri, as tacked on to David's Psalms. The great James Pierce in his sermons published posthu- mously in 1728, as quoted by Mr J. Wilson, has these words : " Hear, O heavens, and give ear O earth ! The Creator, He by whom God made the world, lias become an infant, and He that made all things has been made of a woman. He that gives life to all has conde- scended to receive life by means of such to whom He gave it. His dwelling then, with men on earth, is the more marvellous if we consider the design of it. What a perfect expiation and atonement has He made for our sins. This was the end of his appearance. We know that He was manifested to take away our sins." Samuel Bourn, in his catechism already referred to, says : Q. How has Jesus Christ wrought out salvation for us, or how doth he become our Saviour I 44 A. By shedding his blood as our sacrifice, and pleading his blood shed in obedience to God as our righteousness. His forms of evening prayer contain the expressions " being cleansed by the blood of Christ from all past sins," "through his sacrifice and intercession," "through our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath loved us and washed us from our sins in his blood." The very learned Dr. John Taylor, successively of Norwich and Warrington Academy, who first in England, Mr J. Wilson, says, wrote against the doctrine of original sin and the atonement (1751,) and whose paraphrase on the Epistle to the Romans has continued the Arminian key to the Apostolic writings to the present day, thus sums up his observations on the sacrifice of Christ : I conclude, therefore, that the sacrifice of Christ was truly and properly in the highest degree, and far beyond any other, piacular, and expiatory to make atonement for or to take away sin. Not only to give us an example ; not only to assure us of remission, or to procure our Lord a commission to publish the forgiveness of sin ; but moreover to obtain that forgiveness by doing what God in his wisdom and good- ness judged fit and expedient to be done in order to the forgiveness of sin, and without which he did not think it fit or expedient to grant the forgiveness of sin. These men may all be regarded as heresiarchs of the English Presbyterians, and it is important to notice what doctrine they introduced. The Socinians never make distinctions except be- tween orthodoxy and heterodoxy, and claim every man who was not orthodox. They draw the boundary line at the doctrine of the Trinity, and would fain call every one not agreeing to the doctrine of the Athanasian creed a Unitarian, and on their side. The true test is opinion as to the person of Christ, and the true classification is of those who hold His mere humanity, and those who believe Him partaker of the divine as well as of human nature. It is clear that all the authors hitherto mentioned would, if they must have placed themselves in one or other of these classes, have been, however unwillingly, on the orthodox side and protested against the present Socinians as rejecting what was essential in Christianity. Socinianism does not appear to have been openly preached before Dr. Priestly published his " History of the Corruptions of Christianity," in 1782, and his "History of Opinions concerning the person of Jesus Christ," in 1786 • and his views were adopted rather by young men studying for the ministry, than by ordained 45 ministers. His ancestors had for some generations been Inde- pendents, and he had very little similarity to the Presbyterians, being outspoken and uncompromising, and showing a warmth and impatience of opposition which were contrary to their spirit and tactics. The effect of his writings has been to destroy Arianism in England, at least the profession of it, although many heterodox ministers remained to our own time who, notwithstanding they would not have been forward to give themselves any sectarian name, or even to define their doctrine, would yet, if need were, have carefully denied being mere humanitarians. Dr. Abraham Eees was their patriarch, and there were among them several men of note, beside others less known. They varied very much in their opinions, but they maintained the pre-existence of Christ, and His atonement for sin ; nevertheless from early connexion and mental affinity they associated almost exclusively with Socinians, and even those of them who in their convictions were nearest to the orthodox, would have felt themselves out of their element amongst evangelicals. Between the first profession of Arianism and its development or merging in Socinianism, the courses taken by its supporters were very different. A few minis- ters among the Independents, and here and there one in a Presbyterian chapel, consorted with evangelical Independents, but yet were understood, or rather suspected, not to be per- fectly orthodox. They were the high and dry party amono- dissenters. There were also pastors of Presbyterian conore- gations, preserving in their sermons a guarded silence on all controversial points, and using scriptural phrases only in their prayers who, owing to their congregations being Trinitarian, on formal occasions, such as meetings of ministers, appeared among the Independents, but when they needed assistance in their pulpits (which is the testing occasion), obtained it from heterodox neighbours. The fate of such a congregation was gene- rally determined by there being or not being any other place of worship to which the more religious part of it could advan- tageously secede. The next minister was a man of decided opinions ; orthodox if the congregation had kept up its numbers during his ministry, heterodox if it had not. One minister avowedly an Arian, is reported on good authority to have told his flock, in anticipation of his decease, that his successor would be sure to preach a different gospel from that which they had heard from him, and to have recommended them if his fears should be 46 realised, to remove to the Independent chapel ; advice which how- ever few or none of them took. We of this generation have known men to die pastors of Independent congregations and thoroughly orthodox and evangelical, whose first settlements were over Presbyterian congregations, and who were chosen by them as being, at least as supposed to be, Arians. Perhaps they really were undecided to which party to belong, their consciences told them to take part with the Independents, but they did not like some of their Methodist ways, and preferred for personal intercourse the better bred and better educated men who called themselves Presbyterians. The generality of the contemporary ministers of this class ended as Socinians. Several congregations were preserved by a short supply of students from heterodox academies, and the consequent necessity of taking a man educated among Independents. Wymondley was first reverted to in these cases, at one time it was nearly neutral ground, and its orthodoxy was thought to hang on the life of one of the trustees. Homerton was next favoured. Hoxton was thought methodistical. In Ireland Arianism seems to have been avowed earlier than in England and to have maintained its ground to some degree in the presence of Socinianism. One of the ministers of the chapel in Eustace Street, Dublin, declared himself an Arian in the suit which will be referred to. Under these circumstances the intercommunion of Arian and Independent ministers gradually came to an end. In Dr. Dod- di-idge's time it was very much diminished, but he considered it a matter of duty that periodical meetings, at which the two con- nexions interchanged pulpits, should not be given up, and he printed a remonstrance on the subject. No doubt he thought that as long as there was any danger of a Stuart invasion the dissenters should be kept together in self-defence. He knew that another restoration would be followed by another persecution, if the Angli- can clergy could but gain sufficient power. Fortunately they could only continue the Test and Corporation Acts. The two suits in the " Court Chi'istian" brought against him for keeping an academy warned him what would be done if the parochial clergy of his time could have their way. Shortly after the falling away of so many of the Presbyterian congregations, the Independents received new life, and great accessions to their numbers, from the labours of Whitfield, and in some degree from those of Wesley. As the Independents are 47 the least organised of denominations, a congregation not led into any other system naturally follows theirs, if the communicants form themselves into a body distinct from the congregation. When once this distinction is made, in England at least, this conse- quence has always followed. Thus the bodies of English Calvinisti- cal Methodists, and of the Countess of Huntingdon's connexion have been converted into regular Independent churches. Of course the contact or influx of revivalist notions was not without influence on the spirit, public devotions, and habits of the Independents, and produced a still further separation between them and the Arianized Presbyterians. Some judgment may be formed of the dislike with which any new measures were regarded, from the manner in which Mr Walter Wilson, in his history of the London Congregations, refers to the modern Dissenters having be- come Methodists. This reproach however we may suppose has now nearly passed away. But what with Methodism in the one party and Socinianism in the other, all intercourse, much more all communion, between heterodox occupants of old meeting houses and Independents has long ceased. They perhaps still recollect the old relation as far as lending chapels in cases of re- building, and a Socinian without a chapel of his own opinion, if he determined to worship among Nonconformists, would generally give the preference, other things being equal, to the Indepen- dent Chapel. In civil matters the Independents are always glad to bring their numbers to the support of the more select body which the Socinians form, and members of Parliament of the latter body have never had heartier supporters than among the Calvinis- tic portion of the constituencies, for the bond of the common dissent was gladly acknowledged. Complaints have been made that this good feeling has not been returned when Independents were candi- dates. Surprise may be felt that an effort was not made to prevent the misappropriation of the chapels as soon as Arianism was avowedly preached in them. We have seen that in 1718 Mr Martin Tomkins was dismissed for Arianism from Stoke Newing- ton, as Mr Pierce and Mr Hallett were from Exeter. This no doubt checked the spread, or at any rate the avowal, of similar opinions in Presbyterian pulpits, for a considerable time. But by the time that the richer men among them had become so changed in their opinions, or so latitudinarian, that Arianism could be pro- fessed by a minister without risk of his dismissal by his congre- 48 gation, lax notions of religious doctrine had so far spread among the classes which furnish the Judges, that an information in support of Trinitarians, especially with Calvinistic relators, would have been a hopeless affair, supposing an attorney-general would have permitted the use of his name. This was just about the time that the numbers and influence of the Dissenters were at the lowest, although they were always the surest, perhaps almost the only sure, supporters of the Government. Besides it would have been diffi- cult to prove a charge of Arianism to the satisfaction of even a favourable judge. The variation from the old notions was slight at first, and the old language was retained, except a few forms of expression which were easily replaced by ambiguous ones and, as the Arians habitually omitted doctrine from their sermons it is difficult to see what evidence could have been given as to what they really believed. An Arian compelled by Chancery to declare his opinions would have been able with very little, if any, direct falsehood to answer in such a manner as not to convict himself of heterodoxy. Socinianism had not been openly preached in many chapels long before England had embarked in the war with revolutionary France, and then all the Dissenters were objects of suspicion and alarm to the King's ministers, and by no means favourites in the King's courts. In 1813 Parliament had become sufficiently enlightened to admit Anti-Trinitarians to the benefit of the Toleration Act, but Evangelical doctrines still remained under the stigma put upon them by the Act of Uniformity, and the additional unpo- pularity which they contracted when Whitfield and Wesley shocked all the feelings and prejudices of their age. At the beginning of the century Lord Eldon began his long and absolute supremacy in Chancery and the House of Lords, and his judicial character gave no encouragement to prefer claims founded, not on wills and deeds, but on the history of Dissenting sects. How could it be hoped that his lordship would have made up his mind what was evidence and what was not ? We shall see that even Lord Cot- tenham gave an Eldon-kind of judgment in the House of Lords ? How could he have been certain that he exactly knew what an En- glish Presbyterian was though he would have been sure to see the difference between him and a Scotch one ? Was it possible that he ever could have been satisfied that the old English Presby- terians were really extinct when so many were still known by that name in his native Northumberland ? Would he ever have made the effort necessary so far to set words aside as to give a 49 chapel called Presbyterian to Independents ? It no doubt ap- peared certain that he would decide that Socinians were not, but as certain that ' he would manage to avoid deciding who were, entitled to the meeting houses. We can readily believe that counsel and attorneys would despair of such a suit, however the clients might believe in truth and justice. Nevertheless when the war had been over two years, and the spirit of the English people generally was reviving, and there was more faith in what ought to be, and less acquiescence in what was wrongful, the litigation began, though Lord Eldon held the great seal, but it soon stopped, no doubt because he was sure in the last stage to be subjected to scruples and difficulties, which would have swarmed thicker than ever when appealed to by relators, who were at once Dissenters, Evangelicals, and Calvinists. It was resumed in 1830, singularly enough four days only after William the Fourth's accession, by which time it was felt that a new age had set in. The srround on which the Socinians rested their case was that at some time (which they did not fix) between the Restoration and the Revolution the practice of free enquiry on matters of religion became so entirely the one principle of the English Presbyterians, that their only wish, with regard to the chapels which they built, was to secure them to the congregations occu- pying them for the time, whatever opinions they might adopt. That they first set the example of a denomination not only shaking off human authority in religion, but divesting themselves of all ancestral prejudices, in order that they might ascertain for them- selves the real meaning of the Bible, apart from all traditionary interpretations of it. That they foresaw that the result of this spirit of enquiry would be that each succeeding generation, continuing the pursuit of truth in the same manner, would discard more and more of the doctrines then generally received. That accordingly a prepared- ness to receive new notions was the normal condition of their body. That, such being their state of mind, they were careful that their foundations and endowments should not prevent but promote such progressive enlightenment, and that they provided that this should be their effect, by omitting from their trust deeds all mention of doctrines, and merely declaring that their chapels were for Presbyterians, a name which, they say, of itself conveyed the notions just expressed, if they did not use the comprehensive term Protestant Dissenters, without any qualification. That 6 50 they would themselves, if living in a later generation, have adopted the opinions at the time most in advance of the old orthodoxy. That the Socinians of the nineteenth century were the true representatives, as in most cases they were the successors, of the English Presbyterians. That, according to all the principles of the last-mentioned body the congregation occupying a chapel could, without danger of dispossession, use it for the promulgation of any doctrines which they might adopt because it was their own affair and concerned nobody else. Indeed the Socinians found it necessary to make these assertions in reference to the founders of the old chapels and endowments, because it being clear that they were Trinitarians, the Court of Chancery was sure to hold that the doctrine of the Trinity must be fundamental, if they had any fundamental doctrine at all, and to prevent Anti-Trinitarians from enjoying their charities. There will be found in pamphlets and speeches on the Socinian side passages importing that the Presbyterians made the creed called the Apostles' Creed their standard of doctrine, and if that could have been made out, the Socinians would perhaps have carried their point, because (except as they very properly object to subscribe to any article of faith) they are always willing to subscribe that creed, as Mr Everett, the United States' Ambassador, did on being created Doctor of Laws at Oxford. But each such passage will be found at vari- ance with the other parts of the pamphlet or speech from which it is taken, for the Socinians of this century have never failed, in all their reasonings on the matter, to state the rejection of creeds as the great characteristic of the Presbyterians, not knowing or not telling that it had been derived from the Independents, who have never departed from it. No Presbyterian trust deed or other authoritative document, was produced referring to this creed as a standard, nor has any other use of it as such by that party been shown. Lady Hewley, in the rules she laid down for her hospital, required the almswomen to be able to repeat it, but the judges were of opinion that it was but reasonable to suppose that her ladyship, as almost everybody did in her day, agreed with Bishop Pearson, who, in his exposition, explained it as Trinitarian. We shall hereafter see what Mr Baxter thought of it, though it is from his unguarded expressions that the Socinians took the hint to put forward this creed as expressing their views. The fact that they can with any shew of plausibility do so suggests 51 many curious thoughts. If it had been used by the Presbyterians as a standard they would have left us many a treatise upon it, which would have decided the question in favour of Trinitarians. This position of the Socinian party will not be found consonant to what men have generally done in respect to religion, or in any degree supported by the history or writings of the Presbyterians. Even in our day when, according to all appearances, few of any party care or know much about dogmas, no man would have sufficient zeal for religion to endow it unless he had a strong preference for some particular form of it. However latitudinarian a man is, some method of worship suits his taste best, and some doctrine seems to him most correct, and most beneficial in its influ- ence over those who profess it, and he would devote his benefac- tions to support them, and would certainly wish to prevent his property from being employed to controvert or discredit them. A man adiaphorist to such a degree, and having an idea of Christianity so abstract, that no notion, though believed by himself, should seem essential to it, and no other notion, which he had heard or read of as maintained by other men, should in his opinion be incompatible with it, would not found a place of worship or in any wise endow religion, unless he did so in bitter hostility to it, or for some other evil purpose. He could not have any affection for Christianity if every congeries of fancies, which any set of men might agree to call by its name, was the same to him. And even if instances could be brought forward of an individ- ual man or woman here and there having indulged such a whim, we cannot suppose hundreds of congregations making it their only principle. A common faith is necessary as the bond of every non-established communion, or rather it is the condition and cause of its existence. Men associate to practise and teach what seems to them to be truth. A sect formed to seek truth would perish during the search. A single congregation may remain round a favourite preacher during such search on his part, if all circumstances are favourable, but the experiment would not be tried twice with any chance of success. The mere rejection of human authority is not a sufficient basis of a denomination. For that a positive belief is required. A protest against error is merely negative; it is not a faith and cannot take the place of one. When the Independents and Socinians met in their fierce contest both equally condemned the use of creeds, maintained that the Bible is the onlv rule and standard of faith, and asserted the 52 right of free enquiry and individual opinion. Nor were these the only points in which they agreed. They were both alike congre- gational, and opposed Episcopalians, and true Presbyterians, on the same grounds. They had the same views as to the ordinances called sacraments, and the ministerial character, and their form of worship was the same, except so far as the Socinians have adopted a liturgy. But it will be seen on examination, that the opinions in which they agreed were almost entirely negative, denying man's additions to what has been revealed, and although the points alluded to are those which have occasioned a very large proportion of ecclesi- astical strife, they both felt that notwithstanding agreement in all such matters, they were the very antipodes of each other. Each party held opinions which it regarded as vital truths ; but for the holding of those in common it would not have existed, and they only afforded a permanent bond, and created mutual sympathy. The Socinians who in theory regard mere opinions as non-essential, have the strongest tie of brotherhood in the ideas that separate them from the rest of Christendom. Yet as their theory is incon- sistent with this feeling they do not admit it to others, perhaps not even to themselves, and therefore cannot judge how other men feel it with regard to dogmas. Their system is what is called natural religion and, to whatever extent they may explain and exemplify it from the teaching and life of Christ, it can scarcely be treated as anything beyond philosophical theism. Christi- anity is regarded by all other believers as a revelation of miraculous facts, and of doctrines beyond the discovery of reason or perfect elucidation by it, and piety is the state of mind and habits of life which, by God's grace and under divine influences, result from faith in those facts and doctrines. The notion of religion without dogma is to them self- contradictory. The founders of their various com- munities, without pretending to infallibility, believed that they were in possession of truths necessary for salvation, and also that their respective notions of church government, methods of worship and preaching, and religious observances generally, gave them peculiar advantages in labouring to advance the kingdom of Christ, and this belief it was which induced them to organize their denominations and provide them with ministers and places of worship. The case of the English Presbyterians as we have seen was most singular ; they scarcely formed a separate body until after the Restoration, and on the Revolution they gave up all that was distinctive in their church government for that of the Inde- 53 pendents, except as they approximated to the open communion of the Establishment. If they had not only given up the Presby- fprian polity, but had also so far receded from the doctrines of their revered Assembly as to have renounced the idea, (underlying all creeds and articles), that there are fundamental truths in Christianity, and to have adopted instead of a faith the habit of questioning, upon every suggestion, any tenet they professed, they would not have burdened themselves to build chapels, and to raise yearly stipends in support of such a system of non-belief. At that time a new denomination was not needed in Eno-land to carry free enquiry into practice. The establishment then allowed its priests to preach any doctrine, so that they read the forms and observed the rubrics of the prayer book, and its laymen, so that they kept away from conventicles, might profess any kind of misbelief or disbelief without being interfered with by their fellow worshippers, or occasioning any serious scandal. No unestablished system could allow such license in ministers and people without coming to a speedy end, but must preserve to a great extent unity of belief, or it would be torn to pieces by internal dissensions, if its professors felt sufficient inter- est in it to endeavour to keep it up. A state church only, with its endowments, monopolies, and prestige, could insure such indiffer- ence to doctrine in the laity as to permit this license at least to the clergy. Accordingly we never find it among Socinians, for the defendants in the Wolverhampton case in their answer correctly stated their principle and practice to be that any person disagreeing with the congregation should leave it. Mr. Steward was dis- missed for his free enquiry, and so it has been in every case with a minister and must be so. Where any variety of opinion exists in a congregation each party views the minister as being, practically or in the main, on then side. Philosophic minds caring only either for their own liberty, or for the progress of others in free speculation, would carefully have avoided the trammels of a new voluntary sect, and would have hailed the Establishment as the best method for pro- moting the freedom of individual minds, and the mutual toleration of contrary opinions by men working together, which the constitution of things admits of. This is just the praise which thinking men in the state church at the present time claim for it. Newton and Locke, of whose heterodoxy the Socinians have, very excusably, made so much, found no reason to leave the Establishment, although they seem not to have made any secret 54 of their opinions. Clarke was by no means a rare instance of a known Arian dying in a national benefice. But in addition to these considerations, at the period to which these remarks apply the great latitudinarian divines who were reared in the free and invigorating times of the commonwealth and protectorate, and trained in the universities, then in their glory as to all matters connected with theology, were advancing to the high places of the church ; and when they failed in their scheme of a comprehension, they would have given such converts as the Presbyterians a heartier welcome to the national temples than would have been accorded to them at any other time. If the Presbyterians had been indifferent to their doctrinal principles they never would have subjected themselves to the penalties of nonconformity before the Revolution, nor would they have endured the disabilities and ill-will which the law and the state of public feeling alike perpetuated as the heritage of the Dissenters, even after they had obtained toleration. They could have had no other reason for building their chapels than that they might again hear for themselves, and might preserve as living- truths to the coming generations, those old doctrines which the Act of Uniformity had well nigh, though not to the whole extent which its authors intended and trusted, banished from the Establishment, but which had consoled themselves amidst all the miseries and vicissitudes of the civil war, and that persecution, which was all that the setting- up of the old institutions, though chiefly their work, had in store for them. It really is too much to tell us that these men foresaw that their form of belief was destined to crumble away piecemeal in a generation or two, and that their chapels were intentionally and carefully settled, so that each succeeding generation might use them to propagate any tenets which their congregations might decide. To any one who is acquainted with the accounts left of these Presbyterians by friends or enemies, or who has read their earnest writings, it is absurd to suppose that men of such precise and formal notions and habits, and such plainness and gravity of speech, could have been persuaded that all their thoughts and belief were on the point of being exploded by the spread of truth and knowledge. If they were convinced of any one thing it was that they were in possession of the truth for themselves, and were bound to take thought for its preservation after their own time. The chapels were built and the endowments made by laymen, 55 and it is clear that the laymen everywhere remained attached from conviction to the old faith long after students had returned from Findern or Daventry tainted with the heresies which were taught or permitted to be studied or discussed there. But we have not here to do with later times than those of William and Anne. There is no trace of any opposition to the clauses in the Toleration Act excepting Non-Trinitarians from the benefit of its provisions, on the contrary there is every reason to suppose they met with general support from the Dissenters. We have seen what reception Emlyn's candid preaching met with. In the common course of events most money is given in charity, certainly all very large benefactions are. made, by men and women when advanced in years, and when their opinions, if they have not changed their denomination, are those which were in vogue in it forty or fifty years before. In default of other evidence, and in the absence of disturbing circumstances, to know a man's opinions we should ascertain what his denomination believed when he was twenty-five. Let these rules be applied to Pres- byterian founders, and it is easy to decide whether their govern- ing principle was to preserve to the congregation the right to keep a chapel after adopting a form of belief contrary to that which they themselves had listened to. As the proposition relied on by the Socinians is utterly incon- sistent with the conduct generally pursued by men in matters of religion, and is entirely at variance with the character of the men with respect to whom it is asserted, we have a right to require the most convincing evidence of it. We may insist that the point shall be decided by the trust deeds. The old Presbyterians had among them both ministers and laymen of large experience in all matters relating to their denomination, and the bearing of English law as to religious foundations, and endued with all the sagacity which men acquire in civil war and revolution. They knew that the adiaphorist view of doctrines was not only new but opposed to the fundamental principles which had up to that time guided all ecclesiastical bodies alike, all, whether orthodox or heterodox, had agreed in regarding the faith professed in every new system as its soul, to which its founders must give oneness and vitality, if they wished their institution to be permanent. English judges so much regard fixedness and permanence as the cha- racteristics of English charities, that the clearest expressions would scarcely give trustees the right to make or sanction 56 a departure from the usage of the founders and their generation. It was matter of notoriety, and indeed of history, that the Pres- byterian body so far as it was developed in England during its short ascendancy, and still more so that the church called by the same name in Scotland during each period in which it had been dominant, had been distinguished among the Reformed communions by the minuteness and rigidity of their creed, the arro- gance with which they had claimed to be in exclusive possession of the truth, and the intolerance with which they had sought to prescribe even the thoughts of those who submitted to their sway. If by the Revolution their system of theology had undergone so radical a change that they then held that no doctrine of religion was essential, and that their congregations had a right to retain their chapels whatever opinions they adopted, they would have taken care to secure this right to them by the most explicit pro- visions. They would have seen that if they did not introduce into their deeds clear stipulations to this effect, their intentions would have been mistaken, and the courts would have decided that their foundations should perpetuate the rigid notions and intolerance of those who had previously borne their name in Eng- land. There had not been between the times that Presbyterian worship had been celebrated in the cathedrals and the time that the old meeting-houses were built, a sufficient period of liberty and quiet for any new system to have been laid down and observed. They would have been a'dvised that the law would take no account of any opinion which the few congregations meeting by stealth during the persecution had found it convenient to possess, or politic to adopt, and that the only Presbyterians which it would recognize would be those of the Long Parliament and the Westminster Assembly. Giving the power over a chapel to the seatholders for the time being would not have violated any rule of law, however novel such a provision might have been, as in legal intendment lawful doctrines and worship only would be contemplated. A body formed expressly to promote free enquiry, and caring chiefly to preserve the rights of future congregations, would have proclaimed their novel and startling opinions and in- tentions so fully and formally as to leave no doubts respecting them. Notwithstanding the Presbyterian chapels were built by hundreds, and were scattered all over the kingdom, and though there was no more concert or combination among: them than 57 among the congregationalist churches gathered at the same time, during all the litigation there was not brought forward a single trust deed which recognized the right of a congregation to change their opinions without forfeiting their right to the chapel ; and it is submitted that this circumstance is conclusive that the founders intended, as other founders have ever done, to promote their own opinions, and had no intention to leave their chapel at the discre- tion of the congregation for the time being, when by artifices of the minister, by the fatal corruption of the times, or by decay it had become changed from what they knew it. This intention if it had existed must have appeared in some one or other of docu- ments so numerous. Every deed which on examination is found to contain no reservation to the congregation of such a power adds greater weight to the argument than any previously produced. Nor can it be justly urged that evidence is obtained from testi- mony, not from silence. Negative evidence is furnished uncon- sciously, and is above suspicion. An assertion shows a wish to in- duce belief, and therefore a motive for misrepresentation. Infer- ences from what men would have done if they had had a particular intention, but did not do, produce the strongest conviction of the non-existence of that intention, and form no small portion of the common sense of mankind. Most of the trust deeds provide for the case of the worship they are designed to promote being again prohibited, many of them referring expressly and others unmistake- ably to the recent Toleration Acts, and if a power to vary the nature of that worship had been intended we may be sure it would have been restricted to the limits of the law. The supposition in which Lord Cottenham indulged, (in a debate which will be par- ticularly referred to), that illegal worship was intended by the founders of the old meeting-houses, is entirely at variance with all the evidence we have on the subject, and with all the publica- tions issued on the side of those who instructed his lordship. That a congregation avowedly Arian might assemble without danger is shown by the formation of such under Emlyn and Pierce, and no evidence whatever has been given that by 1 720 the occupants of any one of the old meeting houses iu England had, as a body, become secretly heterodox. The vagueness of the terms employed in the trust deeds of the old meeting-houses, and particularly their silence in reference to doctrines, has been insisted on as proof that the chapels were not intended to be dedicated to the support of any particular system 7 58 of divinity. The answer is that there was no need to say what doctrines were intended to be promoted, because there was no diversity of opinion among the Nonconformists of that day, for with the exception of the small number of General Baptists they all were Trinitarians and Calvinists. The old faith of the Puri- tans had come out of the persecution unchanged (except that it had become allied with tolerance), while all the heterodox sects which swarmed in the ignorance produced by the overthrown prelacy had perished, with the exception of the Quakers. This consideration seems to have relieved the Presbyterians from all apprehension of danger to their faith in the future. They trusted to carefully training and testing their ministers, and to the noble catechism composed by the divines who assembled at the call of the Long Parliament. The importance which they attached to their theological system, in all its completeness and sternness, was shown by the care with which they taught this summary of it. It could not occur to them that, with the testimony borne to the truth by every page of their history, and with all the volumes reiterating their faith, with all the formality of the school- men, or all the fervour of the Reformers, there could be any doubt as to the doctrines which they intended their foundations to promote. They did not refer to the Assembly's confession, for they could not think it would ever be strange to the lips of those who should worship within their chapels, much less did they anticipate that any question could be raised as to the importance which they themselves attached to the truths it embodied. It must not, however, be supposed that the English Presby- terians have not in any of the deeds or wills, by which they founded or endowed chapels or schools, left indications as to the faith which they designed their property to promote, or that any precautions of that kind have deterred Socinian trustees from employing the chapel or the school to teach their own opinions instead of the founders'. In documents relating to schools at Kenilworth, Knowsley, and Piatt, the Assembly's Catechism is directed to be taught, and the trust deeds of the chapels -at Cockey Moor, Knowsley, Piatt, and Foxteth Park Liverpool, or of endowments connected with them, declare a trust for dissenters holding the doctrinal articles of the the Church of England. All those places are or have been in the hands of Socinian s, and it is needless to say without the articles being followed or the cate- 59 chism being taught. One single instance of this kind known to that denomination, and not protested against and remedied, must evince or produce a laxity of principle for which we should not be prepared, if religious endowments did not seem everywhere to paralyse the conscience in one way or another. With regard to church government, the Presbyterian founders of the old meeting-houses, really put in practice no distinctive principles, and there was no reason for their being more explicit in their trust-deeds. They had abandoned Presbyterianism, and adopted in great part the methods of their former rivals, the Independents. They had done more; they had entered into a union with them which, though broken up in London, continued throughout the rest of the kingdom in complete efficiency durino- the whole chapel-building period; and notwithstanding this separa- tion, a London congregation was considered Presbyterian or Independent according to the Board of Ministers to which its pastor for the time being attached himself. It is easy to shew that the choice by a congregation of either of these denominations of a pastor belonging to the other of them involved no sacrifice of principle, and no important variation of practice on either part. Open communion, as in the Establishment, was not practised among the Presbyterians of the time of the revolution. The communicants were admitted by the minister alone, or by the minister and elders. In many cases they signed a church covenant containing their faith and pledging them before God and each other to maintain it. Oliver Heywood tried this plan at Coley, •while he held a national benefice, but could not succeed. The plan was carried out when the voluntary principle was adopted. When once admitted the communicants seem to have been a recognized body, apart from the congregation, they so far formed a church, though they seem to have had no church power. An Independent becoming their pastor could pro- pose or mention to them when assembled admissions to the communion, so as to satisfy himself and substantially carry out his own principles. A Presbyterian pastor of an Independent church by stating to church meetings, (which for the most part would be devotional services only), what he had done as to matters of government, would in most cases satisfy a church of the first, or at any rate of the second, generation after the stiff and unyielding congregationalists of Cromwell's time. This last state of things is what has happened in several Inde- 60 pendent churches in modern days, without further notice being taken of it than the remark that the minister went on the Presbyte- rian system, and it arises whenever the minister takes upon himself to admit to the church. Indeed the manner in which many Independent churches, flourishing alike in good works virtues and numbers, have regulated admissions by referring all enquiries connected with them to a small cii-cle of deacons and senior mem- bers, always selected by the pastor, has occasioned some persons to express doubts whether those churches ever really acted in such matters. Certainly their proceedings were very different from those of the first churches of the order, or of the more democratic ones of our day, especially among Baptists. It is not intended to insinuate a reproach against the churches referred to, for every function was more effectively discharged, and every object more perfectly secured, in them than in more pragmatical ones, but only to repeat what rigid congregationalists said of them. The practice of a minister of one of these denominations becoming pastor of a church belonging to the other of them, has long been habitual in the United States. There a Presbyterian minister chosen by an Independent church joins the Congregational Association, and an Independent becoming the minister of a Presbyterian con- gregation is admitted a member of the Presbytery of the Bounds. In both cases all church matters go on as if the congregation had a pastor of their own church order. Nor must it be sup- posed that in the Independent churches there is the inquisi- tion into personal belief which has been represented. A man may be by conviction an Episcopalian or a Presbyterian, and yet be a very good church member ; a deacon of Dr. Fletcher's church had been and still described himself as a Lutheran minister. An Arminian would not be rejected, and the expression of exact Athanasianism is not insisted on, although a person deny- ing the deity of Christ would not be received. Nor do any leading churches insist upon requirements in proof of personal religion which any one who really desired to enter into their fellowship could fairly pronounce unnecessary. Yet they are represented by the Socinian as destructive of spiritual liberty and individuality, and by the rigid Presbyterian as hotbeds of heresy and discord. These contradictory charges destroy each other's credibility, exactly as a contrast of the portraitures by the same parties of the first Presbyterians, and an examination of the arguments by which they arc supported, proves that the modern 61 Independent is the nearest approach to the English Presbyterian of the time of Queen Anne which can be discovered or even imagined. Slight changes in either party would make them identical. Many of the old meeting-houses were built before the circum- stances here detailed had become matters of experience, but the principles which eventually produced them were in full and conscious operation, and therefore in some cases the trust deed declared that the chapel was for the use of Protestant Dissen- ters, with the intention that one or other of the two systems should be adopted as might be determined subsequently, and might be afterwards changed again if this appeared best. As we have seen bodies of both communions originally joined in form- ing a congregation and building a chapel, or subsequently coalesced, and no doubt, in these cases more often than in others, ministers were chosen from either party indiscriminately. In some deeds, very likely in most, " Presbyterian" is used as syno- nymous with " Protestant Dissenter" but it may well be that in many it was used to denominate Presbyterians as distinguished from Independents, but even then the Presbyterianism it denoted was practically Congregationalism, and might be preserved and properly administered under the pastorate of an Independent. But whether the term was used in the stricter or more compre- hensive sense in respect to church government, from 1688 to 1720 it conveyed to everyone acquainted with Nonconformist matters the additional notion of Calvinist and Trinitarian, for no other kind of Presbyterian congregations had then been known unless it were Emlyn's, if indeed he called by .that name the small and shortlived body which he gathered under the dis- favour of all others so denominated. In accordance with these statements land at Hapton Norfolk was in 1722 conveyed as the site of a meeting-house for Dissenters of the persuasions called Presbyterian or congregational. The earliest deeds relating to the chapel in Angel Street Worcester which are held by the congregation, (the previous ones were expired or surrendered leases under the Corporation), speak of it as Pres- byterian or Congregational. A congregation at Marshfield Glouces- tershire was in 1699 called Independent, in a later trust deed it is called Independent or Presbyterian. In a deed of J 71 0 relating to a chapel at Windle, Lancashire, the expression occurs, " Pres- byterian ministers usually so called in a large sense as compre- 62 hendino- Protestant ministers dissenting from the Church of England." In a deed of 1719 relating to a chapel at Norwich, Lancashire, the words used are, " ministers such as are usually termed Protestant Dissenting Ministers or Presbyterian Ministers.-" If it is asked why the denomination retained the name of Presbyterian, after having given up the polity so called, it may be answered, that the word originally conveyed no other idea than that of the parity of all ministers of the Gospel, in opposition to the system of prelacy, just as that word indicates the contrary notion, and that they saw no reason why they should resign a name which was descriptive of the main principle for which they contended. So far as published accounts go, the trust deeds of the Independent chapels built within the twenty years following the passing of the Toleration Act did not contain any provisions as to the doctrines to be preached in them ; and what is more singular, the Trinitarian seceders from Presbyterian congregations were not more precise and careful with reference to the chapels which they founded. It will not be pretended that these seceders, or the first Independents, were not sufficiently zealous for their opinions, and as they did not specify doctrines in their deeds, no inference can be drawn from similar silence in those of Presbyterians of indiffer- ence to the matter on their part. The practice of both the Presby- terians and the Independents shows that they trusted to the rule of law, that the simplest form of trust for the benefit of a particular denomination is tantamount to a detailed statement of the princi- ples and practices, especially the doctrines, by which it is charac- terized. Can it be denied that a trust for the Establishment is just as definite as if the prayer book was expressly referred to and so incorporated with the deed ? All particulars which have been stated in the foregoing pages in reference to the Presby- terians were certain and ascertainable by the Court of Chancery and therefore were sure to be established by it in respect of their meeting-houses, and there was no need to express or refer to them. Knowing that this was the case the Socinians found themselves under the necessity to lay down the position now being discussed, that the Presbyterians did not hold any particular doctrine, whatever its nature, to be essential to Chris- tianity. The deeds of the old meeting-houses afforded no proof to this effect, but conclusive negative evidence to the contrary ; 63 they therefore brought forward none of the deeds in their power, but turned to the works of distinguished men of that body whom they would fain liken to themselves. The chapel building period, as already mentioned, is most correctly stated as the twenty years following the passing of the English Toleration Act of 1689, and 1710 may be taken as the close of it. It happened also that the date of Lady Hew- ley's last foundation was 1707. She seems to have advised with her trustees as to her charities, and to have been particularly guided by Dr. Colton, her own minister, and the Rev. Richard Stretton, of Haberdasher's Hall, London, both leading men in the Presbyterian denomination and the general matters connected with it, so that her foundations may fairly be supposed to have been intended to support Presbyterianism, as it then existed in England, and not any peculiar notions of her own. Accordingly it was admitted by both parties in the litigation that the point was to ascertain the opinions of the Presbyterians during the latter part of her life. The Socinians brought together all the quota- tions from Presbyterian authors which seemed to them to suit their purpose, and interwove with them a narrative and argumen- tative statement placing every circumstance in the light in which the}'' would wish it seen, and giving such a comment upon every quotation as favoured their side of the question. This com- pilation was prepared for the hearing in the House of Lords, printed in folio, and entitled in the cause as if one of the appeal papers. The cover bore in addition, " Historical Proofs and Illus- trations." The title page stated the Proofs to be no part of the case. The counsel for the appellants quoted it without remark as if authoritative, but one sentence from Mr Knight Bruce put it upon its proper footing, and if it was afterwards referred to without fur- ther question or objection, so also was Mr Joshua Wilson's book, which, singular to say, was as efficient a corrective of the quota- tions in the folio pamphlet, as it was of the two previous octavo pamphlets, in reply to which it had been published.- These Proofs are therefore to be considered as the final authorita- tive statement of the Socinians' case, published to justify the morality of their claims, by historical evidence apart from technical reasons. They also formed their counsels' brief as to this part of the case. It is therefore only fair to state the pith of them here, and it is hoped that the reader will not complain of the space which that statement will occupy, as it will enable him to judge for him- 64 self of the whole matter. He will read the words of the old Presbyterians which the Socinians relied on, and he will find their comments still more instructive. He is urged to weigh every word of every sentence contributed by the compilers of the case, for they all were carefully chosen, if not to convey a definite meaning, to produce one particular impression, and the most pregnant infer- ences are to be drawn from the matter and the manner of them. The part devoted to the main argument is given with- out the omission of any quotation or remark which appeared to carry the statement of the case or the reasoning upon it further than what had gone before it, and all other sentences which seemed to bear upon the question discussed in these pages will be extracted in their entirety. Object and General View of what is Meant to be Shewn.* — The grounds on which the trustees appeal are set forth in the appellants' case, but as it was inconvenient if not impossible to set forth in that case the body of historical evidence respecting the opinions of that portion of the Nonconformist body to which Lady Hewley, the foundress belonged ; — opinions which it is submitted are wholly incon- sistent with a decree which fetters religious enquiry, precludes the free study of scripture and in fact imposes a creed on those whose first prin- ciple it was that they would have no creed ; opinions also which led as their natural and foreseen consequence to the state in respect of doctrine in which the trustees and the ministers who are deprived now stand ; — the present supplementary document has been prepared ; in which it is proposed to set forth, from the writings of persons best qualified to afford the information which is here required, passages showing the spirit and opinions of the persons by and for whom these trusts were established ; which may serve to guide those who have to adjudicate upon it to a just determination of this very important question, p. 4. Tt may be observed in limine that it is not intended to show that Lady Hewley in 1704 and 1707 was reckoned among the persons who in those days were called Unitarians. There is in fact not sufficient evidence to show what her opinions were in respect of the mystery of the Trinity, or of the doctrines connected with it; nor is there sufficient evidence to shew what were her opinions on the point ot Original Sin or the doctrines which are connected with the Fall. " In iact it is submitted that there is an utter failure of proof of the opinions * The passages in smaller type are extracts from the Proofs, though not marked by inverted commas, which are used only to distinguish quotations in the Proofs. A few words of connexion, and digests of quotations are interspersed, but all statements in smaller type, either of facts or opinions, are from the Proofs. 65 on points of controverted theology which this lady held ; while from the comprehension of her charity, and the wide dispersion of her alms, which were scattered liberally within the pale of the church itself, as well as among the Dissenters from it, there is every ground of presumption that her mind did not dwell so much on the points on which Christians differ, as on those in which they are agreed. It is however submitted that there is a deficiency of evidence as to what really constituted the theological creed of the foundress ; not using evidence in its technical sense, as applicable to what has been introduced in former stages of this proceed- ing, but allowing it to represent everythiug that can now be recovered respecting her opinions. It is equally impossible at this distance of time to determine what were the precise opinions on points of controverted theology of the ministers and other gentlemen to whom she committed the administration of the trust at the beginning ; though we shall after- wards see that they were not the strenuous supporters of orthodox senti- ment, but the favourers of those who were declining and had declined from it. It is not however contended conceiming them that there is evidence that they were in theological opinion what is now accounted Unitarian, or precisely what their more immediate successors were. What is contended for is this, (1) That they, and the body of Christians to which they belonged, did not lay that stress upon points of faith which is implied in the decisions that have been pronounced ; that they looked more to an elevated piety of heart, and to a comprehensive charity and benevolence, than to the propagation and support of any particular theological dogmas ; and sought rather to induce in the world the spirit aptly expressed in the words of the prophet, by ' doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly;' or in those of the apostle, ' Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world ; ' than a zeal for any speculative point of faith or any particular view of the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles ; and that their intent therefore may be said to be satisfied if the trustees are administering their bounty with regard to those objects, united with the reception of the divine mission of Christ, and the authority of the Holy Scriptures. And further (2) That at the date of these foundations, that spirit of freedom which had actuated the body in all periods of its history, which had repudiated the authority of Bishops, and broken down the royal prerogative, manifested itself in the new position in which they were placed by the Acts of Uniformity and Toleration, in a resistance to the imposition of confessions of faith, and everything that bore the appearance of placing a yoke on men's consciences, or fettering them in their investigation of scripture truth; and that they adopted in its fullest extent the principle which is so connected with the name of 8 66 Chillingworth, that to the Bible only should a Protestant subscribe. And further (3) That in carrying out this principle there was in the Dissenting body, the contemporaries of Lady Hewley and her original trustees, a wide departure in many from opinions commonly called orthodox, and a very general reception of opinions, in which the doctrines of the Trinity and Original Sin, as commonly professed, find no place ; so that if the decision pronounced by the Vice Chancellor rests on a just view of the intent of the foundress, the trustees and beneficiaries nearly at the beginning ought to have been removed by a decree of the Court : though in fact no appeal was ever made to the Court on this subject while the founders, [qu. foundress] the original trustees, and their next successors were living, but has been reserved to this distant day, when the evidences of intent it is so much more difficult to recover. For the right understanding of this great question it is important to keep in mind that in the Nonconforming body there were two distinct parties, the Presbyterians and the Independents, (or Congregationalists as they sometimes styled themselves). Whoever is acquainted with the history of those times knows that these were rival and hostile parties from the beginning. Their objects and intents were different. The Independents were to the Presbyterians what the Dissenters generally now are to the Establishment. But as Churchmen sometimes now act with Dissenters for public objects common to both parties, so the Presby- terians acted with the Independents for objects common to both, and in 1691 an attempt was made at a former [qu. formal] union. But still each party had its own peculiarities and separate existence. In one important respect, however, the Presbyterians in general came to adopt the notions of the Independents. When their hope of seeing a Presbyterian hierarchy established was become extinct, they adopted the Independent mode so far as to have each of their congregations independent and separate, managing its own affairs without acknowledging any right of interference anywhere ; and the assemblies or meetings of the ministers, which began in 1691 and were generally kept up, wearing some appearance of Presbyterian discipline, were merely voluntary and powerless asso- ciations. The great distinction then came to be in their notions of the comparative value of faith and practice, and of authoritative creeds and proper freedom of inquiry. Both originally, that is before the Act ot Uniformity, professing a creed which embodied Calvinistic sentiments, the Independents generally continued to adhere to that creed, and .to lay stress upon its doctrines, while the Presbyterians as generally relinquished that creed, opposed themselves to all creeds, except perhaps the simple formula of the Apostles' Creed, maintained that subscription should be required to nothing but the Scriptures, and placed piety and virtue before and above the disputed points of faith. There were 67 persons lying on the confines of each party who symbolized with the other party ; that is, some Presbyterians, remaining more disposed to orthodoxy than the majority in the congregations to which they be- longed, withdrew themselves and joined the Independents, and some of the Independents, less orthodox than the majority in their congrega- tions, joined the Presbyterians. • Also some few whole congregations of Independents abandoned their original principle of adherence to the Calvinism of the Assembly's Catechism ; and some Presbyterian con- gregations remained orthodox ; but what has now been said may be taken as the general view of their relative position, pp. 6-8. After quotations relating to the separation from the Pinners' Hall lecture it is said : Arminianism was certainly the first step taken by those who quitted the strict faith of the old Nonconformists. But at the very earliest period, when we learn that Arminianism was making progress we find it jealously watched as connected with a tendency to further laxity, even to Socinianism. p. 8. It is of importance to observe the date of these controversies which prevented the coalescence of the two principal bodies of the Nonconfor- mists, and gave us two great sections, the one with a leaning forwards from the doctrines which had formerly been common to the whole towards the point of Unitarianism, the other backwards towards the point of Antinomianism. It was in 1694, that is ten years before the date of Lady Hewley's first foundation, p. 10. Next follow testimonies as to the enlarged spirit of the early Pres- byterians, 1689-1709, here postponed to the end of the extracts. General Relaxation op Doctrinal Opinion. — That Lady Hewley did not intend to bind down the future recipients or administrators of her bounty to any particular system or creed, is to be argued not only from the spirit of charity, liberality, and moderation, which distinguished the Presbyterian section of the nonconforming body at the time her foundations were made, but from the then state of the Christian world, and from two great and commanding principles which the Presbyterian ministers and laymen of those times had generally admitted. These two principles were, The duty of resistance to authority in matters of religion, and The duty of receiving nothing but the Scriptures as the rule of men's faith and practice. The era of the earlier Presbyterian foundations, which we may fix at from 1689 to 1709, was a period when the minds of men were beginning to regard with great distrust the conclusions at which many of the early Reformers had arrived, especially the Calvins and Bezas of the Geneva school, without going back to the controversies at the dawn of the Reformation, or even to the Remonstrant controversy in Holland, or to 68 the Calvinian and Arininian controversy in the Church of England in the time of Archbishop Laud, it is indisputable that the writings of Grotius, and after him of Le Clerc, upon the continent, had begun to produce a very sensible effect on the protestant section of the Christian world ; to show the difficulties which environed truths which in the age before had been thought unquestionable ; and to give increase of confidence to those few persons, who, in the seventeenth century had fancied that they perceived in what is called the Socinian view, the true view of the Gospel of Christ. England had not been without divines who had thrown aside the Calvinian system, and ^xposod themselves to the charge of Socinianism. Such men as Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Chillingworth, and Hales of Eton had contended for the liberty of private interpretation, and at the same time had presented to the world notions of Christian truth which, to say the least, are very different from those embodied in the Assembly's Catechism, which in 1644 was the symbol of faith which the Presbyterians had sent forth, or in the Savoy Confession, the symbol of the Independents. Even Baxter was charged, (as Calamy states), with a leaning to Socinianism ; and in the disputes of 1694 this charge was openly made against the Presbyterian party in general. Objections to Baxter's theological statements had early emanated from no less a person than Dr. John Owen, (the great Independent leader of the 17th century), author of Vindicise Evangelicse, written in confutation ol Biddle's Arian Catechism, just published. And to say the truth, Baxter's later statement of the doctrine of the Trinity was far from being conceived in a strictly orthodox form ; inclining to a sort of Sabellianism. He speaks on the subject thus : ' The Trinity of persons is such as is no way contrary to the perfect unity of the divine essence ; as the faculties of motion light and heat in the sun, and of vital activity intellection and volition in man, is not contrary to the essence of the soul. Yet man is not so perfectly one as God is.' Practical Works, edit. 1707, Vol. IV., 630. Pp. 21-22. The effect of the relaxation alluded to was to produce in the church a body of men of whom Tillotson may be taken as the type ; men who, though not to be justly charged with having renounced the doctrine of the Trinity, in some form in which it may be professed ; yet did not regard it as in that supreme position that the reception of it was essen- tial to the profession of ihe Holy Gospel of Christ. Locke, in his Reason- ableness of Christianity as delivered in the Scriptures, first published in 1695, had presented a scheme of Christian truth very unlike that of the exclusive party among the Dissenters, with whom his defence of their Toleration had made him popular, and had given no small weight of authority amongst them to his other writings. He was broadly and openly treated as an Arian, if not a Socinian, by his numerous oppon- 69 ents, while among the Presbyterians he was very popular, and was eminently influential in giving a decided turn to their disposition for relaxation of the ancient creed. His exposition of the writings of St. Paul had opened what was almost a new view of sacred criticism, entirely opposed to the Calvinistic views of the early Nonconformists, yet a view which at once commanded the assent of tbe enlightened part of the religious public ; and the new and important principles recently unfolded in his Essay on the Human Understanding, first published in 1690, had taught men to know better than they had known befoi'e how to seek truth, and what are the means given us by our Creator for the purpose. Even the Baconian philosophy may be said to have begun by that time to extend its influence into the region of theological inquiry, p. 22. Persons who were attached to the old system brought from Geneva lamented the effect produced by this state of things, regarding it as the decay of Christian piety ; while others, and among them were the moderate part of the dissenting body, regarded it as the purifying of Christianity from corruptions which it had suffered, [and] as the begin- ning of the reign of Christian truth and freedom, and considered such men as Tillotson as the finest models of the Christian divine. Burnet and Hoadley, and even Atterbury, may be regarded as belonging to this more rational school of divinity, men whose writings present a most remarkable contrast to those of the ministers of the puritan body in the age before them. pp. 22, 23. In such a state of things a foundation made by one who looked with alarm upon this new aspect of the theological world, which was intended to encourage and support those who then, and in the time to come, were to be the guides of the people to the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus, could not have failed to contain some clause that would lay a res- traint on that freedom of research, which was producing effects by the earnestly orthodox thought deplorable ; and the just inference seems to be, that if in such a state of things such foundations are made, and no such provision is found in them, that it was not the intention of the founder to lay restraints on the men who were to be benefited ; but that while he assured generally by the words 'Christ's Holy Gospel' that the preachers should be preachers of Christ, he left the particular mode in which Christ should be preached, and his Gospel understood, to the discretion and convictions of each generation of ministers, as it arose. But even that particular doctrine, which in this cause is assumed to be one regarded by the founder as of vital importance, and the reception of it indispensable in both the administrators and recipients of this charity, was in that age openly brought into question ; and the prepara- tion was laid for that renunciation of it, which, as we shall see, soon 70 afterwards took place. It was in fact the great controversy of the age. The dispute respecting the Trinity, in which South and Sherlock were engaged, belongs to this period. This dispute opened men's eyes to the difficulties which attend any explication of the doctrine. The same period is the age of Firmin, (a friend of Tillotson, though the great and active Unitarian of his day), who was remarkable at once for his extensive bounties, and for the zeal with which he sought to correct the public mind in reference to the doctrine in question. The Socinians of that time took advantage of the discussions going on in the church respecting it, to show the difficulties attending it, and numerous were the pamphlets which were printed and circulated. It was in the midst of all this that these foundations were made. p. 23. These controversies not only brought the doctrine of the Trinity into question, but the faith of many serious and religious persons in it was shaken. Emlyn, a Presbyterian minister in 1702, avowed that he had renounced the doctrine, and become a Unitarian, (of the Arian division). Winston, the professor of mathematics in the University of Cambridge, made in 1710 the same avowal, and had in fact, written in favour of Unitarian opinions as early as 1703. And in 1712 Dr. Samuel Clarke published his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, which was condemned as being no Trinity at all ; a book calculated to produce great effect on a body of men, who prided them- selves on looking to the Scriptures as the great source of just informa- tion concerning everything that was to be received as a doctrine of Christianity. From that time Anti-Trinitarian sentiment spread rapidly through the Presbyterian body. Presbyterian Opposition to Creeds, &c. — Here then comes in the importance of paying attention to the principle which pervaded the Presbyterian body at the period of these foundations, of opposition to human authority, however ancient and venerable — to any other authority than that of Scripture ; or as Mr Hallam well expresses it, ' The dislike ' to all subscriptions of faith and compulsory uniformity.' Constitutional History, Yol. III., 237, 2nd edition. In like manner we must attend to the fact that they had no articles, no creeds, no confessions of faith whatever. Their position was, ' We do not profess to dissent from this doctrine or that, but we wish enquiry to have free course. We are confident that research in the books of Holy Scripture must, if anything, bring forth eventually the truth, or. at least, that the Scriptures are the only pure source of divine truth. What it is, we do not pretend absolutely to affirm ; but escaped ourselves from the tyranny of the Calvinistic creed in which we were educated, having found its errors in some points of great importance, we will not lay 71 restraints on the freedom of future enquiry ; but confident that the truth must ultimately prevail, we will leave the result to God.' Quotations then follow from the following works : Protestant Dissenter's Catechism. 13th edition, 1807, p. 24. Rev. Micaiah Towgood ; Minister from 1722 to 1782. Dissent from the Church of England fully Justified. 6th edition, p. 5 ; first pub- lished, 1746. The History of Dissenters, by Dr. Bogue and Dr. Bennett. Vol. I, pp. 292, 295, 299, 303, 308. Earlier Testimonies. Dr. John Taylor, who entered on his ministry in 1715. Defence of the Common Rights of Christians ; 2nd edition, 1742. pp. 17, 19. Rev. Samuel Bourn, minister at Birmingham from 1732 to 1754. Catechism and Recommendation. [See p. 35 supra.]* Rev. John Newman, of London, Funeral Sermon for the Rev. John Barker, 1735. p. 24. Dr. W. Harris, of London, Funeral Sermon for the Rev. Samuel Harvey, 1729-30. pp. 81, 82. Rev. "William Baker, Funeral Sermon for the Rev. John Walker, 1724. pp. 17, 30, 31. Dr. Grosvenor, of London, Funeral Sermon for John Deacle, Esq., 1723. p. 18. Dr. Jabez Earle, of London, Sermon at Ordination of Mr William Hunt, 1725. pp. 9-11. Rev. Clerk Oldisworth, Confession of Faith at his Ordination, 1720-1. Dr. Obadiah Hughes, of London, Confession of Faith at his Ordina- tion, 1720-21. Miscellaneous Testimonies of earlier date, and therefore perhaps of greater weight. Rev. John Howe quoting Bishop Davenant, which will be given in a subsequent page. Rev. Joseph Hallett, of Exeter, Reflections, 1720. p. 16. Rev. James Pierce of Exeter, Sermon on Charity, extracted from Evans's Preservative, &c. pp. 152, 153. Reflections upon Dean Sher- lock's Vindication of the Corporation and Test Acts, 1718. p. 45. * The extract from the recommendation reads oddly in reference to a Catechism. " The Three Catechisms here published by our Eeverend Brother Mr Samuel Bourn we have perused, and can heartily recommend to the use of our fellow Christians, it is a pleasure to us that we find in them no addiction to particular schemes or human systems of divinity ; but the word of God and the nature of tilings are attended to through the whole with an unbiassed freedom ; nor is a party spirit in the least encour- aged, butjfche religion of Christ is laid before young people in its original simplicity and native beauty, free from adulterations and mixtures." 72 Rev. Henry Grove, of Taunton, who died in 1737, Sermons. Vol. II., p. 420. Preface p. 39. Dr. John Evans, of London, Funeral Sermon for Dr. Daniel Williams, 1716. p. 41. The Rev. John Shower, of London, Funei'al Sermon for Dr. Nehemiah Grew, 1712. pp. 16, 20. Dr. Samuel Wright, of London, Sermon ' To be everywhere spoken against considered,' preached 1712. 'A Scripture religion — 17 lines — to walk in his name.' The grounds of Nonconformity as stated by Baxter in his Life. Rev. Edward Calamy's Abridgment, vol. I., 236 to 24-5. Calamy ibid, vol. Ill, p. xv. xi. Comfort and Counsel to Protestant Dissenters, 1712. p. 36, 37. An account of Dissenters annexed to ordination sermon in 1717. ' As for religion they agree in making the Holy Scriptures the standard of faith, worship, and discipline ; disowning any power of men under any pretence whatever of framing or imposing any new articles of faith or new modes of worship.' The Rev. Timothy Jollie, the tutor of an academy for the education of ministei-s, and himself a very eminent and influential minister in the very county in which Lady Hewley lived, in the funeral sermon for his father, 1704, who had been ejected in 1662, speaks of the Dissen- ters as persons ' who had reserved to themselves a liberty to reform according to Scripture rule in doctrine, discipline, and worship.' It may to most of these testimonies be objected that they are sub- secpient to the date of these foundations ; but though in mere date of publication they may be subsequent, they are the testimonies of men most of whom lived at, and long before, the time when these foundations were made, for whom they were made, who had been educated and had formed their opinions long before, and whose principles were those of the founders, who were even themselves active instruments in the work of founding. • No one can believe, nor is there the slightest ground for suspicion, that these venerable ministers, all in full career of usefulness, took up any new or sudden scheme of opinion or sentiment. They spoke the matured opinion and feeling of their body. We have for- tunately in the case of Mr Bury [in the postponed section] evidence that the opinions he so freely avowed at the period from which most of our testimonies are taken, and which may be objected to as late, were the same as he, and no doubt his brethren around him, held also in 1702 ; and it is probable that nothing but the remoteness of the period deprives us of direct evidence as to the opinion of many others ; with regard to whom we are left to the general conclusions of probability, to be drawn from their education, and from the gross improbability that opinions so generally and openly avowed were of any recent and sudden growth. Now it is submitted that the effect of the decree of the Court below would in fact be to defeat and destroy the principle for which the founders so jealously contended, and on which Protestant dissent by the confession of all parties is based, pp. 31, 32. The quotation from Calamy given in full expresses the same meaning as all the others, and it is difficult to see why it should be pronounced remarkable. Of the authors cited, and also the minis- ters to whom the funeral sermons relate, all except Towgood, Dr. Taylor, Bourn, Hallett, Pierce, and Grove, were not only orthodox, but thoroughly evangelical men; and the heterodox portion were Arian only. Pierce described himself, Mr Joshua Wilson says, as a moderate Calvinist. Newman and Barker were subscribers at Salters' Hall. The latter afterwards resigued his charge considering himself bound in honour to do so, on account of a change in his opinions, though that did not extend to his doubting the proper deity of Christ. Drs. Harris, Grosvenor, Wright, and Evans, were non-sub- scribers, but according to Mr Walter Wilson were all thoroughly orthodox. Oldsworth was also a non-subscriber, he died very soon after his ordination, and very little is known of him. Singularly enough the first and last quotations and the fullest . statement of nonconformist principles here given, are from Inde- pendents; for Samuel Palmer, the author of the Protestant Dissenter's Catechism, and both the Jollies, the preacher and the subject of the sermon quoted, were all of that body, although it is represented in the Proofs as the opposite of the free and liberally-minded Presbyterians. So also the manner in which the History of the Dissenters by Dr. Bogue and Dr. Bennet, also Independents, was quoted in the Proofs and in the courts, is a high testimony to the correctness of its statements, the fairness of its comments, and its adherence to the true principles of English Nonconformity. The quotation from Mr Jollie must not pass without the remark that the doctrine there referred to as needing reformation was the Arminianism of which Laud had been the chief promoter, if he had not introduced it. Public Occasions op Assertion by the Presbyterians op theik Principle ; and first as to Subscription. We are not to expect authoritative declarations of this or of any principle to be issued from 9 74 the English Presbyterian body in its collective character, like the con- fessions of the early Protestant churches, for the English Presbyterians were not so bound together in church fellowship, nor had they any delegates or representatives, any synod or presbytery who might consult together for the common rule or government and promulgate declarations and decrees for the genei'al conduct of the body. They started on the passing the Act of Toleration without any such union delegation or authority. Indeed the very circumstance that they were held together in a bond of free interpretation of Scripture, the bond of the purest and most perfect Christian liberty, rendered it all but impos- sible for them to establish among themselves such an authority, or to give to any body elective delegatory power to promulgate rules for their internal government, as it manifestly also made it impossible for them consistently to promulgate confessions or articles to be believed. What- ever there was of this kind was but occasional and accidental, arising out of particular circumstances, and of these in the whole course of their history, only two instances are to be found. In these instances, how- ever, we find them resisting the imposition of any particular form of Christianity, and adhering to their principle of the Scripture being the only rule. [These are described in the marginal notes as Salters' Hall question, 1719, and the petition for relief from subscription, 1773.] Baxter subscribed, but under a strong protest, professing to explain certain articles, but explaining them in such a way as made his sub- scription a nullity. See his sense of the subscribed articles of religion in Calamy's Abridgment, vol. I, 469. Baxter was so tender of subscription that he even objected to a general subscription of belief in the Bible. ' 'Tis too much to require of him a subscription that he implicitly believes all that is in the Bible which you show to him because there may be errors in that copy. Nay, such subscription should not as necessarily be required of him to all the real word of God : for if by error he doubt whether Job, Chronicles, or Esther be canonical, I would not be he that should therefore forbid him to preach the Gospel. I'm sure the ancient church imposed no such terms on their pastors when Ignatius was chosen bishop before he believed the resurrection. What then shall we say of the Roman insolence V Baxter's Knowledge and Love, p. 78. p. 35. In the autobiography of Mr Fox, of Plymouth, published in the 16th volume of the Monthly Repository, (as quoted in a note to Calamy's Life and Times, vol. II, p. 412), it is said : 'Dr. Calamy took the first opportunity to tell me there was no occasion of subscribing at all ; no one would ever suspect an omission. He said it was his own case, he had never taken them and never was suspected.' It may be seen in the printed works of Dr. Calamy that whenever he speaks of this subscription it is in evasive and ambiguous terms as respects his own conduct, and that he speaks of ministers who subscribed, others who subscribed under an explication and protest as Baxter had done, and of some who did not subscribe at all. p. 36. Mr Wilson quotes the Doctor's expressions on the subject: "Had I not been satisfied as to that nothing would have prevailed on me to have subscribed that article ; " " The very sense of the 8th article was given in by many of us as one explication of our sub- scription before we would be satisfied to subscribe ; " "I hope you will not think I subscribed in my sleep." Those who believe that the Doctor had never subscribed when he used this language should not have relied upon his testimony to such an extent as the authors of the Proofs have done. Great stress had been laid in the courts below upon the necessity which the law imposed on Presbyterian ministers of Lady Hewley's time to subscribe the doctrinal articles of the Establishment, and thereby avow themselves Trinitarians, and it was met by this statement as to Dr. Calamy, and the remark with regard to all such ministers that "their subscription generally may be presumed to have been submitted to, only through the urgency of their situation, and to have been omitted in many cases." The Doctor however says, " no one would ever suspect an omission." The secret history of the transactions with regard to the Dissenters on the revolution of 1688 is not easy to unravel. There is no question but that they got far less than they wished, less than the King even wished. The Dissenters in their first address laid their ground for a very unre- stricted liberty. But it is well known that the strongest and deepest intrigues were used against them, and that they thought themselves well off to get what they did. Quotations are given from Calamy, vol. I, pp. 439, 424. We have not denied that they were then generally speaking ortho- dox ; and the articles of the church left scope enough (as is shown to this day) for interpretations ranging from Calvinism to Arminianism, the furthest point to which the Presbyterians in general had then gone ; and they may be forgiven if they did not make the general principle of objection to all creeds a bar to obtaining rest and peace at the price of subscribing what, in fact, they then believed, though they soon found, (as in Calamy's case which shall be detailed), how inconsistent all such restrictions were with true Protestant liberty, and like him, (in the way just detailed by himself), quietly shuffled the obligation off where they could. The Irish Presbyterians, (it should be observed), were more 7(5 lucky ; they managed, unobserved as it would seem, to evade the im- position upon them of any subscription, p. 37. It is true that the ' Articles of Agreement' come to about the Happy Union period recognize the doctrinal articles of the church as representing the common opinion of the United Body. And so in fact they did. But the parties made no subscription of them obligatory ; and it may be observed that after all the adoption of these articles instead of the Assembly's or the Savoy creed, is really rather a proof of differences than of union. Experience has shown that the articles leave many points open which the old Calvinists carefully closed. If the articles are as is contended, Arminian, their recognition would show great progress, not steadiness in opinion. This seems to have been the view taken by many at the time. pp. 37, 38. All these formularies are referred to in the Heads of Agree- ment, but without doubt the Puritans and Nonconformists thought the Articles Calvinistic as far as they went. It has not been generally remarked, (though the fact is so), that two years before the Salters' Hall vote among the Dissenters in 1719 an attempt was made legislatively to tighten subscription ; but that being warmly opposed by the friends of the Dissenters it failed in 1718. This took place on occasion of the progress through Parliament of the repeal of the Schism Bill. p. 38. Though the clause in the Toleration Act requiring subscription re- mained unrepealed, the neglect of it became by degrees general ; the ministers being willing to suffer if necessary, as their fathers had done, in a point in which private conscience of duty was opposed to a perse- cuting statute, or trusting to the liberal spirit of the times under the rule of the princes of the house of Brunswick, that in such a matter where conscience dictated a violation or neglect of the law, the penalties of the law would not be enforced against them ; and so it proved. But they did not, nevertheless, cease to endeavour to obtain an alteration of the law. p. 38. At length the efforts to get rid of the risk and burden were success- ful, A petition to Parliament was presented in 1773, signed by a vast number of Dissenting ministers for relief from their subscription, and when at last the legislature yielded and the Act 19, Geo. Ill, cap. 44, was passed, the declaration required of them in lieu of the subscription was a declaration of the free principle of Scripture interpretation for which every consistent Protestant Dissenter had so long contended ; and thus, in fact, the peculiarly Presbyterian principle of the whole pre- ceeding portion of the century was acknowledged and established by law. 77 ' I, A. B. do solemnly declare in the presence of Almighty God, that I am a Christian and a Protestant, and as such that I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as commonly received among Protestant churches, do contain the revealed will of God, and that I do receive the same as the rule of my doctrine and practice.' pp. 38, 39. The Presbyterian Principles not Singular or Unreasonable. The principle thus maintained by the Presbyterians of England was not a singular principle ; nor that of a few heated, extravagant, uninformed and thoughtless, or even sober and speculative, but peculiar persons. Tt was a grave and long considered principle which was adopted by the whole body, and on reflection and deliberation, and which they held conjointly with a large body of members of the Church of England, both then and in subsequent generations. Dr. Samuel Clarke's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, 1712, Introduction. He afterwards refers to Archbishop Tillotson, Bishop Wake, and Chillingworth as having before him laid down the same principle, and he also endeavours to show that it is, in fact, the principle of the Church of England itself, of Protes- tantism, and of the earliest Fathers of the Church. It was therefore manifestly a principle which a wise man might own, and a body of Christians adopt. A prelate of the Church of England, Bishop Harl, has given it also his sanction. Letter to a Young Clergyman, 1721. [Passages are then quoted from Milton on Ecclesiastical Cases, first pub- lished 1659 ; ed. 1833, p. 415, and on True Religion, Heresy, Schism, and Toleration, first published 1673 ; ed. Symonds, Vol. IV., pp. 261, 262. p. 43.] Early Practical Application of the Principle. Calamy. It was, in fact, what is often called the Chillingworth principle, that the Bible only is the religion of Protestants, which the Presbyterian ministers, and many in the Church had adopted. And that it came to them directly from the writings of that eminent person is probable in itself, but is made certain in respect of one of them at least by the record which he has left of the process through which his mind passed, when at an early period of life (in 1692) he debated with himself whether he would connect himself with the conforming or non-conforming body. This was Dr. Edmund Calamy. Life, vol. I, pp. 227, 232, 258, 342. Dedication of Continuation of Account of Ejected Ministers. Vol. I., p. lvii. pp. 44, 46. The last passage from the Life should not have been detached from the explanation of it. Quotations follow relating to the Doctor's visits to Dr. Colton, at York, his journey in Scotland, his attendance at the General Assembly of the Kirk, and the censure of a sermon of his as latitudinarian, by Ihe Rev. James 78 Webster, of Edinburgh. Vol. II., pp. 146, 152, 153, 155, 179. These passages shew that the Doctor was really no Presbyterian, but not, as alleged in the Proofs, that the standard of the Kirk was ' even then a widely different standard from that approved by the London divine and his brethren/ One of the Doctor's companions was Mr Baker, whose sermon is quoted in the Proofs supra, p. 71, and another was Mr Lavington, the Trinitarian leader in the Western Association, p. 24 ; a third was Mr Benja- min Bennett, to whom we shall have to refer particularly. On the Doctor's association with Bennett great stress is laid and apropos of it this sentence follows : Though Calamy was himself a Trinitarian and has published in its defence, his practice is in the fullest accordance with the liberalizing spirit of the body to which lie belonged. We find him in Kippis's Life of Lardner, vol. I., p. iv, "engaged in conjunction with a number of ministers in carrying on a course of lectures on a Tuesday evening at the Old Jewry, (the chapel afterwards of Dr. Rees, an Arian). Among these ministers are Drs. Lardner and Chandler, of the most notoriously heterodox reputation. Dr. Calamy, it may be observed, discoursed on the doctrine of the Trinity in the terms of liberality usual in his denomi- nation. [A passage is then given which will be found in a subsequent page in the connexion in which it is quoted a second time.] It has been already observed that the appellants do not question Dr. Calamy \s belief in the doctrine of the Trinity ; what is contended for is this, that he would not have supported any doctrine by the restrictive terms of trust deeds, by decisions of courts of law or equity, or by any authority of fallible men. He would have it stand or fall by the consonance which men should perceive between it and the doctrine of Christ and his apostles, ' as to be collected from their teachings and writings in the Scriptures, and to be held no longer than while such a consonance was acknowledged. It is respectfully submitted that the decisions of the courts below do infringe and destroy that liberty in which the Fathers of Presbyterian dissent rejoiced, and for which they made so many sacrifices ; that what they did is by the decrees below undone ; that their churches are made in Mr Locke's expression ' bird cages with trap doors' to admit indeed, but keep all fast when once in ; that there is an authority imposed upon them which is above the authority of Scripture, and which must if the decree be suffered to endure, for ever deprive their descendants of their right to examine freely the Scriptures, and to act according to the light which those writings shall afford respecting the doctrine of Christ. It is also respectfully submitted that the decree, though it alludes in terms oidy to the doctrines of the Trinity and Original Sin, does in fact 79 prejudge most of the great and important questions of Scripture inter- pretation. It is, and was meant to be, a creed, and a very stringent creed, though expressed in few words ; and so reduces to a nullity the privilege which the nonconforming founders valued, and meant to maintain, of free and unfettered inquiry. Under the notion of support- ing their intent, it does actually and absolutely subvert it. For the appellants submit that there can be no free inquiry at the oracles of truth, if it is to be declared ab extra and previously what the responses must be ; that searching of the Scriptures is a mere nullity if men are to be compelled by decrees of courts of equity to find only certain doctrines there ; and doctrines too which men of great learning and integrity have in all ages since the Reformation began, regarded diversely and explained differently, and which so many have openly rejected ; that such a man as even Dr. Calamy would not have entered the dissenting ministry with such a decree over his head, authoritatively declaring what was the sense of Scripture ; that this decree is in fact the establishment among the Presbyterians of a set of articles of Christian belief, and does introduce a creed into every Presbyterian trust deed throughout the kingdom ; that their object in obtaining freedom from such impositions is thus entirely frustrated and defeated ; and that they are in fact bound for ever by this decree, should it be affirmed, in the bonds of a creed and confession, after all their efforts and all their sacrifices to emancipate themselves from them. pp. 47, 48. Controversy as to what should be Essentials. Moreover if it be said of the doctrines of the Trinity and Original Sin that they are essentials, without which there can be no preaching of Christ's Holy Gospel, many will reply that this is an arbitrary assumption ; that so far from their being essentials many churches have professed and do profess Christianity without them ; that they have been at all times matters of debate and controversy amongst theological scholars ; that they are at best only circumstantials, doctrines which may be received or not, according as the mind perceives the balance of evidence to incline, without disturbing the reverential regard for Jesus Christ as the messenger and minister of God who is so pre-eminent above all other messengers that He may justly be called the Son of God ; — a sense of the proneness to err which is interwoven in human nature ; — and a joyful reception of the glad promises given by Jesus Christ of the Divine support and encouragement while in life in the discharge of our duty, of the pardon of repented transgressions, and of a blessed union at last with Christ and all the wise and good in the great Kingdom of the Father in heaven, p. 49. This is siqiported by the following quotations : 80 Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity. Edit. 1821. pp. 187,220, 234, 101, 105, 29G, 230, 233. Pax Redux, or the Christian Reconciler, being a project for re- uniting all Christians into one sole communion, 1688. pp. 63-65. The Rev. J. Foster, of Pinners' Hall. [A Baptist minister of an Independent congregation.] Essay on Fundamentals in Religion, p. 8. Bishop Watson's considerations of the expediency of revising the liturgy, p. 67, 78. Professor Hey, of Cambridge. Lectures, vol. II., p. 41. The appellants do not think it necessary to enter into the vindication of the principle and intent for which they contend, or to justify the consequences of it ; but it is submitted that there is nothing unlawful or unreasonable in such an intent, nothing that the law ought to control or destroy as being devoid of rationality ; that the policy of confining foundations to the support of peculiar doctrinal opinions, which the progress of society is continually modifying, is very questionable, and certainly not one which courts should carry beyond the expressly declared intent of the founder ; that there are great advantages to a community in having a public ministry in the hands of men of learning and attainment and piety, who are free to inquire and to receive and profess truth as it is discovered to them ; and that, however it may appear to individuals or to the courts below that the principle in question has led men astray, yet that this is not a point for their consideration and that it is at least an unreasonable stretch of authority to destroy the principle itself. It is admitted that the principle may mislead, and in all probability will mislead some ; precisely as a church, the Romish Church for instance, or the Church of Geneva, as long as it was Calvinistic, may also mislead, by insisting on things to be believed that may at length be found to be destitute of Scripture or any sufficient authority ; but as this would not be a sufficient reason for the courts of law or equity to interfere with such establishments, so it is submitted that however wrongly the principle may have led any of those who have received it, the courts are bound to respect the principle itself, and to maintain in their original freedom the foundations made in assertion of the principle. How the Presbyterians of the time themselves felt in respect of persons whom they supposed the principle had led astray from the truth may be in part collected from the following passage in a tract entitled ' The Trinity of the Bible,' by Samuel Oldfield, the Presbyterian minister at Ramsbury, in Wiltshire, published in 1720. 'I am sorry any man should receive any ill treatment from the world who essays to bring more light into it by offering in a humble and friendly way what he thinks in the darkest points of our holy religion. 81 If he miss it, his good will was nevertheless, but his unhappiness therehi so much the greater. He has a just demand upon us to have our pity and good offices, instead of being exposed either by our pens or tongues to harm and obloquy.' Such was the sentiment of one of Lady Hewley's contemporaries in the class of Christians to which she belonged. We will close this part of our case by showing that although Dr. Calamy cited Chillingwoi'th as the powerful advocate of the principle by which his own course was directed in the great crisis of his public life, yet that he might with equal propriety have cited the opinion of Baxter who also rested on the principle of the Bible only. [The passage from the Saint's Rest to be found in a future page is there quoted.] p. 52. The Principle applied to Presbyterian Academies. It has been seen in some of the passages already quoted that an acknowledgment of this principle was made by several of the young ministers at the time of their ordination. It must be borne in mind that there were always assembled on such occasions the elder ministers in great numbers, many of whom were in the course of their education, many in the discharge of their ministiy, when these foundations were made, and whose opinions were in the main reflected in the avowal made by the candidates before them. But there is also historical evidence that the spirit of freedom of theological inquiry and the assertion of the authority of Scripture only in opposition to creeds, articles, and confessions was inculcated in the academies from whence the congregations were to be supplied with their pastors or ministers. Ou the expediency of this mode of procedure it does not appear necessary to affirm anything, the question being, not what was expedient, but what was actually thought and done by the Presbyterian founders. But as remarks have been made in the progress of this case on the mode of theological instruction in the Presbyterian academies, it may be observed that either course of theological instruc- tion, whether in the spirit of inquiry or of dogmatism, is open each to its own peculiar objections ; since if it be said on the one hand, that it is inexpedient to submit questions of so sacred a nature to the free cen- sure of inexperienced and but half-informed minds, so on the other it may be urged that if the system of theology which is inculcated should happen to be erroneous and unscriptural, the mind of the student is prepossessed with error out of which he may not in the whole course of his subsequent life be able to extricate himself. And this consideration has led many persons, not of the English Presbyterian body only, but in the English and Scottish Churches, to think that the freer mode is the better mode ; of whom may be particularly named the late Bishop Watson and Professor Campbell. The former has approved and reprinted in his Theological Tracts the plan as to instruction, which 10 82 we shall notice hereafter as first used and published by Dr. John Taylor, (before mentioned as an Arian Presbyterian, whose career began in 1715), and adopted by the defendant, Mr Wellbeloved, in the academy at York. A letter is extant and has been often printed, written by Seeker, (who afterwards conformed and became Archbishop of Canterbury), when he was a student for the Dissenting ministry in the academy at Gloucester, conducted by a learned Presbyterian minister, Mr Jones. In this letter he says : ' We pass our time very agreeably between study and conversation with our tutor, who is always ready to converse freely of anything that is useful, and allows us either there or at lectures all imaginable liberty of making objections against his own opinions, and prosecuting them as far as we can.' This letter was written as early as 171 1. It was addi'essed to Dr. Isaac Watts, a man of celebrity in the Dissenting body, and was first published in Dr. Gibbons's Memoirs of the Life of Dr. Watts, p. 346. Earlier than that period it is related of Mr Warren, one of the ejected ministers who conducted an academy at Taunton, in Somersetshire, that ' though bred himself in the old logic and philosophy and little acquainted with the improvements of the new, yet he encouraged his pupils in a freedom of inquiry and in reading those books which would better gratify a love of truth and knowledge, even when they differed widely from those writers on which he had formed his own sentiments. He encouraged the free and critical study of the Scriptures on the best system of theology.' Preface to Grove's Sermons, pp. xiv. xv. De Foe has some observations to the same effect in relation to Mr Morton's academy at Newington Green, London. The fruits of Mr Doolittle's teaching we have seen before, in the case of the Rev. Samuel Bury. This carries us back to a period before the date of these foundations ; for Mr Warren died in 1706, having survived his removal from the church forty-four years, pp. 53, 54. [A passage is then given as to Mi- Grove's teaching, but he flourished after the period we have to do with.] In the same spirit Mr Moore, who in the first twenty years of that century when Presbyterian foundations were being established every- where around him, inculcated in his academy for ministers kept at Bridgewater, the utmost freedom of enquiry, and many of the ministers who issued from his academy were afterwards of Anti-trinitarian senti- ments. The academy at Exeter under the Halletts, at the beginning of the century, was notorious for the leaning of the young ministers educa- ting in it from the orthodoxy of their predecessors. It was the same with Dr. Dickson's academy at Whitehaven, whence came in 1715, 83 Benson, (a zealous Anti-trinitarian), and Dr. John Taylor, (an Arian), the leading heretics of the day, Dr. Winder of Liverpool, (author of a valuable History of Religious Knowledge), and Dr. Rotheram. The same occurs as to the academy under the care of Mr Hill and afterwards of Dr. Latham, at Findem in Derbyshire ; most of the pupils, (who were educated in it in the reign of Anne and George I., while the Presby- terian founders were still alive), being noted for the spirit of religious and political freedom in which they acted, not less than for their depar- ture from the ancient orthodoxy of the Presbyterian body. It was the same at a somewhat later period with Dr. Doddridge's academy, and with that of Dr. David Jennings, though efforts were made by some older ministers to induce compliance with orthodox opinions as far as such efforts could be made by men who respected the principle of free enquiry and the sufficiency of Scripture. At Manchester we find Mr Chorlton and Mr James Coningham, under whom Samuel Bourn, (born 1689), afterwards a leading Arian, was educated. In a defence of Dissenters' education, published in 1703, which contains much information concerning the practice in the London Dissenting academies, the writer who was a minister speaks of 'the impartiality of his tutor in stating any of the controverted points.' Dr. Joshua Oldfield, (whom we have before noticed as a London minister of the old school, moderator of the meeting at Salters' Hall), was in 1698 tutor to Dr. Lardner, who was an eminent divine, (and as Bogue and Bennett tell us), a Socinian. At a later period when an academy was established at Kendal, in Westmoreland, under the superintendence of Dr. Caleb Rotheram, to which students resorted who had assistance from Lady Hewley's trustees, 'he was solicitously and affectionately concerned for the im- provement and usefulness of those under his care, especially that they might be inspired with the love of liberty and clearly understand the genuine principles of Christianity, and in order to this permitted, encouraged, and assisted them to think freely upon every subject of natural and revealed religion.' Note to Sermon on ordiuation of Rev. Caleb Rotheram, jun., of Kendal, by S. Lowthion, 1756. From Dr. Rotheram's academy issued many known Arian ministers, pp. 54, 55. The extract as to Mr Jones does not support the proposition laid down, as it does not purport to relate to fundamental religious doctrines. That respecting Mr Warren seems to be the assertion not of his pupil Mr Grove, (as stated in the marginal abstract), but of that pupil's biographer. It expresses very little more than Mr Seeker's words ; certainly for a tutor to encourage a free and 84 critical study of the Scriptures, as the best system of theology, is a very different matter from his stating with in difference the true and false views of the Trinity and the person of Christ, or systematically making them, or allowing them to be made, subjects of debate with his pupils. As De Foe's words respecting Mr Moreton are not given, and their effect is stated by reference to Mr Warren's case, they do not call for further remark ; the rules of his academy may be seen in Calamy. The nature of Mr Doolittle's teaching may be best inferred from the fact of Philip Henry placing his son, the future com- mentator, with him. The case of Mr Bury (here cited for the third time), will be considered with the postponed section in which the extracts from his works are introduced. There were two Moores and three Halletts, the elder Moore died in 1717, and the eldest Hallett in 1688; they, as well as Warren, Moreton, and Doolittle, were ejected ministers, and heterodoxy, even in- differentism, does not seem to be imputed to any of those confessors except William Manning of Suffolk. Mr Newcome of Manchester, preceded Chorlton in his labours as tutor, and there can be no dispute as to the strictness of his principles. The state of the academy kept by the Presbyterian Frankland, (also one of the ejected), in different places as the persecution allowed him, and after his death continued by the Independent Jollie, at Attercliffe near Sheffield, would have been much more to the purpose of the Proofs, as it was the Yorkshire college. But neither Oliver Heywood nor Accepted Lester have left any account that could be quoted with advantage in the Proofs. Of Mr Frankland' s teaching we have this notice by Charles Owen, Presbyterian minister at Warrington. ' ' Why may not Mr Frankland' s pupils with the same freedom determine for Calvin, as many raw youths that come from the Universities do for their beloved Arminius ? But the reason why they determine against Arminius is because their judicious and learned tutor directed them to study the Scriptures and their own hearts, which enabled them betimes to exalt the free grace of God, and to depress the proud enslaved will of man. A son of the church should not wonder that Mr Frankland should acquaint his scholars with the orthodox ancient doctrine of the Church of England, whose learned divines subscribed the decrees of the Calvinistical synod of Dort in conformity to the doctrine of the English church, 85 which preferred them after their return, and never censured this act of theirs." The Validity of the Dissenting Ministry, 1716, p. 96. We are here concerned only with those methods of teaching which were practised sufficiently early to come to the knowledge of the various Presbyterian founders before the dates of their several foundations. Lady Hewley's charity was created in 1704, and we will take that year as regards the chapels also, though most of them were built previously. It is requisite to allow four years for the effect of the college teaching becoming manifest in the sermons and ministerial life of the pupils, and therefore no circumstances which occurred after the year 1700 can be received as known to and having influenced those founders. These remarks dispose of all the testimonies and remarks to be found in the Proofs as to the academies. In order to judge fairly of the early tutors among the Noncon- formists it should be recollected that after the civil war new systems of philosophy and criticism arose in England, and the nature of academical studies changed. In Charles the First's time great attention was paid to the Fathers, and studious and learned Puritans read the writings of the Schoolmen. As to these last it is necessary to remark that the amazing intellect of some of their number is beginning to be again recognized, and their worm- eaten folios are once more consulted with interest and profit on the most difficult points of the Christian faith. Just so Dr. Manton is mentioned as particularly well acquainted with them, and Baxter tells us how much he read of them. The works in which Daille indicated the suspicion attaching to many writings circulating under early Christian names, and the little use to which even the genuine remains of the so-called Fathers could be put, had changed the theological studies pursued before the war. Locke, or rather his master Hobbes, had revolutionized all science connected with the human mind, and new manuals of logic had come into use. The merit ascribed to Mr Warren and Mr Jones really is that they had brought themselves, as to much of their non- doctrinal learning, quse Imberbes didicere senes perdenda fateri. The other academies mentioned, though not bearing on the question, deserve some remarks. Doctors Doddridge and Jennings, as well as Jollie, were Independents, and Presbyterians and Independents resorted indifferently to the academy of either body, which was most convenient or most attractive to them. 86 As it is admitted that the Independents as a body never aban- doned strictness as to doctrine, and their tutors also were led by the influence of the age into latitudinarian practices, an argument cannot fairly be raised against the orthodoxy of the early Presby- terian congregations from similar methods pursued in their colleges. Dr. Nathaniel Lardner was born in 1684, and was with Dr. Oldfield as a boy. He went to the University of Utrecht, and on his return in 1703 was for six years connected with an Indepen- dent church, so that his ultimate opinions cannot throw any light on Dr. Oldfield's system. Such arguments are very often to be met with in the Proofs and pamphlets written on that side of the controversy, but it is evident that in such a time of change a pupil's opinions twenty or thirty years after he left college were no indication of his tutor's principles or teaching. Arians became so numerous in the middle of the eighteenth century that it must be admitted every system in its turn failed to preserve in orthodoxy all that were trained by it, but none so certainly pro- duced heterodoxy as the plan of teaching indifferently both or many sides of a question, or merging the character of teacher in that of president of a debating society, which seems to be the proceeding extolled in the Proofs. Not to teach some one system of theology as truth, implies that the teacher does not hold any doctrines as revealed (since it would be his duty to teach what he so held), and naturally, if not necessarily, creates in those taught the notion that they have to frame a scheme of divinity for themselves, and not implicitly to receive the body of truth from the Bible. The end of such a process must be the construction of some theory, or some uncon- nected postulates, based on the nature and fitness of things, and not on the will and mind of God, and this is the result at which Low Arians or Socinians wished their pupils to arrive. Grove and Rotheram found this method answered their purpose so certainly that it was no merit to pursue it. It does not follow that in other circumstances and with other results they would have originated or continued it. But has such impartiality ever existed ? Is it to be believed that a Socinian tutor would exhibit Trinitarian doctrines as fairly and favourably as his own opinions ? Is it possible that he should do so ? Did any pupil ever leave Warrington or Hackney or " Manchester" college a Trinitarian ? If none ever entered them but Anti-Trinitarians, does 87 not that circumstance render it more improbable that the teaching was impartial between the two systems ? In justice to Dr. Doddridge, Mr. Wilson's quotation from his Family Expositor should be reprinted here. "They who are honoured with the great trust of training up the ministers of Christ should be particularly careful to nourish and educate in the words of faith and of good doctrine those whose business it must be to maintain the faith of Christ in the world, and to instruct others in the doctrine." There is no doubt that he taught what he believed truth ; however he might permit it to be debated. The subject of the academies was. most properly introduced into the Proofs, for the faith of a church is in the end governed by the teaching of its theological colleges. Luther, Calvin, and Van Harmine were all professors of divinity, and laboured, by indoctrinating the future pastors, to control the belief of the next generation of their countrymen. They knew that while the youthful mind must respond to what appears to it the truth, only the conscious or fancied possession of some new ideas will kindle all its ardour and call out all its energy. The professors of former times taught their own opinions to those entrusted to them, but the English tutors extolled in the Proofs merely invited their pupils to speculation, and contented themselves with supplying the materials for it. Yet Dr. Taylor wondered and complained that many went out from his academy mere deists. We on the other hand see without any surprise how the evil spread from the colleges over the country, and in the end attacked the people as well as the ministers. Hoc fonte derivata clades In patriam populumque iluxit. Similar Principle at Geneva. General Observations. Noto- riety of Controversy existing. The Presbyterians of England are by no means singular in their opposition to creeds and stringent articles, and their assertion of liberty for their ministers from any other obligation than to the Scriptures. In the Presbyterian Church of Geneva subscription to creeds and confessions was abolished in 1706. p. 5G. It is very probable indeed that these transactions at Geneva in- fluenced the Presbyterian ministers of England, many of whom at the beginning of that century were educated abroad. It is presumed that it is now clearly established, that before the 88 date of these foundations there did exist in the Presbyterian body a decided spirit of opposition to anything which could interfere with the free use of the Scriptures as the source 'of genuine knowledge respecting the truth taught by Christ and his apostles ; and a decided aversion from the use of creeds or anything that could be regarded as imposing the senses of men upon the word of God, open to the examination and study of all ; — that this spirit of free investigation was a part of the system on which they acted ; — that it distinguished them from the other or Independent denomination ; — that they even admitted it into their academical institutions ; — and that however unreasonable, un- thinking, and improper it may to some appear, the tutors admitted the youths committed to their care, and who were to be the future preachers of the gospel, to a freedom of examination and research which it might, in the opinion of some, have been more expedient in them to have postponed to a later period of their lives. Such however having been the practice of the learned ministers of the time of Lady Hewley, it must be presumed that she was cognisant of the practice, and that she did not object to that portion of her bounty which was set apart for the purpose of the education of ministers, being applied to "the education of young men in academies conducted on these principles, as we see was the case in respect of the Kendal academy in 1734, and as (judging by their fruits), must have been the case with the earlier places of instruction, seeing that nearly all the leading Presbyterian ministers there educated became Arian ; and that having from the beginning been so devoted, courts of law or equity ought not now to turn round on the administrators or recipients and say that the tutors in the Presbyterian academies shall henceforth abandon what has been their practice from the beginning ; that they shall teach dogmatically the system of Christianity laid down in the creed ; thus limiting in a rigid manner the field of inquiry ; in fact saying respecting the much controverted doctrines of the Trinity and Original Sin that they are to be taken out of the range of inquiry to be regarded as truths never to be examined or questioned ; which is in fact to shut the door of enquiry which the Presbyterian founders had widely opened on the most important subjects of theological research. It is again respectfully submitted that the question is not whether these doctrines are doctrines which must necessarily be deduced from Holy Scripture by those who go to that book desirous to know what Christ and his apostles taught. On this point it is well known that the greatest and wisest men have differed, that disputes have raged respect- ing it from the time of Arius and Athanasius, wherever the pressure of despotic power was removed and the mind left at liberty to divulge the conclusions at which it had arrived. But whether the conclusions 89 are right or wrong at which any party may have arrived this is not the point for present consideration ; it is also submitted that the question is not whether it is expedient that the ministers and preachers of Christia- nity shall be bound to take a particular view of the doctrine of Christ, by articles creeds and confessions, or left with no other recognised authority but that of the book of Holy Scripture which they are to read and study for themselves. On this point also there is a great diversity of judgment and much may be said, and much has been said, on both sides of the question. It is also submitted that the question is not whether it is fit expedient and proper to carry this principle into institutions founded for the education of the future ministers. It is also submitted that it is not material to inquire into the particular views of the Christian doctrine entertained by individuals belonging to this class or denomination of Dissenters, in cases in which there is no direct requisition that by such views shall the proceedings of the future trustees be regulated. But that the question really is, whether, when an unrestricted founda- tion such as this of Lady Hewley is presented to the notice of a court, the court is not bound to consider the opinion and practice of the body of Nonconformists to which she belonged, as shown by the peaceful unin- terrupted course of near a century and a half, and to support that principle of freedom of inquiry and opposition to the imposition of any particular interpretation of the words of holy Scripture, which was the great rule, guide, and principle of the parties in all their proceedings. It is submitted that there is not the smallest difficulty in reconciling this principle with that degree of attachment, whatever it may be, which every one more or less feels for the particular system of religious truth, which, if he have arrived at any settled ojnnions amidst the diversity of opinion that prevails around him, he deems to be the truth. The ground on which he receives them is their supposed accordance with his judgment on the evidence which they bring with them ; and if this evidence has been sufficient to convince himself, so he conceives that it must in all time to come command the assent of other unprejudiced inquirers. This must be the case when the conviction is strong. When the conviction is one of inferior confidence, he anticipates that the faith of others will be as weak as his own ; and in such a state of mind he is less disposed and less tempted to endeavour to compel an adherence to his own opinion. The course in either case which a wise man would take would be to leave the affair open as the Presbyterian founders did, committmg the truth to the future researches of wise and understanding men. In the case of attachment to an opinion which may be called bigotted the course would be different. But the Presbyterians had not that kind of attachment to any ojnnion. pp. 57, 58. 11 90 Whatever difficulty may arise out of the leading expressions of latitudinarianism cited being somewhat later than Lady Hewley's foundation, (though generally coming from persons educating and officiating antecedently), there is no doubt of this striking fact that the most universal adoption of the liberal principle, and even the avowal of Arian opinions had, by consent of all parties, as recorded by Bogue and Bennett, taken effect among the Presbyterians early enough for vast numbers of the original founders of the early endowments, contemporary with and even anterior to Lady Hewley's, to be still alive and active amonf them. At any rate the remove went no further than to their immediate children. The real intent of the founders must have been known, and it is sufficient to ask, how it can be accounted for that no record or trace whatever exists of any objection being taken to the changes in congregations and in the application of endowments, on any other supposition than the conviction that the founders left to others the freedom they vindicated to themselves? Mr Baron Alderson in his judgment on the case says, 'Lady Hewley must have had fixed religious opinions conscientiously and strongly felt by her, or else it is not likely that she would have made this foundation. It is very unusual for religious foundations to be made by any other than persons having strong and fixed religious opinions themselves. Those who entertain what are called latitudinarian notions on such subjects are not commonly those who leave their property in this way.' This is surely something like assuming the question in dispute. It might have occurred to the learned Judge that persons of strong and fixed religious opinions are also not very likely wholly to conceal them, as Lady Hewley has done. Moreover Bogue and Bennett, (the Independent historians of the Dissenters) tell us that the Presbyterians of that day were anything but ' sober,' that their quality on the contrary was ' religious liberty run mad,' and surely one species of madness or fixed- ness of opinion as well as another might on the learned Judge's own principle produce zealotry in a founder, and govern his actions. Lady Hewley, however, was no doubt surrounded and counselled by men of more judgment and information than herself, and is it a very violent supposition that they had read and approved such a book for instance as ' Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity,' and acted upon it, preserving, nevertheless, those charitable feelings with which the learned Judge seems to think it inconsistent. The fact of latitudinarianism existing at a little later time, (whatever may be the fact as to Lady Hewley), is notorious, and it is equally true that very numerous endowments have been founded on those principles and expressly for them. When about L750 the Presbyterians of Norwich gave their money so freely (sevei-al thousand pounds, being an amount most extraordinary in those days), to 91 erect and found the new Presbyterian chapel in that city [they rebuilt a chapel built by Trinitarians] it was expressly on the latitudinarian principle. And Dr. Taylor, whose sermon on the opening of the chapel in 1756, is published, distinctly disclaims on the part of the con- tributors that they meant this religious foundation to be for the propa- gation of any particular view of Christian doctrine. A Yarmouth merchant, the founder of an endowment for two Norfolk Presbyterian congregations, thus expresses himself in his will. ' And because no person who designs the glory of God, the prosperity of His church, and the support of His interest in the world, in ages after his decease, can foresee the changes and revolutions that may arrive, and which might oblige him to alter and change the particular method by which he proposeth such ends should be pi'omoted ; my great and general instruction to these my trustees is this, that the purposes of sincere piety and charity, according to the best light of their consciences, and agreeable to the directions of the word of God, may be industriously and faithfully served to the utmost of their ability by this entrustment, leaving with them this short and serious memento, God sees.' This was. quite in accordance with the genius and spirit of English Presbyterian, dissenters. He was a descendant of the Protector Cromwell, and had seen and learned wisdom by the revolutions of opinions and practice during the eventful period of a long life which terminated a little after 1722. Having lived in the neighbourhood of Emlyn and Manning, he perhaps had partaken of the freedom of their opinions. [This paragraph is constructed by the incorporation of a note with the text.] The learned Judge may be right if he speak of other classes of religionists, but even here it may be doubted whether the important principle which he assumes is just. Lady Hewley's contemporary, Lady Elizabeth Hastings, was a great benefactor to the clergy of the Church of England ; but it does not appear that she made any -distinction between those who were of the Tillotson and Hoadley school, and those who were of Calvinian sentiments. She left it, not to promote any particular view of theological opinion, but for the support of a body of men who had a certain political or ecclesiastical character, and this it is. presumed was what Lady Hewley did. The latter endowed a body of ministers who had a certain political or ecclesiastical character, and not a set of theological opinions. If the latter, as the learned Judge supposes, had been the case, we should certainly have found in the deeds some distinct recognition of the particular doctrines which she meant to patronize, and some protection of them against the possible varying of adminis- trators or beneficiaries in the time to come. In fact there is no histori- cal ground for the assumption in this part of the judgment, and every probability against it, arising out of the situation, the character and 02 genius, of the denomination to which she belonged. Some of the bene- factions of this pious and charitable lady were connected with the church, and so far from there being in her a strong attachment to any particular way, she made no requirement of her trustees or general beneficiaries, and only required of the persons admitted to her hospital that they should attend ' some place of Protestant worship.' It may further be observed that if she had been ever so deshxras to leave her charity wide and open she could not well have done otherwise than she has ; whereas if she meant to confine it no one could easily have made the latter intent less obvious. It cannot be supposed that the persons who in those days guided the operations of the Presbyterian body were so inattentive to the controversies which were going on around them, and so unaware of the natural and necessary consequences of their own principle, as not to perceive that difference of opinion would grow out of freedom of enquiry, and that not only would doctrines deemed by them of minor importance be by some relinquished and by others retained, but that other doctrines regarded by many as of greater importance would be brought into question, and by some renounced. And the fact really was that Arian opinions abounded on all hands. The act of William and Mary against impugning the doctrine of the Trinity is a legislative declaration of the fact stated in its preamble, of the prevalence of that heresy, p. 60. Among the Presbyterians had arisen before the date of these foun- dations, Manning, one of the ejected ministers, who had long preached an Arian or Unitarian theology in the county of Suffolk, and in the same county Emlyn, a minister of the next generation, who was zealous for the Unitarian scheme, and who before the date of these foundations, having removed to Ireland, was there in 1702 by a sentence of an Irish court of judicature condemned to public punishment for his assertions of those doctrines ; when thus persecuted in Ireland he took refuge in England, and preached his sentiments publicly in London before 1710. p. 60. In the Church there had been Whiston an avowed Arian in the University of Cambridge, (who began writing in 1703), and Dr. Bury in the University of Oxford, who had been deprived, the one of a fellow- ship, and the other of a mastership, in consequence of maintaining these opinions ; nor was Dr. Clarke unsuspected of holding those opinions before he published his famous defence of them in 1712, in his 'Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity.' The writings of Dr. Sykes and others in the Church looked the same way, and produced a great impression on the Presbyterian body ; the effect was great and immediate, and a declension was going on rapidly at the very beginning of the century. Most of the older Presbyterian ministers of the era of the founders had been educated 93 in Calvinian sentiments. The catechism of the Assembly had generally been that in which in their youth they had beeu instructed, and yet a great departure had taken place in many of them from the doctrines of that catechism : they had become, some Baxterians, some Arminians, some Arians; but the strict doctrines of pure Calvinism are found in them no more. With Locke they generally agreed, at any rate so far us to say nothing about them as essentials. This striking appeal is made in behalf of those ministers who in 1721 had adopted Dr. Clarke's principles or others resembling them to the Presbyterian ministers at large, pressing by an argument ad hominem the right of professing them from the similar freedom of change which had been exercised among them in the genei'ation befoi*e. ' But whatever be the present state of religion compared with what it has been on this earth, the pious few that now do in some measure walk in the same spirit and in the same way with their valuable predecessors, and therefore ought not to be set in the view of opposition or condemned as contrary to them, though they may have different apprehensions in many things from them as they had one from another, and from their own predecessors.' Rational and Christian Principles by Nicholas Billingsley, a Presbyterian minister in Somersetshire, 1721. p. xvii. It was not to be supposed, and could not be supposed, that when these changes had taken place in carrying out the principle of freedom of inquiry, that the change would stop, that the same principle which had turned Calvinists into Arminians, might not turn Arminians into Arians, and Arians into Socinians, though they might each according to the strength of his own convictions, deem that the Scriptures would continue to bear a steady testimony, and would keep men from any wide departure from what appeared to themselves to be the truth. But let us look to the facts. It is notorious that before the founders of 'the Presbyterian chari- ties of the beginning of the eighteenth century had passed off the stage, the renunciation of the doctrine of the Trinity prevailed to a great extent among the Presbyterian ministers, that is, that the doctrine which the courts below regard as being so important that all administra- tors and beneficiaries of Lady Hewley's bounty must hold it, was during the lives of her original trustees lightly esteemed, and even disbelieved by a large portion of the body of Nonconformists to whom she and they belonged ; and this without producing any appeal to the courts to restrain the growing heresy, and to put forth the strong arm of the law to bring men back. This is a very important part of the case. The principle has been shown. We are now to contemplate its effects, p. 61. Practical Effects of the Principle. The principle may be looked at as falling among two classes of men, a body of educated and 94 enlightened persons such as the ministers of the Church of England, but who bein<* in a church which held forth a collection of articles of reli- gion to be subscribed to, with the full assent and consent of the mind ; and a body of other ministers, educated and enlightened also, whose academical discipline differed little from that of the ministers of the church but who had no articles, no subscription, no authoritative stand- ard of faith, nothing to curb them in their enquiry, nothing to call them back if it should happen that the spirit of research urged them too far and drove them to mistaken conclusions. We shall touch briefly on the effect upon the ministers in the church. There the effect was to show the inconvenient pressure of the subscription. Bishop Hare's tract ' The Difficulty and Discouragement in the Study of Scriptures in the way of private Judgment represented,' 1721, is throughout an exhibition of the inconvenience of subscription to doctrines of men when taken in conjunction with an acknowledgment of the right and duty of free 'enquiry, and of the sole authority of Scripture. Another prelate, Clayton, the Bishop of Clogher, also plainly states the difficulty. Vin- dication of the Old and New Testament, 1752. Part TIL, pp. 25, 26. It is in fact the main point in the great subscription controversy, which in the last century agitated the Church of England ; and which was somewhat composed by the convenient doctrine respecting subscrip- tion laid down by Paley, and in a more refined form by Pearson, but which is revived whenever attention is forcibly drawn to the apparently Calvinistic turn of the Articles of the English Church. Falling among divines and a church, if such it may be called, existing without the restraint of creeds, articles, and subscriptions, the effect was not to. produce a body of ministers, thus feeling themselves in a contradiction, but of those who persuaded themselves that to what- ever truth the acting on the principle might conduct them, they were at liberty to go, and to make profession publicly of the truth, at least so far as they could prudently do so ; that is, without needlessly and inconveniently shocking the prejudices of those who had not made the same advances, and this was what they did. The Arianism which was the effect of their acting on the principle soon became the prevalent and avowed doctrine of the Presbyterian dissenters. Bogue and Bennett. Vol. III., pp. 248, 384, 398. These historians (in their extracts quoted above) put prominently the distinctive characters of the two bodies. Mr Locke incidentally proves the fact as even that must have been well understood in his early day, or he would not have treated it as he does. It is plain he knew well enough what the Independent restrictiveness was ; and we may fairly imply from his so positively selecting them that he knew it was not general and certainly not applicable to the leading body, the Presby- 95 terians. Defence of Nonconformity, printed in Lord King's Life of Locke. 4to., p. 244. The public and external impression as to the real opinions of the Presbyterians fixes them with heresy veiy early. Miles Davies, Athense Brittannica>, 1 7 1 G, vol. II., p. 312, complains 'of the Dissenters countenancing the Arian Sectaries.' A High Churchman's testimony to the general opinion of the state of the Presbyterians, and generally as to what it was considered was the tendency of the ' Moderate Men's ' course of action may be dei'ived from a book entitled Modern Pleas for Schism and Infidelity reviewed, or the present principles of deism and enthusiasm fairly represented, and the false pretences of the moderate man to the interest of the Chui'ch of England exposed. Also Modern Pleas for Heresy reviewed, or a particu- lar defence of the Athanasian creed against the Arians and Deists, by Joseph Smith ; 3rd Edition, 1717. ' "We will endeavour to take a view of this odd mixture of contradictions in tbree distinct classes, as they stand distinguished under the well-known denominations of Quakers, Anabaptists and Presbyterians. [Here Independents are included in Presbyterians.] Neither do the Presbyterian teachers now subscribe to what their predecessors (at least in name) called the Assembly's confession of faith. If their faith is the same now as then why do they cease publicly avowing it by subscription 1 Nothing less than our creed, at least some of the weighty and momentous articles of it, will satisfy any of these people.' pp. 15, 20, 21, 48, 50, 51, 54, 252-254. The Memorial of the State of England, 1705, by John Toland, states that ' The Presbyterians are all now for liberty of conscience to all men in points of mere religion or opinion, and they have expressly declared their minds to this purpose in several of their late books, particularly in the writings of Mr Calamy, which they generally approve.' p. 36 ; see also p. 44-45. The Eev. John Shower, in a letter to the author, pronounces the memorial 'the most judicious and seasonable of anything lately printed. 'Tis the real state of our case.' [The quotations in this section do not carry the matter further than the expressions here extracted from them]. In fact without imputing or insinuating anything of an unchristian insincerity to the ministers either in the Church or out of it who con- tended for the principle of free enquiry and the Bible only, it is mani- fest that among ministers of both classes (Churchmen and Dissenters) this principle has generally been united with a deviation, be it more or be it less, from the Athanasian Trinity. In Chillingwortb it is noto- rious that this was the case ; Locke, every one knows, was an Arian ; 96 Sir Isaac Newton was equally heterodox ; "Whitby ended his scriptural studies with an avowal of Unitarianism. Tillotson was often charged with Socinianism. In 1G95 a pamphlet was published entitled 'The Charge of Socinianism against Tillotson considered.' The author in his preface says it was written ' before the death of that unhappy man.' Similar reports were spread regarding Baxter, and as to Dr. Clarke, though he entitles his work ' The Scripture Docti'ine of the Ti'inity,' to which the Introduction is prefixed from which we have quoted, yet what is his Trinity but pure Arianism 1 The historical fact is undeniable (as vouched by the numerous volumes of Anti-Trinitarian tracts published in the last ten years of the seven- teenth century), that all that has ever been said and argued on these subjects had been then said and written ; and that these books, for talent and learning, have not at this day been excelled. They imply nume- rous and able writers and readers ; and it remains to be pointed out where the field could be, if not among the liberalizing theologians, and those mainly the Nonconformists, p. 69. Particular Cases. Exeter, &c. Peirce says, 'Dr. Clarke, Mr Whiston, and other writers, who differ from the common notion, had been read here before my coming [in 1713 ;] and some few of the people, though they had kept it to themselves, had long before, by only reading their Bibles, been convinced that it was not agreable to the scriptures.' The Western Inquisition, 1720. p. 11. We find also that as early as 1710 there was a friendly correspond- ence between the Halletts, who were ministers in Exeter, and Whiston, on the Arian controversy, and that the Halletts had embraced and openly avowed the Ai'ian opinions. The Rev. Josiah Eveleigh in A Vindication of Mr TrosSe, 1719, p. 82, says, ' It is a grief that has almost killed me to see so many of my friends gone off from the truth.' Mr Newman, a minis- ter in London, in a letter to Peirce, 1719, says, 'Mr Walrond gives a melancholy account of the state of religion in the country, with reference to the proper Godhead of Christ, and the Holy Spirit.' These changes imply the growth of twenty years at least. A letter of advice from the Devonshire ministers to their people, 1719, says, 'It affects us to see so many so ready to sink in unsound doctrines deroga- tory to the honour of our glorious Redeemer and the Holy Spirit.' [Several sentences are condensed into this paragraph.] Hallett, the tutor, disowned Arianism. In 1719 he published " The belief of the Subordination of the Son of God to His Father no characteristic of an Arian." In 1710 he was "earnestly con- cerned for the common doctrine" according to Mr Peirce, In- quisition Honesty displayed, 1722, p. 78. 97 Peirce says, "We utterly disown the peculiar opinion of A i ins that Christ is a creature. We believe that text, Romans ix. 5, 1 Who is over all, God blessed for ever/ belongs bo < Jurist." Account of Reasons, p. 17, 18. "Not one of us can be charged with delivering any one error, the utmost they have to say against me, the most obnoxious of all, being that I have declared for a subor- dination of the Son to the Father." Inquisition honesty dis- played, p. 76. Joseph Hallett, jun., when a student, in or after L710, held a correspondence with Whiston as to his doctrines, but it was kept secret; his lather's. correspondence with Whiston was as to the hitter's 10th Discourse or Directions for the Study of Divinity. About November, 1 71 8, the Rev. Roger Beadon, after an eighteen years' pastorate, was unanimously dismissed by his congregation at Budleigh Devon. The Rev. John Cox was also dismissed by the congregation at Kingsbridge Devon. Mr Tomkins's dismission mentioned at p. 43, was for a sermon intended to prove "that the doctrine of Christ's deity according to the commonly received notion was not a necessary fundamental article of the Christian faith, he did not say anything in opposition to the doctrine itself." In Somerset, Foster, Stogden, Billingsley, Moore, Chandler, and Grove, before 1720, had laid the foundation of that Arianism which was soon manifested in most of the Dissenting congregations of that country. But Devonshire and Somerset were not in this respect singular, nor the only, or even the first parts of the kingdom in which this departure from orthodoxy manifested itself. In other counties it made less noise, because there was less opposition made to it, and little controversy or clamour was produced. It was for the most part a transition silent and passive, and it was only in some few particular congregations that there were any heats or animosities engendered by it. The instances of this were rare. In fact the soil had been prepared in most of the congregations by the spirit of free inquiry which had been encouraged and exercised, so that as the old ministers passed away, successors were chosen who had passed from the Arminian into the Arian scheme as their predecessors had passed with 'equal silence from the Oalvinian to the Arminian. p. 71. A sermon of the Rev. John Dodson, of Penniddock, (afterwards of Marlborough), preached in 1719, is quoted, [the main passages are these :] 12 98 'He (an opponent) gave a free vent to his zeal against me, telling tlieni that as to the business of Arianism he believed all the ministers had the same sentiments they always entertained, unless the preacher was cone into the new scheme. I now suffer under this reproach in com- mon with a great many of my worthy brethren in London and else- where ; because I as well as they declare against making any human forms the tests of orthodoxy.' Preface, p. 6 ; see also pp. 7, 8. Sermon, pp. 12-28. 'Let us not be fond of a party as such ; 'tis being zealous Arminians, earnest Calvinists, rigid Lutherans, instead of contenting ourselves with being plain and honest Christians, which is one principal cause of those contentions and animosities which are found among the celebrated par- ties.' p. 20. ' Let us prefer holiness in our brethren to orthodoxy ; I mean to what we ourselves esteem to be orthodox, for no doubt every sect is perfectly orthodox in its own judgment. . . . And on the other hand did we but consider that piety is preferable to faith ; to faith in this case taken in the strictest sense, i.e., a mere assent of the under- standing to the truth of things revealed ; which certainly must draw its principal if not all its excellency from the influence it has upon morality.' pp. 30, 31. [The ministers mentioned in pp. 82, 83, are then enumerated with their academies, and in addition it is added] Dr. Samuel Chandler, F.R.S., the author of numerous esteemed writings, and through life one of the most influential ministers in this denomination, waseducated under Mr Jones at the same time with Seeker, and both came from the academy possessed with views of the Scripture doctrine scarcely if at all differing from those of Dr. Clarke. He became minister of the congregation at Peckham, in Surrey, in 1716, [still orthodox], a case of the early choice of a minister of those sentiments. At Jones's also was Dr. Scott educated who was chamber fellow with Seeker, author of an Essay towards a Demon- stration of the Scripture Trinity by Philanthropus, 1728, and of a new version of St. Matthew's Gospel with notes, in the preface to which, after arguing that a reasonable faith is required as well as a reasonable ser- vice, he says, ' I have not attempted a confutation of the Trinitarian scheme, which I profess is altogether unintelligible to me or absolutely inconsistent with itself; but however I have aimed at a demonstration that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct spirits, of which the Father only is God.' p. 73, Proofs. It is submitted that this being the case, that an Arian or Anti-Trini- tarian system of Christian belief having been thus early introduced into the Presbyterian congregations, and that no appeal having been made from any cpiarter resembling the appeal which has now, at this late period, 90 been made to the Courts below, to force on the trustees of Presbyterian foun- dations, and the beneficiaries under them, the reception or the retention of the doctrine of the Trinity, it ought to be taken as evidence that the persons of those times who lived in and near the age of the founders, knew what was their intent, and that there would then be no chance of success in any such appeal ; and that to make an appeal to the law of the land and the judgment of the Courts would have been in direct opposition to that spirit of freedom and opposition to all human authority in matters of religion, which it was the boast of the Dissenters that they had ever manifested. The different cour-se which has now been pursued, and which has forced on the appellants this appeal, has been taken by persons, few of whom are of the old Dissenters of England, and acquainted with their feelings, principles, and usages, but who have sprung out of the more recent schism produced by the labours in the last century of the leaders of Methodism, who had little, if anything, in common with the English Dissenters for whom the Act of Toleration was formed. They are in fact a body of persons who had no existence as a religious com- munity at the time when Lady Hewley made this foundation, and who cannot therefore (whoever else were) have been contemplated by her. And of their difference from those persons for whose benefit these foun- dations were made, no better proof can be given than these proceedings, so entirely opposed to the proceedings of the Dissenters of Lady Hewley's time, and so subversive of the principles which they cherished. [A list of ministers stated in the Proofs to be Anti-Trinitarian will be found in the Appendix]. Salters' Hall Proceedings. Their bearing on the present Ques- tion. The Assembly of ministers in Devonshire, one of those unions of Dissenting ministers which were formed in various parts of the kingdom in the year 1691, perplexed by the new circumstances in which they were placed by the extensive prevalency of avowed Arianism, while many retained their educational principles, and were zealous for them, applied in 1718 to the united body of ministers in London for advice. In February and March, 1719, the London ministers, (not merely, it is to be observed, Presbyterians, but also Independents and Baptists), met at Salters' Hall, when they resolved themselves into a kind of synod, chose Dr. Joshua Oldfield for their Moderator, and proceeded deliberately to consider what advice should be given. After long debating they agreed upon certain advices tending to union and peace ; but the doctrinal question came directly before them, when it was proposed that they should accompany those advices with a declaration of their own faith in the doctrine of the Trinity. This question was put to the vote. The meeting divided, when there were '<■"> for subscribing, and 57 against it. The great argument on the side of the non subscribers was 100 that they would subscribe to nothing but the Bible. Sir Joseph Jekyll, the .Master of the Rolls, hearing this, is reported to have said that the Bible carried it by four. p. 79. It will be seen that they [the advices sent from Salters' Hall] assert the principle that to the Bible only is the appeal to be made, and that though the ministers subscribing them had themselves no doubt respecting the doctrine of the Trinity in some form or other in which it was professed, (and Dr. Clarke had shown them how as Arians they might still speak of a scriptural Trinity if necessary to do so), yet that they do not regard it as of that snpreme importance that the people were bound to withdraw themselves from a minister by whom the doc- trine was not held. They had also by a solemn vote refused to direct that there should be subscription to the first article of the Church of England, and the fifth and sixth answers in the Assembly's Catechism, which express the doctrine of the Trinity. By this decision we thus in fact obtain a declaration from the ministers at large on the relative importance in which the two opposed principles of the support of the doctrine of the Trinity and of the principle of adherence to the Bible only were regarded by the Nonconformist body of the age of the founders. Dr. Calamy gives the following" account of the Salters' Hall Assembly* but only so much of it as is not inclosed in [ ] is extracted in the Proofs. The parts so enclosed have been added as they seemed necessary to represent his statements and opinions fully and indeed fairly, and of that the reader will judge. There are here, then, in small type, additions to the extracts from the Proofs in infraction of the engagement at p. 64, but it is trusted that the advantage of the plan followed will be evident, .and that no injustice will result to the authors of the Proofs. [About the same time sad heats arose among the Dissenters, who no sooner had that relief from the government which they had expected and waited for with some impatience than they fell to pieces, and were thereby not a little exposed and weakened .... Jealousies and animosities arising, they broke into two parties, with as much eagerness as if they had been bent on the overthrow of each other, as the greatest happiness they could have hopes of reaching. Many were surprised at their heats, which were grossly imprudent, and very much owing to the agency of certain gentlemen on both sides by whom the ministers among the Dissenters were but too much influenced, though many were not * The account to be found above commencing p. 23 is derived as to mutters in Exeter from .Mr Murch, and as to matters in London from Mr Walter Wilson. 101 aware of it till afterwards ; nor did those gentlemen themselves, I believe, foresee what consequences would follow, upon the measures they pursued. The state of the case was this. Some members of the Com- mons, who had deserted the worshipping assemblies of the Dissenters which they formerly frequented .... seemed inclined now as the repealing act went forward to oppose the very first thing attempted in their favour in a parliamentary way after the accession of King George and endeavoured to clog the bill depending, by moving for the adding to it a sort of test, in relation to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as to which the body of the Dissenters were (unkindly and without any just ground) represented as wavering and unsettled. Mr Peirce, of Exeter, (but a single man, though in good repute) was particularly mentioned as an erroneous person that had a considerable influence upon others. Perhaps two or three more might have been singled out that were in his notions. They declared they thought it highly expedient in order to securing soundness in the faith in this capital article of religion amongst those that should have any benefit by this bill, whether there were any particular grounds to suspect them or not. This motion was thought very unreasonable by some, and not a little resented. It particularly raised the indignation of a certain gentleman,* who not only continued all along to worship God in public with the Dissenters, but had interested himself much in their affairs, and done them good service . . . and had had a good hand in forwarding this very bill. Perhaps also this gentleman himself might in some respects have over- done the matter, not only by his taking more upon him than was well thought of in the private committee of the Dissenters, but also in teasing persons of rank and distinction in their favour, and been more positive in his demands on their behalf from ministers of State, than they well knew how to bear. This might heighten the opposition made in this case and cause it to be attended with the more warmth. However he was fully of opinion that he and his friends to whom he declared himself a firm adherent had been too serviceable to the public to be neglected, when he with vehemence opposed a test of this sort, which the gentlemen above mentioned moved for with earnestness. And having a particular friendship for Mr Peirce he resolved to bestir him- self in his favour, not only among the Dissenting ministers, but also among the gentlemen that were their adherents, in order to the saving him from the storm that threatened him at Exeter, which he seemed to look upon as his main concern, as soon as the motion for such a doc- trinal test among the Dissenters was outvoted in the House of Commons. As to Mr Peirce .... no man could be more beloved by those •Evidently Mr Barrington Slmt^, afterwards Viscount Barrington >>{ the Irish peerage. 102 among whom he laboured than he was for a good while. But at length (influenced by some willing to show their particular zeal for orthodoxy) they began to suspect that he was not sound in the doctrine of the Trinity, and as to the union of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in one deity. He was not willing to give them satisfaction as to his orthodoxy, in the way in which they desired it, nor to declare some things to be truths and errors, that the leading men among them took to be such]. The differences about the Trinity in Exeter were brought into the assembly of ministers in that city, which according to course fell in Sep- tember this year. They, after great debates, pretty generally gave it as their sense that there was but one God, and that the Father, the "Word, and the Holy Ghost is that one God. But the contention afterwards rather increased than abated. [Had the Dissenters of Exeter hereupon agreed to a general meeting and taken care to have all summoned that used to give their votes in the election of ministers, for the several worshipping assemblies among them, and freely and fairly put it to the vote of all in common, whether or not Mr Peirce should not upon the account of the unsuitableness and disagreeableness of his notions to a majority of them, have been desired to have removed to some other place, where the sentiments that he now appeared to entertain might be more agreeable, and so carried it against him, neither would there have been so lmich reason to charge the active managers with proceeding unsuitably to their own avowed principles, nor would he himself have had so much reason for objecting against their excluding him, as in the way they took of confining the consideration of matters of the last importance to a committee not chosen by the whole body for that purpose. Many writings hereupon swarmed from the press.] [The committee at Exeter, in concert with some ministers in that neighbourhood, wrote to several ministers in London desiring advice, answers were returned, some more mild, others more warm. Mr Peirce also wrote to some that he thought he had an interest in, re- questing their help to compose matters at Exeter. Wheu this corres- pondence had been carried on for some time, and been considered in the London Committee, it was pretty generally agreed to lay the matter before the whole body of the Dissenting ministers in and about London ; so that what was done might have the more weight.] [Two different views might easily be discerned among the two parties that were to meet upon this occasion. Each aimed at appearing as large and considerable as they were able, yet both depending on their own strength concurred in publicly debating about the matters under consideration. This I must acknowledge, I from the first declared against, for fear of a rupture, which T thought might be foreseen without much difficulty.! 103 [When the body met, one party was full of zeal for certain ' advices' in order to the preventing a breach at Exeter, or other parts, about such matters, as those that were now debated. The other party was as zealous to the full for declaring their orthodoxy upon the doctrine of the Trinity, that so they might clear up their reputation, (which by the way no one had any reason to call in question), and appear the fitter to give advice to others. Not being able to agree in this they sadly squabbled. This was followed with many other differences.] The flame flew from Exeter to London even when the advices to be sent thither from hence were under consideration. Those advices had been canvassed in private consultations and debates, and were at length considered in some meetings of elder ministers and young candi- dates* together of the three denominations at Salters' Hall. It so fell out that when they met they could not agree whether they should first give their advice and then prove and clear their orthodoxy, or first manifest their orthodoxy, and then give advice. Supposing a subscription requisite and proper, it was queried by some with warmth and earnestness whether it was not sufficient to be made to the words and expressions of Scripture, or whether needful to be made to some human form. At last they divided into subscribers and non-subscribers, and both sent advices to Exeter, though of a different nature. The letter sent to Exeter with the advices by the non-subscribers was dated March 17, and signed by Dr. Joshua Oldfield, in the name of the majority at the first and most remarkable division. It came too late to prevent the breach. The meeting at Salters' Hall in which the question was proposed whether in the advices that were under consideration for Exeter thei'e should be any particular declaration of their faith in the Holy Trinity, was February 24 (1719) when it was carried in the negative by four votes. The actual subscription upon a new division that was managed with no small indecency was on March the third following. These things which fell out at the time when the united became the divided minis- ters, then made a great noise, and the particulars were in the mouths of everyone. As to myself I distinctly foresaw the quarrel and its consequences ; and before it rose to a height took up a resolution to have no hand in it. I was indeed at one private meeting, upon occa- sion of an answer to a letter from Exeter directed to me in conjunction with four other brethren, to which answer I was the freer to set my name because in the close of it my real sense was expressed ; viz., that we, by meddling in their contest, should be in danger to do hurt instead * By this expression the Doctor seems to designate young ministers without charges, and they appear to have made up the iiumbers as to whicli doubt is expressed at page 28. 104 of good. I "'as so fearful of that from what I at that time observed that 1 determined to engage no further. [Most earnestly was I pressed by those that were afterwards the non-subscribers to give them my company and join in with them. And but the very day before the grand meeting, at Salters' Hall when the division was actually made, I was as earnestly importuned by a letter signed by Mr Jeremy Smith, Mr William Tong, Mr Benjamin Robin- son, and Mr Thomas Reynolds, to be at the meeting on the day follow- ing, and (as they expressed it) help to prevent Mr Barrington Sbute's endeavour to break the body of ministers to pieces. But I sent them word that I was for following the advice of Solomon, in 'leaving off con- tention before it was meddled with,' and was very apprehensive that the number' of those that were designed to meet together on the present occasion, especially at a time when the spirits of so many were plainly exasperated, would in the event make matters worse, and rather increase the flame than abate or extinguish it. Therefore they tnust excuse me. Afterwards in the evening of the same day they sent to me worthy Mr Chalmers, Principal of the Old College in Aberdeen, (who happening to be then in town, was under a very great concern to observe what posture things were in at that time among us), who strenuously argued with me about being present at the meeting intended. He told me with great frankness, he could not see how I could satisfy my conscience as things then stood, to forbear making my appearance and declaring for the true eternal divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, (which he was satisfied I as firmly believed as any man whatever), when it was under debate. I told him that as for the true eternal divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, T was very ready to declare for it at that time or any other, and durst not in conscience be at all backward to it. But I could upon good grounds assure him that was not the point in question among those that were to meet together on the day following ; that certain gentlemen behind the curtain had so influenced their respective friends for two different ways and methods to which they severally inclined, that as they appeared disposed, a fierce contention and a shameful breach was in my apprehension unavoidable. When .... I saw him next he freely declared .... that as he never saw nor heard of such strange conduct and management before, so he was heartily glad I was not there. By my absence then I kept myself out of their squabbles and brangles afterwards, and though I read what was published on both sides, and that sometimes with no small concern and trouble, I fell not entirely in either with the subscribers or non-subscribers, but respected and kept up my correspondence with both, and received civilities from each. | As to the grand matter which they contended about, I was entirely 105 of the mind of the celebrated Mr Ghillingworth, who closes his preface to ' The Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation,' with these memorable words, ' Let all men believe the Scripture, and that only, and endeavour to believe it in the true sense, and require no more of others ; and they shall find this not only a better but the only means to suppress heresy, and restore unity. For he that believes the Scripture sincerely and endeavour's to believe it in the true sense cannot possibly be a heretic. And if no more than this were required of any man to make him capable of the church's communion, then all men so qualified, though they were different in opinion, yet notwithstanding any such difference, must be of necessity one in communion.' [The division being once formed the subscribers very warmly jiistified their proceedings, not without insinuations how much they were in the wrong that did not do as they. The non-subscribers as warmly justified their keeping from subscribing ; the attempting and introducing of which they represented as an innovation and imposition, and a running counter to their own avowed principles. The two parties fell heartily together by the ears and filled the whole city with their noise and clamour, and little stories were fetched and carried about to the inflaming matters day after day. In the meantime among the stand- ers by some greatly rejoiced at their exposing themselves so wretch- edly. Others as heartily mourned and grieved in secret at their bitter animosity and contention ; and religion sadly suffered from their invec- tives against each other. They first fought with angry advertisements, and began to squabble in the newspapers. The Whitehall Evening Post, Mist's Journal, and the Flying Post were made use of to convey the report of their contentious to all parts of city and country. Though those papers might perhaps for a little while sell the better upon that account ; yet were facts therein so very differently represented, that people were generally rather amazed and confounded than satisfied. Therefore they came next to pamphlets, which were poured forth from the press in abundance. . . . He that purchased all the warm pamphlets that came out in this contest must have been at the expense of some pounds. Whoso is at the pains to read them all over, will hardly find anything more deserving of regard than the tracts of Mr John Hughes, of Ware, and what was written by Dr. Gumming and Dr. Evans, about Scripture consequences.] [The former heats and feuds among the dissenters had continued this year both at Exeter and London, though prevented in some other parts of the nation, (notwithstanding strenuous endeavours used to draw them into an imitation), by ministers refusing to exact a positive declaration upon the head of the Trinity of those of whom they had no ground or occasion to be suspicious. The undisturbed peace of ministers 13 106 and people, while they acted upon that principle, was a proof how much they were in the right, p. 425.] It is clear that Dr. Calamy did not consider either the doctrine of the Trinity or the Deity of Christ to be disputed at Salters' Hall, and that he regarded the contest as contrived or directed by members of Parliament for their own purposes. In like manner Principal Chalmers saw in the meeting nothing but management, though he went to it with the notion that it was a glorious occasion for the English ministers to bear testimony for the truth. Mr Peirce's many friends cared only to prevent the chapels' committee and the ministers' assembly from triumphing over him, and they evidently eagerly seized the opportunity which Mr Bradbury's proposition afforded them, of trying their strength on the question of subscription, which was no part of the matter referred to them, but was what their minds were full of at the time. Previously the Presbyterians had no objection to subscription. Dr. Kippis says, in connection with the restric- tions imposed by the Toleration Act, " The principal part of the Dissenters did not wish to be exempted from doctrinal subscrip- tions. It was not doubted but that persons who entertained certain doctrines called heretical were by no means fit to be tolerated ; and the principal part of the Nonconformists, notwith- standing the long persecution they had endured, had not yet divested themselves of this persuasion. They did not think of questioning the right of the civil magistrate to impose subscrip- tion to human tests of faith and orthodoxy, they even believed it to be his duty to restrain what were apprehended to be funda- mental errors and heresies ; and though some ministers might entertain more liberal views of things, they were glad to accept of liberty of conscience on such terms as were offered, and could then be obtained. These terms were the less disagreeable to them as being Calvinists, or nearly Calvinists, they had scarce any difficulties with regard to the doctrinal articles, but could cheerfully subscribe them as containing their own real opinions." But the question of subscription had the year before the meeting at Salters' Hall, been brought before the attention of Dissenters, with every circumstance that could disgust them with it, and open their eyes to the injustice and folly of the practice in the abstract. For when the bill for relief of the Dissenters, from some of the in- juries and insults which had been inflicted on them by the parlia- 107 ments of Charles and Anne, came down to the Commons, an attempt was made to confine the benefit to persons subscribing a Trinitarian test. Nonconformist Ministers were already compelled to profess Trinitarian opinions, as included among the doctrines of the Establishment, but the proposed test would have been imposed on laymen, and would have been confined to the doctrine of the Trinity. It was therefore an insult and an annoyance previously unheard of. It is most remarkable that the mem- bers of parliament who proposed this test, after having left the communion of the Dissenters, should still retain sufficient influence over any of their number to form a party amono- their ministers. They could do this only by pretending that their object in proposing the test was simply zeal for the truth, and they would not have made the attempt if they had not been certain that there would be found among the Presbyterian minis- ters, (for without the Presbyterians the political interest of the Dissenters was very insignificant), many who would approve the imposition of subscription even on the laity, in the hope of pre- venting by that means the growth of Anti-Trinitarian views, or the imputation of such to their body. It should be borne in mind that in 169 7, after the Toleration Act, the Dissenting ministers of London presented by Dr. Bates an address containing this expression : " Whereas there are such doctrines frequently published as are infinitely injurious to the person and office of our blessed Saviour, we hope your pious zeal for His divine honour will put a stop to the licentiousness of the press that the conta- gion of the dead may not corrupt the living." So that the act against blasphemy, which imposes the penalties so disgraceful to our statute book on preaching against the Trinity, was passed on the solicitation of the Dissenting ministers of London and the neighbourhood. Mr Barrington Shute, from conviction and on principle doubtless, took part against the test and defeated the project, and as his reward he raised and con- solidated among the Dissenters a party of which he seems to have been the acknowledged head. The circumstauce that a House of Commons, very unfavourable to Noncon- formists, should yet reject a scheme for widely extended subscription to a Trinitarian test occasioned all thinking men among the Presbyterians to re-consider the principle of set- ting up a human standard of doctrine, and seems to have pro- duced their immediate and almost universal condemnation of it. 108 There has not been brought forward any evidence of their having ever previously declared against the practice, but by the next year the opposition to it being founded on reason had become a first principle with them, as is shewn by the manner in which it was thenceforth laid down and supported just as if it had been held ab antiquo, as the diplomatists say, and it opened a door of escape from a previous practice of subscription even in the Exeter Assembly. The interval between the first and second meetings afforded Mr. Peirce's friends an opportunity for considering their tactics, and Mr Barrington Shute, having pre- vented the statutory test, bethought himself that his best method was to liken the proposed synodical declaration to it; and when the decisive day came the parties of the year before again appeared confronting each other, and the leaders of the previous struggle in parliament were still, in congress phrase, the wire-pullers. Mr Shute' s friends were again on the defensive or negative side ; they had a right to say they did not come there to subscribe, and they declined to do so. There was no proposi- tion as to the propriety of the practice of subscription submitted to the meeting, and the advices do not directly refer to it, except as condemning creeds. The Vindication of the non-subscribers expresses the opinion that Scripture words should be kept in all articles and subscriptions, as if there must be some sub- scription. But Articles in Scripture words must from their nature be useless, since no one can object to a Scripture ex- pression, if a right translation of the original; while a cento of Scripture phrases may convey a most inaccurate meaning, even if it is really the words of revelation, and not the sayings of wicked men stated in narration or in parable. The reader will shortly have an example of a profession of belief of that description. Dr. Calamy's statement of the circumstances attend- ing this meeting, the last in which the three denominations united for any matter of internal regulation, by no means raises it in our estimation. Both parties appear as in no small degree the puppets of designing politicians. The subscribers lost substantial power for the shadow of a declaration, and they assumed to themselves a right to compel their brethren either to adopt a rigid form of words, or to encounter suspicion and obloquy. The non-subscribers could truly say that they did nothing more than refuse to submit to what they thought an undeserved personal imputation, yet they caused great sorrow to the most 109 religious persons of their communion, and gave a "heavy blow and great discouragement" to the doctrines which they professed, and no doubt truthfully professed, to hold most sacred. The advices of the non-subscribers avoided condemning Mr Peirce, yet they laid down rules under which he would have been dismissed if that had not been already done. Several other remarks occur on Dr. Calamy's statement. He does not express himself at all warmly as to the subscription proposed at Salters' Hall, and in his account in its place of the Act of 1718, he does not make any mention of the proposal of the test. He certainly in a very decided manner censures subs- cription to human formularies as a term of communion, but for authority to support him in so doing, he refers to Chillingworth, and does not appeal to any declaration by his own denomination, or any of its ministers. He takes care to say he afterwards preserved his neutral position between the parties, but shews that the subscribers thought him on their side. He was a phlegmatic man, as his portrait shows, yet anxiously wished to prevent division in his party, which would destroy its influence, and determined not to be connected with any movement which would have that effect. Dr. Kippis, who saw his manu- script, remarks, " that Dr. Calamy lost some credit by not being one of the seventy-three ministers who carried it for the Bible in opposition to human formularies." Mr Eutt, the editor of the autobiography, who feels that the fact tells against the non- subscribers, suggests that the doctor might have a reason against interference of which Dr. Kippis could scarcely be aware, as it does not appear in the MS., but Dr. Calamy does tell us his reasons. It is evident from the whole account that the Doctor was not a friend of Mr Peirce. His only objection to the Exeter proceedings is that his dismissal was by the committee and not by the people, so completely had the Presbyterians adopted the principle that power should be with the congregations, but his phrase, " all that used to give their votes in the election of ministers" shows that he did not know who the consti- tuent body was composed of at Exeter, and we may infer that there was no settled rule in the Presbyterian churches. He says "two or three men might have been singled out that were of Mr Peirce' s notions," and all his expressions imply that no he did not consider that there were any Arians among the London ministers. He has the phrase, " these things fell out at the time when the united became the divided ministers/' as if the union in Lon- don had continued to that time. The division which then took place was not into Presbyterian and Independent, but into subscriber and non-subscriber. Dr. Calamy, though the facts which he tells of Mr Barring- ton Shute are altogether to that gentleman's credit, yet intimates dislike and distrust of him, and that not only in the passages cited, but before and afterwards, and states eventually without any dissatisfaction his expulsion from the House of Commons, being then Lord Barrington. Yet notwithstanding Dr. Calamy is the chief authority cited by the Proofs, in all historical matters, the view of the Salters' Hall Assem- bly is chiefly taken from his Lordship. This nobleman is also put forward as the very embodiment of Presbyterian principle, yet strange to say, he was, until 1719, a member of the church at New Court, though Mr Bradbury had made it an Independent one from being Presbyterian, and then removed to Pinners' Hall, another Independent congregation. Lord Barrington was charged with holding Arian sentiments, and the charge was made use of to endanger his re-election for Ber- wick-on-Tweed. Mr Bennet, (with whom we shall have to do), denied that his patron was an Arian, though admitting that " he had some particular sentiments in some of the controversies of religion," and no authority is given for the statement in the Proofs, p. 108, "It is notorious that he was very far from any high standard of orthodoxy, and had no horror of sentiments of Christianity in which no proper Trinity made part." Though the subscribers to the advices did profess themselves to hold the doctrine of the Trinity, there cannot be a doubt that the liberality of this document was one principal cause of the extensive spread of the Arian doctrine, which in thirty years from that time had overspread nearly the whole of the Presbyterian field. The question was, in fact, by many regarded as being neither more nor less than the Trinitarian question, which was the great controversy of the time. In fact there ought to have been no compromise at that time if the body of Presby- terian ministers in London had really regarded the doctrine of the Trinity in the light in which it has appeared to the court below as an essential when the doctrine was attacked by their brother ministers in Ill the country with a force and strength of argument which must have alarmed even the most confident and induced them, if some very power- ful principle or sentiment on the other hand did not restrain them, to do their utmost to protect the doctrine.* It is deemed unnecessary to trace the progress of change in the Presbyterian body any further than to the point of the renunciation (not by it as a body, for it never as such bound itself to a creed of any sort, or to the negation of any, but by the greater portion of its mem- bers), of the docti-ine of the Trinity, because the decrees assumed that renunciation as being such a departure from the intent of the founder that the parties must be brought back by force to the state in which they were before that renunciation took place. In fact the change has not been great since the change which took, place in the last century, the beginning of which is to be traced into the very age of the founders, and * The important sentences of the non-subscribers' advices are printed on pp. 2G, 27, and the following letter accompanied them : March 17th, 1718-19. Gentlemen, Fathers and Brethren, Honoured and Beloved in our Lord, Having heard with great concern of the divisions amongst you, we take the leave you have been pleased to give us, humbly to present you with a few general advices which we judge proper to use ourselves, and would recommend to all on such occasions. We are well satisfied that things of this nature are well known to you, and hope they will not be ill received or unsuccessful. We shall be glad to receive from you the valu- able improvements we promise ourselves you will make upon them, or anything with reference to them that you shall think fit to communicate. We allow not ourselves to form a judgment of your affairs upon so distant and imperfect a view as rumour or representations on either hand, or both, can give us whilst the whole is not before us ; your prudence and goodness assure us that we may depend upon the like from you. We can truly say the advices we send you are the result of serious prayer, as well as long and mature deliberation. They have taken their rise from no party views, and aim at nothing but the common good: we have so calculated them for peace as to secure truth together with it ; and for substance they have the approbation of a great number of our principal gentlemen and citizens, as appears in a paper subscribed by them and laid before our committee of the Three Denominations. We add our earnest supplications that God would accompany them with His blessing to establish peace and truth amongst us, and freely declare that we utterly disown the Arian doctrine, and sincerely believe the doctrine of the blessed Trinity and the proper divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, which we apprehend to be clearly revealed in the Holy Scriptures ; but are far from condemning any who appear to be with us in the main, though they choose not to declare themselves in other than Scripture terms or not in ours. May the great and good God pour out of His holy Spirit abundantly upon us all, and the prayers of you all be continually for us, that we may increase in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour. We are your affectionate brethren and ser- vants in our common Lord, the Ministers in and about London, signed by me in their name and by their appointment. Joshua Oldfield, Moderator. P.S. This letter is to all whom it may concern, and therefore it is desired that it be communicated to all such with the advices. 112 which, as we have seen, the ministers in London who acted as the representatives of the body in that age were not forward to check. But whatever it has been, it has been the result (a result which it is impossible to contend they must not have considered as at least possible, seeing the controversies then pending) of the principle adopted by the fathers of Nonconformity that they would have no symbols of faith authoritatively imposed, and that the Bible only was to be the rule of a Christian's faith. It has been by the diligent study of the Scriptures, and the use of those means afforded them for arriving at the sense of them, that many of them have arrived at and continued in the renunciation of the doctrine of the Trinity in any known form, and that they have formed their opinions respecting the person and offices of our Saviour, and they humbly submit that they have done no more than what their founders intended and did in fact enjoin upon them. Dr. Kippis says, "It is observable tbat all the fifty-seven ministers were real believers, and most of them zealous asserters of the commonly received opinions with regard to the Trinity." Vindication of Protestant Dissenting Ministers, 1772, p. 29. In the reasons for not subscribing, it is said, " We know no just ground of suspicion, much less of any charge against us (of Arianism). We have not taught any thing like it 'and have taken all proper occasions to offer our reasons against it, and that not only from the pulpit, but some of us from the press We have the same faith and opinions concerning the Trinity with our (subscribing) brethren." In the reply published in 1719, by agreement of a committee of the non-subscrib- ing ministers they say, " Both sides have expressly declared themselves Trinitarians, and it does not appear to us that there is a man otherwise minded, so that to insinuate that we who are all declared Trinitarians shall by common consent agree to the Anti-Trini- tarians preaching the contrary doctrine in our pulpits we think is a way of talking that shows as much confusion of mind, as the supposition tends to confound the minds of the people. We agree in declaring against Anti-Trinitarians, Arians, and Socinians. . . . "Nor is there anything in our advices said against any censure or discipline towards a minister or other Christian regularly convicted of holding and propagating opinions inconsistent with the Christian Faith "The declaration we made [of Trinitarian belief] was unanimous as far as could be judged by the most careful observation. It was judged needless to put the negative. " As we know no distinction between proper Divinity and proper Deity, so we reckon the words proper Divinity very explicit, as they are designed to exclude every figura- tive and improper sense, and to represent one who is by nature God We always thought the Deity of the Holy Ghost and Unity of the Three Persons was under- stood by the ' Doctrine of the blessed Trinity. ' " Our brethren we hope will reckon those with them in the main, who own the unity of the Godhead and the True Deity of the Three Persons ; who allow the divine nature and divine perfections ascribed to them in the Scriptures ; which are the reason of aE our practical regards and the ground of all our hopes from them " Our brethren know by our preaching and conversation we are not Arians, nor hold any equivalent doctrines. If the people have a right to know our sentiments on these great articles we are bound to tell them We make a great difference between explaining the sense of Scripture in other than Scripture words, and subscribing human forms in articles of faith made necessary to salvation " A tender and scrupulous regard to the word of God alone, as the standard and test of truth in matters of salvation, would easily hinder us from subscribing human 113 At all events they submit that when they look back upon the stand which their ancestors made in defence of liberty of conscience as against the imposition of any creed or articles of religious faith, (themselves declaring it the moment the case was submitted to them, to extend to this very doctrine of the Trinity), they cannot but regard the declaration of the courts below, that they and their posterity must for ever receive the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the Atonement, and of Original Sin, as being in fact, though not in words, the imposition of a creed and articles upon them. Where is the sufficiency of Scripture now? Where is the right and duty of free enquiry at those oracles of sacred truth 1 It is gone, absolutely gone — if this decree be suffered to remain in force. tests of neeessary truth and not at all hinder us from explaining Scripture in our own words " The difference between lis here does not lie in the Scripture doctrine, which we are for preserving as much as they ; but we think, that to preserve the Scripture doc- trine, 'tis best to keep the Scripture words in all articles and subscriptions. "We believe with our brethren that the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity lies at the foundation of Christianity and runs through the whole of it, and is the proper frame and scheme of the Christian religion We must again tell the world (what our brethren know very well) that we have no controversy with them about the doctrine of the Trinity, but only about the method they have taken to secure it. " The esteem our brethren declare for the Assembly's Catechism as one of the most excellent summaries of religion, we think we do show in all proper ways, as much as they, by teaching it in our families, schools, and congregations." Mr Benjamin Andrew Atkinson, .minister of the chapel at Great Saint Thomas Apostle, one of the non-subscribers, reprinted in 1719 his confession of faith at his ordination in 1713, with a short preface "to satisfy the world that he had not in the least given in to any new notions concerning the ever blessed Trinity in Unity, but sincerely believed that there is one only living and true God, and that this God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," [words from Mr Bradbury's resolution]. In this pre- face he says, "Our reasons for not subscribing the paper offered to us at SalteiV Hall, March 3, have been made public, and I persuade myself, that the unprejudiced part of mankind are convinced our refusing to subscribe, at that time and in that manner, was very consistent with our belief of the doctrine contained in the Article and Catechism, (wherein we are so happy as to be acquitted by our subscribing brethren), and also very agreeable to the principles of the reformation, and to our own prin- ciples as Protestant Dissenters, declaring that the Bible is our religion and nothing else. For my own part I thought there was the less reason for subscribing, because I never had been suspected of anything like Arianism, but on the contrary in my course of expounding and preaching, have taken all proper occasions to defend the doctrine of the Trinity in the best manner I could. Besides to subscribe the fore- mentioned paper was out of place, time, and order, for we met to agree upon heads of advice, and not to adjust any doctrinal controversies. And I must own the subscrip- tion as then proposed and insisted upon, in my weak judgment, had the appearance of setting up human compositions for a standard of truth ; which I could not come into, lest I should seem to charge the Bible with imperfection and obscurity in points absolutely necessary to salvation ; though I acquit the subscribers from any such design, and I am fully satisfied we are all of the same sentiments, that the Bible is our only rule, and that all men must judge for themselves by this rule, as well as that the doctrine of the glorious Trinity is most certainly contained in the inspired writings." 14 114 Nay, such a decree as this must destroy their existence as a religious community, originating in the poor persecuted ministry whom Lady Hewley intended to patronise and protect ; for it deprives them of their chapels, their funds for educating their ministers, and for the support of the ministers themselves, it strips them of the very funds and endow- ments which their own forefathers have created. It carries, (as will be seen by the report of the Wolverhampton case), the monstrous and unjust consequence of forfeiting the accretions, which in almost every case, have been made by persons who are not only undoubtedly attached to the liberal principle, but were actually at the time avowed Unitarians. This is a difficulty to be grappled with in almost every case ; bringing with it also minor circumstances of aggravation, such as the ejection of families, whose fathers founded the charities, whose succeeding members have uninterruptedly occupied, and whose remains are interred around ; and this for the purpose of introducing a new body of persons, persons who have no connexion by descent, and little by principle, with the original founders and later benefactors. They regard moreover the creed which they must now profess, as containing very disputable articles, which have ministered occasion of dispute and discord in the church for many centuries past ; and that though expressed in a few words, it is a creed which prejudges and decides almost all the great questions on which Protestants are divided, and for which all parties equally appeal to the Holy Scriptures. They find upon inquiry that in the course which they have taken they have been but pursuing the same track in which the Presbyterian Church at Geneva, which is in many respects their pattern and parent, had walked ; where in the same spirit of religious inquiry the pastors and people have alike rejected those doctrines, and have adopted what are the present opinions of the English Presbyterians. They have seen much the same thing take place • among their brethren in Ireland and New England. They submit, on behalf of the ministers, that the hardship is great if they are to be required to adopt a creed devised in the courts of equity, who were not guided by the advice and assistance of divines, or (as the alternative) to cease to minister to a people who are attached to them, and desirous of attending their ministry : and on behalf of the laity, that it is an intolerable hard- ship that they shall be driven from the houses of worship in which from Sunday to Sunday, they have been accustomed to assemble for the worship of God from the time beyond which memory cannot ascend, where many of them received the rite of baptism in their infancy, and where they have worshipped all their lives amidst the remains and memorials of their deceased ancestors. They think it an intolerable hardship that at this distant period from the time of the 115 foundations a new principle is to be introduced, which neither they nor their fathers ever heard of; which is, they humbly submit, as far as information can now be obtained, at variance with the spirit in which their forefathers proceeded when they made such costly sacrifices in establishing these foundations, and utterly destructive of that liberty in which they have ever been accustomed to rejoice as their peculiar distinction amidst the various classes of professing Protestants. Suppose Lady Hewley to have been heretical in her opinions, and that her object was to make an endowment in favour of liberal opinions, which it was not prudent to avow ; what could she do but leave her property in the hands of liberal men with an endowment in favour of godly and pious ministers ; taking care not to define wherein godliness and piety consist ; and leaving the issue in. the hands of divine Provi- dence, with a perfect confidence in the ultimate prevalence of religious truth 'I What is here presumed as possible in Lady Hewley 's case is known with historical certainty to have been the fact in other cases. So far from their being any sound reason for sifting with ingenuity the possible or probable doctrinal peculiarities "of every founder of a dissenting trust, it is submitted that public policy tends strongly towards the admission of a discretion in the management of religious foundations where it is not directly at variance with a founder's declared design. Towards a national religious establishment a progressive power of modification and adaptation according to its varying circumstances, is exercised by the state, which formed and supports it. But a private foundation will, by the late decisions of the Court of Chancery, bo subject to no such corrective. The various changes that have been made in the law, having a tendency to multiply diversities of opinions, furnish a reason for acting upon the usage and pi'actice of congregations rather than for seeking out the private and personal opinions of founders of religious foundations. The safest and the wisest principle to encourage seems to be one that may correct, rather than perjjetuate, individual errors. The law now enables any private person to establish a religious charity, however crude and vague (or possibly absurd) his own religious opinions may be. He may keep within such bounds as courts of law may sanction, and yet his opinions may be such as to render it a painful duty to any court to give permanence to his opinions — opinions which in the progress of time all mankind may agree to repudiate. The policy consecpiently of the law should, it is submitted, be, to subject religious trusts to the correction of such parties as there is reason to believe will be seriously disposed to adopt what they conscien- tiously believed to be true, without being influenced in their belief bv undue or partial affections. And this will certainly be best accomplished by leaning against the perpetuation of individual opinions : arid bj 116 favouring the subjection of private trusts to that control and correction which the progress of opinion may from time to time supply ; rather than by seeking to find out and render perpetual the peculiar notions of each particular founder, whether he declares and imposes them or not. The "Occasional Papers." That work which it is believed long preceded any periodical publication of the sort, is surely of very considerable importance in connexion with the state of Presbyterian opinion antecedently to the Salters' Hall Meeting and with the conclusion which we have drawn, that the decision there come to was only a development and practical action upon principles entertained long before. In 1716 we find the leading London Presbyterian ministers uniting to publish an occasional or periodical tract, (price 3d), the object of which has throughout not the most distant allusion to the perversion or support of any given doctrinal opinions, but has, as the prefatory advertisement states, the following design 'as occasion offers and circumstances of affairs require . . . to do the best service . . . to the best of causes, in the cause of truth, liberty, and catholic Christianity.' That such a periodical should be issued and be so favourably enter- tained as to extend to three octavo volumes is surely strong evidence not only that there were eminent writers in the denomination zealous in support of its principles, but that there was an abounding body of persons to whom as readers those principles were acceptable, and both those circumstances imply considerable fixedness of opinion and anterior for- mation and development of decided conclusions. Dr. Toulmin (the historian of the Dissenters) has, in a communica- tion to the Protestant Dissenters' Magazine of 1798, (vol. v., p. 276), stated the authors of several of the papers, and it will be seen they are names already alluded to as liberal Presbyterian ministers all educated in Lady Hewley's day. He states that Dr. Grosvenor wrote the first on Bigotry ; Dr. Wright the second (The Character of a Protestant). Dr John Evans wrote No. 3. Mr Simon Browne, Nos. 4, 10, and 12. Mr Moses Lowman No. 6, all in vol. I. Mr Moses Lowman also wrote No. 1, vol. II. on Orthodoxy. [The following are the references to the quotations given] : No. 1, on Bigotry ; pp. 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20. No. 4, vol. I., An Expedient for Peace among all Protestants ; pp. 4, 5. No. 10, vol. I., a second paper with the same title ; pp. 6, 20, 21, 26. No. 1, vol. II. , 'A bold Paper on Orthodoxy,' by Mr Lowman ; pp. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. 117 No. 2, vol. III., 'A Spirited Essay on Bugbears ;' pp. 26, 27. No. 7, vol. III., Of Divisions ; pp. 8, 9. The author particularly refex*s to the docrine of the Trinity as a source of divisions. ' Different apprehensions in the affair of the Trinity have been always a plentiful fund of quarrel when the good sense of the age had well nigh worn out all others. As men of craft and design got power it was pronounced heresy to speak of these things in other words than what were dressed up for the people, one while no words are so excellent and eligible as words which the Holy Ghost teacheth ; another while your subscribing to the whole doctrine relating to this matter in words which the Holy Ghost teacheth signifies nothing.' pp. 11, 12. No. 9, vol. III., An Essay to prevent Uncharitable Contentions about the doctrine of the Trinity. ' There is lately arisen among us an unhappy controversy concerning a very high and difficult point ; the unity and distinction of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. When a like dispute disturbed the church about 1500 years ago, all who know the history of those times know what confusion and mischief it occasioned. The first of the methods I men- tioned was then tried, I mean of reducing all to a unity of opinion by new determinations, subscriptions, and excommunications ; and that in all their variety, and supported with all the power of the empire ; but with what ill success the long and furious contentions of those unhappy times declare. And yet how many are still fond of trying the same unlikely methods over again ! Can no former experience make us wise V p. 7. The whole contents of these three volumes are exceedingly curious and interesting. They are quite decisive as to what must have been the state and tendency of opinion among the leading minds of the Pres- byterians for a period (we should say) equivalent at least to all the years of the eighteenth century which preceded the Salters' Hall meet- ing. That this body should have been only ten years before in so different a state of opinion and feeling as that restrictive foundations can be assumed to have been a matter of intent and design among them appears to us utterly incredible, p. 94. As to the Peculiar Circumstances of Lady Hewley's Charity. There is no decisive evidence respecting the particular views of Christian truth which she entertained. From some slight expressions in her will, and from some slight remarks contained in the funeral sermon preached by Dr. Colton on occasion of her death, it has been argued that she held certain opinions which may be described as moderately orthodox ; but in fact there is nothing which ought to be regarded as evidence of her reception of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not however necessary for us to disprove that she might hold that doctrine in some mitigated 118 form. What is contended for is this, that there is no reason from anything that is known respecting her, to suppose that she was an exception to the general character of the denomination of Christians to which she belonged ; who, though generally holding that doctrine in the times when she lived, did not so esteem it as to set it before the asser- tion of the right of free enquiry and private judgment, and refused to do anything for the especial protection of it. It is submitted that this free- dom from a strong attachment to any particular view among the many which are taken of Christ's Holy Gospel, is apparent in the trust founded by her, which, though a religious trust, is free from any requisi- tion from either administrators or participants of the adoption of any one view of Christ's Holy Gospel, that her instructions that the alms- women in the hospital should be persons able to repeat the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Apostle's Creed, and Mr Bowles's Catechism, is in no sense to be interpreted as if she imposed those as a creed on the higher class of recipients of her bounty, the ministers who were to be educated by her trustees and supported by them in the exercise of their ministry ; that in fact those higher recipients are left in a state of the most unlimited freedom consistent with remaining 'poor and godly ministers of Christ's Holy Gospel.' And it is further sub- mitted that the preference of Mr Bowles's Catechism to the Assembly's Catechism (either the longer or shorter) as a digest of Christian doctrine with which it was expected that the old women candidates for admission to the benefit of the hospital should be familiar is a proof that any orthodoxy of the Dissenters at York, and of Lady Hewley in particular, was at least a very subdued orthodoxy, inasmuch as even the doctrine of the Trinity can hardly be said to be expressly declared in that catechism, while it is wholly free from the tremendous declarations of the catechism of the Westminster Assembly. If next we look to the original administrators of the charity, we shall find that they also were men of the like sentiments. What Dr. Thomas Colton was we have seen [shall see] in the notice left of him by Dunton, a contemporary. No bigot to any party, but a lover of all good men. Mr Richard Stretton, the other minister in the seven persons who formed the original trust, was also a man of the same liberal spirit. Of the laymen less is known ; but when the next choice of trustees was made to supply vacancies, we find that men are chosen by them who were carried forward by the stream in which Presbyterian nonconformity was flowing. In the whole of those who have formed the trust from the beginning" there appears to have been only one exception, Mr Moody. In fact the course of opinion in the members of this trust is an abridgement of the course of opinion, in which the body, which quoad hoc they repre- sented, proceeded. They are, in course, from 1710 to 1833, Arminians, 1 L9 Arians, and most of them what are now more distinctively called Unitarians. , One would have thought that the phrase by which Lady Hewley designates the objects of her bounty, and which no doubt she thought sufficiently described them, would have been conclu- sive as to her own opinions. She does not call them ministers, but preachers, and gives them the epithet godly, which had been appropriated to the rigid party equally by themselves, and their enemies; and not content with saying, of the Gospel, she styles it Christ's Holy Gospel. This was not the language of the seven- teenth century, or of a latitudinarian, but savoured of the old puritan times and denoted puritan ideas. She had lived all her life among puritans and nonconformists ; she was fourteen in the year that the Long Parliament met, and she died just before the formation of the last tory administration which had the power to persecute nonconformists. She was sixty years of age at the Eevolution, at which time it is admitted in the Proofs that the whole of her denomination was orthodox, and it may with truth be said they were then rigidly orthodox. To assume with- out the smallest particle of proof that she changed her opinions at that age showed what desperate shifts the antitrinitarian party were put to. She was a valued friend of Mr Oliver Hey wood. Her chaplain, the Eev. Timothy Hodgson, was the son of Mr ^Heywood's fellow worshipper Captain Hodgson, an Independent. Dr. Colton was her pastor for eighteen years : and his will shews him to have been perfectly orthodox. Mr Stretton to whom the preparation of her trust deeds was committed, was a zealous promoter of the happy union : his successor at Haberdashers' Hall was a Subscriber, and the following ministers were Inde- pendents. The trustees of her selection were five out of seven resident in London, as if she meant to confide her charities to the guardianship of the denomination. No person of latitudinarian opinions is stated ever to have been in communication with her. Mr Bowles's catechism is relied on as shewing that Lady Hewley might have been an Arian, and was not a Calvinist. It will be found in the appendix, and will speak for itself. There can be no doubt that Mr Bowles's opinions were those of his brethren. The purpose of his, catechism is to present all necessary truth in the simplest and easiest manner, and to avoid all the difficulties of that of the Assembly, which was intended to embody the whole 120 system of theology with precision, and if the expression is ad- missible, technically. Lady Hewley no doubt chose it for the same reason, and through friendship for Mr Bowles, who during the interregnum was one of the preachers at the cathedral. She required her almspcople to be poor, piously disposed, and of the Protestant religion, and no doubt calculated that the Presbyterian congregation would not, at any rate while new, supply a sufficient number of applicants for her charity, and that even the bigotry of her cathedral city could find no fault with Mr Bowles's cate- chism, while it stated sufficiently the method of salvation. The reader is requested to test what is said of Lady Hewley in the Proofs, that he may judge of the other assertions and arguments which he finds there. This part of the case affords a very good criterion of the whole. Early State op Congregations affected by the Charity. The Presbyterian congregations in Yorkshire which are peculiarly recom- mended to the notice of her trustees went through the same change ; and this, as it seems, without producing any animosities or commotions like those which prevailed in the Devonshire congregations. ~No con- troversial tract did, it is believed, appear, and the congregations passed from Arminianism to Arianism by an imperceptible transition. Such was also the case in the county of Lancaster, and in the congregations of the more northern counties ; though most of the last, after a short sojourn in the Arian view of Scripture doctrine, instead of advancing further in Unitarianism, either became extinct or returned back to Arminian and Calvinian views, and elected for their pastors, not divines educated in the English Presbyterian academies, but for the most part natives of Scotland, and sometimes persons who were ministers in the Established Presbyterian Church of that kingdom. This appears fully in the printed evidence taken befoi'e the Master on the appointment of new trustees, when these orthodox half-Scotch Presbyterians came forward. This however produced no change in the disposition of Lady Hewley's trustees towards them. It would be easy to give the history of any one of the Yorkshire congregations which were entitled to be benefited in preference to those of any other counties ; and it might in many instances be shown, as clearly as can be expected in such a case, in which there are no sudden turns and quick transitions, but only a slow, steady, quiet and unobservable progress, when the belief in the Trinity as commonly expounded disappeared. It may be stated generally that the new or Arian scheme was countenanced in Yorkshire and Lan- cashire, and in the more northern counties from the beginning of its appearance, that it was making way in the time of the first race of 1 21 trustees, and that in the time of the second race it had fully established itself, and was widely extended, p. 99. On the death of Dr. Colton, the congregation invited the Rev. John Buck, then minister of the Presbyterian congregation at Bolton, in Lancashire, to be joint pastor with Mr Hotham. A copy of his invita- tion, signed by the principal members of the congregation, with the subscription each was willing to contribute, still exists. Of the opinions of this Mr Buck, says the Rev. James Brookes, (The prevalence of Arianism among English Presbyterians in the early part of the last century, 1837, p. 21), some idea may be formed from a sermon of his still existing in his own handwriting on the text, ' Ye will not come unto Me that ye might have life.' The whole drift of the sermon is to overturn the Calvinistic doctrine of original depravity, or of man's inability of himself to comply with the terms of salvation. Mr Buck's argument was that this doctrine degrades human nature, is opposed to the gospel scheme, is contrary to plain facts, and overturns God's moral government. He explains what is meant by coming to Christ just as an Arian or Unitarian would explain it. ' To come to Christ, says he, is to believe in Him as a divine messenger sent by God, as the promised Messiah, as that prophet which was foretold by the Jewish prophets who was to come into the world to seek and to save that which is lost. It consists also in taking His yoke upon us, and submitting to His authority as the King and Head of the church, and then further, it is to learn of Him and carefully imitate His example and temper, to imita,te Him in His piety towards God, His charity towards men, and His self-government. So that from hence it follows undeniably plain, that the only reason why sinners of the human race perish is, because they will not come to Christ or heartily comply with that scheme of salvation which His gospel proferreth.' Now these were sentiments of the minister who when Dr. Colton, Lady Hewley's favourite pastor died, the congregation of which she was a member, chose as his successor and as colleague to her other pastor, Mr Hotham, and one may reasonably presume, a colleague agreeing in opinion with him to whom he was thus associated. The interval between her death and the election of Mr Buck was one and twenty years. If the congregation at that time coidd invite to be their pastor a minister of such sentiments as these it can hardly be that Dr. Colton was a minister far removed from them, or that there was in him, or Mr Hotham, in the York congregation, or in Lady Hewley, that horror of Anti-Trinitarian sentiments which has been imputed to them. It raises, in the absence of proof to the contrary, a presumption that Anti- Trinitarian sentiments had previously existed, when in 1732 there was such a decided manifestation of them. Further, respecting the opinions 15 122 of Mr Buck when invited to York lie had been only three years settled at Bolton, where he had succeeded the Rev. Thomas Dixon, befoi'e mentioned .... and on the rumour of his intention to leave Bolton and remove to York, it was understood that the Rev. Samuel Bourn would be invited . . . whose Arian opinions are well known. The name of Mr Buck, whose want of orthodoxy is, it is pre- sumed, quite unquestionable, is in the earliest existing distribution list of the trust, the list of 1728, which is in evidence ; a convincing proof that want of orthodoxy, as it is called, was no disqualification from the beginning. It is one of the hardships of the case that the displaced trustees have to show what were the opinions of a body of persons, most of whom left the world leaving behind them no printed or written memorials of their opinions. When we do, as in this instance, obtain a glimpse of what were the opinions on points of. Christian doctrine of the earliest beneficiaries and trustees, we find them more or less removed from any orthodox standard ; we find them in short men loving freedom of inquiry more than orthodoxy, and looking for truth as the consequence of free research in the books of Holy Scripture. Mr Buck, however, did not accede to the proposal that he should remove to York ; and the Rev. John Brooks was chosen successor to Dr. Colton and accepted the invitation. Mr Brooks was at that time minister of the Presbyterian congregation at Norwich, which congrega- tion on his removal elected Dr. John Taylor for their minister. . . . It is evident that the congregation at Norwich must have been prepared under the ministry of Mr Brooks for the selecting of this zealous and distinguished Arian minister, of whom it has been said by persons of orthodox sentiments that he had done more than anyone to pervert men from the truth ; and that we may reasonably suppose the congregation at York would not have selected Mr Brooks to be their minister had they not been disposed to place themselves under the pastoral care of a minister of like sentiments. There is this additional circumstance in the Norwich case, which shews how excessively difficult it is to draw a line between the ministers of the second race. The colleague, both of Mr Brooks and subsequently of Dr. John Taylor, was the Rev. Peter Finch, who had been minister from 1694. Mr Brooks died at York in October, 1735. His son went as a Bishop to Canada. The successor to Mr Brooks was Mr Root, of whose opinions nothing is now certainly known. He continued to officiate with Mr Hotham till 1755, in or about which year they both died. Then came the Rev. Newcome Cappe, a young minister who had been educated first under Dr. Doddridge, in England, and when he died, had removed to the university of Glasgow, the son of a late minister of the 12:'. Presbyterian congregation at Leeds. He was a known anti-trinitarian preacher, and continued through life to be as he began, the acceptable pastor of this congregation, preaching rarely on doctrinal subjects, as was the manner of the divines of the school to which he belonged, preferring rather to enforce lessons of morality, and to excite the love of God, and make more intense in the hearts of his hearers the sense of the paternal government of God, and the joyful promise of pardon on repentance, and eternal life contained in the gospel ; but at the same time, from the press, and occasionally from the pulpit, defending those anti-trinitarian views of the scripture doctrine which he believed to be the truth of the gospel. He became the minister as long ago as the year 1755, succeed ing Mr Hotham, who had been Lady Hewley's own pastor, and coming the third in succession after Dr. Colton, who died twenty four years before. He was elected by the congregation, that is, he was elected by a congregation who had been under the ministry of Dr. (Jolton and Mr Hotham, the two pastors of Lady Hewley, and many of whom must have remembered Lady Hewley herself, who had died forty-five years before ; and so satisfied were they in their choice, that whereas formerly they had had two pastors, they chose Mr Oappe as their sole and only pastor. It is asked whether his election is not a decisive proof that Lady Hewley's pastors had not inculcated a trinitarian Christianity with any of the earnestness which has been assumed to have been the case, if they had not themselves adopted Arian notions, which is the more l'easonable and probable supposition. But the argument on the election of Mr Cappe does not end here. As soon as Mr Cappe was elected pastor of this con- gregation he was ordained. The ordination took place in the chapel at York, on the 26th day of May, 1756. The certificate which was given him by the ministers present is signed by the following names : William Whitaker, John Angier, Thomas Whitaker, Thomas Walker, J. Harris, Edward Sandercock, Jeremiah Gill, Thomas Ellis, and Benjamin Clegge. Now in these names we recognize several which are those of senior ministers in the county, some who in their youth were contemporaries of Lady Hewley, and some who had been beneficiaries under the trust from nearly the beginning, and it is earnestly submitted to the con- sideration of the high tribunal befoi-e whom this case is brought, whether there is not here the most decisive evidence which the nature of the case admits, that as long ago as 1756 and by persons better able to form a judgmeut, the admission of ministers of anti-trinitarian senti- ments to the Presbyterian congregations and to the benefit of this fund, was not admitted, sanctioned, and approved. It is alleged by the relators themselves that Mr Cappe was a Unitarian, a position which do one can doubt. 124 The first name is that of William Whitaker. This gentleman became the minister of the Presbyterian congregation at Scarborough, in 1725, and was one of the largest beneficiaries under the trust, as appears by the distribution list of 1729. Thomas Whitaker, one of the few- liberal Independents who joined and acted with the Presbyterians, of a different family from the minister just mentioned, was the pastor of the congregation meeting at the chapel in Call Lane, Leeds, to which office he was appointed in 1727, and which office his father before him had held. Thomas Walker was the minister of the Presbyterian chapel on Mill Hill, in Leeds, where Dr. Priestly succeeded him, and had settled there in 174*, as successor to the father of Mr Cappe. But he had been before that time the minister at Durham and Cockermouth, having been born in one of the northern counties in 1705. He was the grandfather of one of the lately ejected trustees, and has left evidence of the absence of all Trinitarian doctrines from his creed in a printed sermon on the opening of the new Presbyterian chapel at Wakefield. John Angier was the* minister at Swanland, and John Harris at Beverley. Edward Sander- cock was a retired minister of ancient standing residing at York, where he had married a lady of a family (the Wyndlows) who were inti- mately connected with Lady Hew ley. He had been in early life a minister in London, and was of Ai'ian sentiments. Jeremiah Gill was one of the Ariansof Doddridge's academy, the minister at Gainsborough, where he had succeeded Ambrose Rudsdale in his congregation, who had been a trustee of this charity. Thomas Ellis had also been educated under Doddridge, in whose academy he was of two years' earlier standing than Mr Cappe. Benjamin Clegge was a young minis- ter at Cottingham. Thus the ministers passing off the stage concur in 1756, in placing a Unitarian minister in this Presbyterian place ; Lady Hewley's own congregation having been pleased to elect him their pastor. It is submitted that this being the case, the senior Yorkshire minis- ters in 1756 cannot have been themselves orthodox, nor can Lady Hewley's own pastors have been accustomed to insist in their public services and in their private admonitions on the great importance of faith in the Trinity or the atonement ; (that had they done so, the con- gregation could not have concurred in the choice of such ministers as Mr Buck, Mr Brooks, and Mr Cappe ; and that having chosen Mr Cappe their sole pastor the trustees of Lady Hewley's foundation would not have continued as they did, the allowance to him out of the fund, unless it had been known to them that there was no departure from the true spirit of the foundation which they had to administer, if there was in fact a departure deserving of notice, which may be reasonably doubted, in tin1 opinions of Mr Cappe from those of his predecessors. 125 The next minister was the defendant Mr Wellbeloved, so that there was in fact only one minister between him and Mr Hotham (Lady Hewley's pastor) and that one Mr Cappe was an avowed anti-trinitarian. We are not told the date of Mr Back's manuscript sermon, and most likely it is undated, and this deprives the quotation of any value which it might possess. It does not follow if he preached it five years later than 1732, that he would have preached it five years before that year. Concealment of heterodoxy in that year, and for some time afterwards, was the rule. Mr Buck did not go to York, and if he were Arian in his views he may have thought the congregation too orthodox for him.* No composition of Mr Brooks, who did fill the vacancy, has been produced. The only argument against his orthodoxy is foun- ded on the circumstance that Dr. John Taylor succeeded him at Norwich, but that learned man had not then published the writings which evinced his heterodoxy, he was temperate and moderate in all his words, and even his sermon on the re-opening of his Norwich chapel, reprinted during the litigation, contains few, if any, expressions relating to doctrine which would convict him of Arianism. No reflection is intended on a man so distinguished, since the habits of his party, and his own taste, would lead him to preach almost exclusively on "practical subjects," so * His sermon is described as Anti-Calvinistic, but if the congregation to which it was preached had become Anti-Trinitarian, they would have been past needing a refutation of Calvinism. In the Irish cases it was held requisite to prove that a sermon was preached as well as written, as men obliged to conceal Arian sentiments, either as a relief to their minds or to testify their opinions after their death, frequently wrote ser- mons which they dare not preach, but no doubt this sermon was preached. Mr. Brooks in liis pamphlet gives this further quotation from it. " Multitudes of professing Christians declare they cannot come to Christ, they cannot do any thing good, they are dead in trespasses and sins ; they have no power to do good works : and as this is a notion that has a direct tendency to bolster men up in wickedness, because they can do no bet- ter, and is a comfortable doctrine to the lazy soul, and lulls the conscience of the wicked asleep, it may not be improper to enquire whether it is a true notion or not." " Death tries the truth of principles, and if men are ever serious, they are serious then ; and sup- pose a person addressing him (that is a sinner) after this manner— You seem to be under dreadful apprehensions and fears about your past conduct, but they are all needless ; for you came into the world under a necessity of doing evil, you could do nothing else but sin, you need not be troubled that you have done no good in the world, for you had do power to do good. You have wronged and injured your neighbours, but you could not help it, &C. —But this is not the language of a death bed. None then will impute their ruin and condemnation to God. They then lay the blame where it ought to be laid, upeh their own obstinate wickedness." It shoidd be noticed that Mr Buck puts the errone- ous notion into the sinner's own mouth, and then tests it by supposing it returned t<> him on his death bed by another person. It seems by no means certain that Mr Buck was heterodox; his expression quoted in the text "the scheme which the gospel proffereth" is applicable only to the doctrine of the atonement. 126 that even his constant hearers might not be aware of his opinions. No rio-ht-minded man can read his remonstrance to the Lanca- shire Socinians in favour of free prayer, appealing to the memory of the confessors ejected in their country, and cherish an unkind feeling towards him. Nothing is suggested as to Mr Root, but as the name is not a usual one, he was very likely a descendant of their Heywood In- dependent friend, and such parentage would be an argument for his orthodoxy. Mr Moody has recorded that Mr Cappe was chosen sole minis- ter of York " contrary to the inclination of the serious part of the congregation, who left the place as they could not profit under his ministry. Some attended the preaching of the Methodists, others a serious practical preacher in the Established Church." This statement is in a great degree corroborated by the mention in the funeral sermon preached for Mr Cappe by the Rev. William Wood, of Leeds, that Mr Lee, afterwards Attorney- General, ("who had at that time a strong turn for the study of divinity/') recommended Mr Cappe to preach at Leeds that his talents might be known, and that he might be recommended to the congregation at York by the trustees of Lady Hewley, some of whom were members of Mill Hill Chapel, Leeds, and that it was upon the recommendation of the trustees he was invited to preach at York, and in November following was chosen co-pastor with Mr Hotham. These statements deprive the choice of the congregation, on which so much stress is laid, of all import- ance, and shew that Mr Hothaur's preaching was different from Mr Cappe's; yet it does not follow that Mr Cappe, any more than other ministers of his description, at first openly attacked orthodoxy, since the more serious part of the congregation could be driven away by the mere absence of the doctrine to which they had been accustomed. He was a very young man when he came, so that he could not then be the well-known Anti-Trini- tarian preacher which he is called in the Proofs. The nine ministers who signed Mr Cappe' s ordination certifi- cate suggest the connexion between the Presbyterians and Inde- pendents. Of Angier, Harris, and Clegge we are told only the places of their ministry. Of the# other six, Thomas Whitaker was an Independent, Sandercock had been the minister of an Inde- pendent chapel, Gill and Ellis, (as well as Cappe himself and his successor Wellbeloved), had been in Independent academies, 127 though as to some of thcin only during the first part of their course, William Whitaker's congregation is now an Independent one, so that Thomas Walker is the only one of whom particulars are given that is not connected in one way or other with Independents. As TO THE OPINIONS OF JAMES WYNDLOW ESQUIRE, SURVIVING ORIGINAL trustee, and one of the York congregation, [inserted after the rest of the Proofs had been printed, as is shown by the paging.] It seems that Mr Sandercock (his son-in-law) in his funeral sermon (" plain and practical, containing not a word concerning the deity of Christ, or the doctrine of original sin,") preached 1700, printed 1783, (but why then printed separately we are not informed) styled him " zealous to promote the fear of God and the practical, not the speculative and controversial faith of Jesus," and spoke of Lady Hewley as having founded her charity " from the zeal she had for the cause of religion and Christian liberty." This is all the information given as to Mr Wyndlow's opinioag except as the words used respecting him are to be interpreted irom the opinions of the preacher, who is correctly stated to have joined in 1750 in editing three Tracts, a posthumous work, of the Rev- Moses Lowman, intended to overthrow the generally received opinions respecting the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ. Mr Wyndlow died at eighty years of age, and he was appointed by Lady Hewley her trustee at twenty-three. He might bo heterodox for many years before his death, but this is all that can be said of him, and a great deal more than is proved respect- ing him in this section, and if correct it certainly is no foundation for any inferences respecting Lady Hewley' s intentions or opinions. After every enquiry that can be made, no other printed funeral sermon or other contemporary testimony to the opinions of the lay gen- tlemen who wei*e members of the origiual trust has been found ; but it is sxibmitted that till evidence to the contrary is produced it must be presumed that the character of Mr Wyndlow is a kind of abstract of the character of the persons who forrned the original trust, and (with the single exception of Mr Moody) of the gentlemen who were admitted into the trust in the early vacancies ; especially as Mr Wyndlow was not only a member of the trust from the beginning, but during his long life a very active administrator of the bounty of Lady Hewley. p. 102b. Surely Mr Wyndlow may at least be assumed to have known the founder's intent. The testimony shows him to have been honest, pious, trustworthy ; and can we then doubt that the practice which he 128 » sanctioned (and which is exactly that for which the present trustees are removed) was in accordance with that intent, p. 102c. The Distribution by the Original Trustees in the four Nor- thern Counties, and the opinions and position of the parties engaged therein. Supplement No. 1. In the administration of the trust the practice from the beginning has been to place the distribution of the benefactions awarded to the ministers, in particular districts, in the hands of some one or two persons. Thus Dr. Colton, one of the trustees, undertook the distribution for Yorkshire ; and the minister of the congregation in Hanover Square, Newcastle- upon-Tyne, has been usually, perhaps always, one of the distributors for the four northern counties. The congregation was one of the most con- siderable in the north. It was founded by Dr. Richard Gilpin, one of the ejected ministers, a man of great eminence and influence, who had declined the bishopric of Carlisle, when offered to him by king Charles the Second. Dr. Gilpin died in 1699, too early to make what his principles were of great importance ; but it is of great importance to observe what was the cSaracter of the principles of Benjamin Bennet, his successor, and of the congregation in his time. He died in 1726, minister of this congregation, and was succeeded by Di*. Lawrence, the distributor in 1728. He left in 1733, to become pastor of the Presbyterian congre- gation assembling at the chapel in Monkwell Street, London. Here he remained till his death in 1760, having had in the latter part of his ministry for his assistant or co-pastor the celebrated Dr. James Fordyce, who pronounced a panegyric upon him in a sermon preached on occa- sion of his death. In this sermon, which was published in print, we have little concerning the peculiar sentiments of Dr. Lawrence, but enough to show that they had departed from the standard of orthodoxy, as had the sentiments of the congregation to which he was pastor. [This paragraph is a condensation of several sentences.] Beyond all doubt Dr. Gilpin was a Trinitarian and a Calvinist, and he prepared the heads of agreement between the ministers of Cumberland and Westmoreland. A great effort is made to impeach the orthodoxy of Mr Bennett, and from no other writer are equally long extracts given in the Proofs. They are to be found in the supplement under consideration, and are only referred to in the section containing quotations of kindred natures from other authors; but in these pages they can be best dealt with by the converse arrangements, and the vindication of Mr Bennet is there- fore postponed here and we pass on to Dr. Lawrence. It must be admitted that his colleague, Dr. Fordyce, had so far departed 120 from evangelical sentiments that his successor had great trouble to persuade people that he had not before his death sunk into mere deism, so that his praise should not without inquiry be allowed to injure Dr. Lawrence's reputation. Dr. Lawrence removed from Newcastle to Monkwell Street, London, where his immediate predecessor was the Rev. Daniel Wilcox, who dis- missed his assistant, the Rev. Henry Read, for Arminianism only. While there he was one of the Friday lecturers at the Weighhouse, which seems sufficient warrant of his orthodoxy. Dr. Lawrence's opinions are of consequence to us only as they may indicate Mr Bennett's, which are to be learned from his writings, A great point is made of Bennett's heterodoxy, not only as the agent of Lady Hewley's trustees, but to put in the same list with him Dr. Isaac Worthington, of Durham, and Dr. Samuel Leetham, of Sunderland, leading men among the Presbyteiuans of the north, whose opinions can be gathered only from the circumstances of one pi'eaching Mr Bennett's funeral sermon, and the other editing his sermons. The displacement of Mr Bennett from the anti-trinita- rian ranks will be very destructive to the case of the Socinians. Penrith chapel from 1718 to 1750 had two ministers. Samuel Threlkeld, who removed to a congregation alleged to have been Arian, at any rate not Trinitarian, whatever that may mean, and Samuel Louthion, who succeeded Dr. Lawrence at Hanover Square, Newcastle, and from an extract from one of his sermons, seems to have been undoubtedly heterodox in the latter part of his life. Penruddock had for its minister the Rev. Joseph Dodson, but no proof is adduced as to him in addition to the extracts from his sermons the main part of which is set out at p. 98. The opinions of Dr. Dickson, of Whitehaven, are inferred from those of his pupils mentioned in p. 82. At Kendal there was Dr. Caleb Rotheram, who Mr Hadfield allows to have been an Arian, which Drs. Bogue and Bennett leave doubtful. At Crook, near Kendal, there was Mr Samuel Bourn, who removed to Birmingham in 1719, and he must be admitted to have soon afterwards avowed himself an Arian. This is the informa- tion given as to the northern counties. It appears, then, that the ministers in the four northern counties, which were to be, next to Yorkshire, the scene of Lady Hewley's bene- factions, were, as to all the more eminent of them in the time of the first 10 130 race of trustees, 1710 to 1730, belonging to the class of the free inquirers with the leaning from a Trinitarian Christianity, and that the congre- gations in general belonged to that class. The case is now different. What has happened in many other parts of the kingdom happened here : namely, that it was found that the acting on this principle, and a result of it, a departure in the ministers more widely from the point of reputed orthodoxy, were not adapted to the taste or the information of the inha- bitants of these regions ; so that most of the congregations in these counties, after having had ministers of the rational or liberal class, de- clined ; and such as continue to the present clay, with the exception of Newcastle, Kendal, Stockton, and perhaps one or two others, have returned to orthodoxy. Under all the varying phases of opinion the conduct of Lady Hewley's trustees has been the same, the benefactions being given alike to the rational and the orthodox minister, whichever might be selected by the congregation. It appears, therefore, when we look upon this field of their labours, that the influence of the first race of the trustees was thrown into the scale of freedom of religious inquiry as weighed against an adherence to creeds, and other authoritative exhibitions of what is supposed to be scriptural and divine truth ; that they did from the beginning support the principle of the non -subscribing party in the great division of 1719, and that the funds were from the beginning thus devoted to those who had a leaning to heretical opinions, and continued to be applied in the northern congregations, where they had very generally adopted a system of Christian doctrine in which neither the Trinity nor Original Sin ' as commonly understood' found a place. And on the whole it is submitted that it would have been just as equit- able in a court to have interfered with the first race of trustees, and to have bound them to exact from the ministers benefited by them subscription to the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of Original Sin, on the pre- sumption that these doctrines were held by the lady whose benefactions they had to administer, as it now is ; and that since it must be presumed that the original trustees named by herself, and in which Dr. Thomas Colton, her friend, and pastor, and executor, and spiritual adviser, was included, must have known her meaning and intent, and that if there had been any error in the administration at the beginning, it would have been corrected, especially as the two parties of Dissenters were at that time in such direct hostility, it seems that now a new principle ought not to be introduced, a principle which is directly at variance with the great principle on which that part of the Dissenters to which the administration seems to have belonged acted : namely, that the scriptures alone were to be subscribed to, and that it is the right and duty of every man, and especially of every minister, to search that book 131 for himself, and to make known the results of his inquiry, even though those results were unfavourable to what was deemed orthodoxy. And further, that this freedom of religious inquiry is entirely destroyed, when it is declared that two such important doctrines as the Trinity and Original Sin as commonly professed, shall be assumed as necessary results to which every one must come on pain of disqualification and exclusion. The Presbyterian Dissenters of England have, since the Toleration Act gave them a legal existence and political character, fought manfully the battle of the freedom of the human mind from the restraints imposed upon it by creeds embodying the sentiments of men of other ages, when the word of God was open to the view and study of all men, and sought to gain for themselves the liberty of inquiry and public profession of the results of it. To this principle they have adhered even to the sacrifice of such a doctrine as the Trinity, which many of them at the beginning held sacx-ed.: and now come forth a body of persons for the most part strangers to them and having no connection with the founders, who gave their substance in assertion of this principle and to enable their posterity to conduct the worship of God in decency and comfort, who draw from the courts below decrees which are utterly subversive of this their cherished and valued principle, which force upon them a creed to which they are reluctant, because they deem it deficient of scriptural authority, and thus compel them to make the present appeal to the wisdom and justice of this high tribunal. Essentials of Christianity considered to be Involved. It is in the last place submitted that whatever difference of opinion in respect of the points of the Trinity, the Atonement, and Original Sin may be between the founders and the late administrators of these trusts, th© difference is not so great when the mind is turned from the words in which the doctrines are couched and directed on the thing which is signified as to create a necessity for removing them from the adminis- tration of this trust. There is apparently great difference between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism, but when what is really believed is understood, it is found that the great truths and principles of the Christian dispensation are common to both. But on this subject (in addition to such testimonies as have been before cited from Locke, Dr. Hey, and others) the appellants desire to offer the following view of what constitutes genuine Christianity in the opinion of an eminent prelate of the English church, Dr. Edmund Gibson, Bishop of London in the reign of King George I., as expressing with scarcely a shade of differ- ence what are their own opinions, and which they presume would not have been thought by any court doctrines which would disqualify that prelate for the administration of any Christian trust. 132 ' It will appear that the several denominations of Christians agree both in the substance of religion and in the necessary enforcements of the practice of it ; that the world and all things in it were created by God and are under the direction and government of His all-powerful hand and all-seeing eye ; that there is an essential difference between good and evil, virtue and vice ; that there will be a state of future rewards and punishments according to our behaviour in this life; that Christ was a teacher sent from God, and that his apostles were divinely inspired ; that all Christians are bound to declare and profess themselves to be His disciples ; that not only the exercise of the several virtues, but also a belief in Christ is necessary in order to their obtaining the pardon of sin, the favour of God, and eternal life ; that the worship of God is to be performed chiefly by the heart in prayers, praises, and thanksgivings ; and as to all other points that they are bound to live by the rules which Christ and His apostles have left them in the Holy Scriptures. Here then is a fixed, certain, and uniform rule of faith and practice, containing all the most necessary points of religion, established by a divine sanction, em- braced as such by all denominations of Christians, and in itself abun- dantly sufficient to preserve the knowledge and practice of religion in the world.' Second Pastoral Letter, 1735. pp. 120, 121. Of Archbishop Tillotson his biographer says, ' The Scriptures were the rule of his faith, the chief subject of all his meditations. He judged that the great design of Christianity was the reforming men's natures, and governing their actions, the restraining their appetites and passions, the softening their tempers and sweetening their manners, and the raising their minds above the interest and follies of this present world to the hope and pursuit of endless happiness.' Birch's Life of Tillotson. p. 50. To this they add the declaration of Baxter, one of the fathers of the sect to which they belong, in his work entitled, The Cure of Church Divisions, 1670, p. 210. ' In a word the effectual belief of pardon and eternal glory given through Christ, and the love of God and man, with the denial of ourselves and fleshly desires, and contempt of all things in the world which are competitors with God and our salvation, with a humble patient enduring of all which must be suffered for these ends, is the nature and sum of the Christian Religion.' Dr. Thomas Man ton, another father of English Presbyterian dissent, one of the ministers ejected with Baxter in 1662, has exhibited what" in his view the doctrine of the Trinity, of which so much has been said in the courts below, really is. 1 Then do we honour the Trinity in Unity, not when we conceive of the mystery, but when we make a religious use of this high advantage 133 to come to God in the name of Christ by the Spirit, and look for all from God in Christ through the Holy Ghost. Direct your prayers to God the Father ; Christ prayed to the Father ' I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth.' So the saints in their addresses, ' For this caause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.' [Pray] in the name of Christ, 'Whatsoever ye shall ask in My name, that will I do.' [Pray] by the Spirit, praying in the Holy Ghost, 'likewise the Spirit itself also helpeth our infirmities, because He maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.' Christians need not puzzle themselves about conceiving of Three in One, and One in Three, let them in this manner come to God, and it sufficeth ; make God the object, and Christ the means of access, and look for help from the Spirit.' Woi'ks, Vol. III., p. 272. This the appellants submit to have been at the utmost the view of that doctrine which the Presbyterians at the time of the foundation of these trusts did generally take. Others might express themselves more sti'ongly on the importance of the doctrine, and might represent it as more mysterious. But they were the exceptions. Such men as Baxter and Manton formed the rule, as far as rule there was, in a body of Christians who' made it their principle to be Nullius addicti jurare in verba magistri. So in the next generation Dr. Edmund Calamy, who is, if any, a representative of the feeling of the body of which he was the historian and ornament, in his Thirteen Sermons on [in defence of] the Trinity published in 1722, came to this conclusion, so opposite to the spirit of the decree which forces the orthodox Trinity on the modern Presbyterians. ' What indeed is it to us how these things are ; as to the cir- cumstances of which God has not thought fit to make us any discoveries, and in which (let the way and manner of them be of one sort or another) our duty has no concern ? Let us be thankful for what knowledge we have, and make the best use of it we can, and in the meantime humbly own our ignorance and darkness as to the way and manner of what God hath been jileased to reveal to us with reference to the substance of this doctrine. And whatever we are ignorant of, or in the dark about, let us conclude (as we have good reason) that if we have but the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost with us, we have not only as much knowledge of the blessed Trinity as is necessary to our being scriptural ly orthodox in that doctrine, but as much knowledge of it as is necessary to secure us of happiness, peace, and comfort, both in this life and the next.' Thirteen Sermons on the Trinity, preached at Salters' Hall, 1719-20, edit. 1722, p. 387. Such preaching evidently prepared the congregation at Westminster, 134 of which he was the pastor, to admit the decided Arianism or Uni- tarianism which, in fact, followed under the ministry of his successors, Dr. Kippis and Mr Jervis. A supplement to the Proofs intended to raise Arians and Socinians to an equality with champions of the Establishment, forms a proper pendant to the attempt to reduce Dr. Manton and Dr. Calamy to the Socinian level. Supplement on the Doctrines of Original Sin and Atonement. It having been argued that Lady Hewley's opinions must have been Trinitarian and Calvinistic on account of the supposed recognition of the doctrines of Original Sin and the Atonement ; the first as contained (though in a modified form as compared with the Assembly's Catechism1) in Bowles's Catechism ; the second as to be collected therefrom and from the funeral sermon, it is thought proper to add some remarks on those two doctrines, which in fact have been held and were held at the time by Arians, and do not in any respect make out the proposition con- tended for. 1st, as to Original Sin. This doctrine it is well known has been variously explained by divines of the Church of England of the highest name and authority. By one it has been held in one sense, by another in a different sense. Bishop Heber's Life of Bishop Jeremy Taylor ; 3rd edition, p. 22Q. Professor Hey's Lectures, 2nd edition, vol. III., p. 148. Dr. Tomline, (late Bishop of Winchester), in his Elements ot Christian Theology, a work in much estimation^ especially among those of his own communion, speaks on this subject much in the same manner with Dr. Hey. ' As the scriptures do not inform us what were the full and precise effects of Adam's disobedience upon his posterity, it is, perhaps, scarcely to be expected that there should be an uniformity of opinion among divines upon that point ; we may, however, observe that the difference between those who confine Original Guilt to a mere liability to death and sin and those who extend it to a liability to punishment also is not very material, since both sides admit that Christ died as a propitiation for all the sins of the whole world whatever were the nature and character of those sins.' Vol. II., pp. 241, 242, 9th edition. Admitting this account of the doctrine of Original Sin it may be proved that numbers of Arians or Unitarians have been believers in it. The fact is that upon this subject they differ among themselves, as Trinitarians and other Christians do. Not many of them, perhaps, will be found to express themselves exactly alike ; and it is not to be inferred that because one or more among them may express, generally and broadly, their disbelief of the doctrine of Original Sin, therefore, all are ready to do so. On the contrary a little acquaintance with their 135 writings will show that many of them have held the doctrine in question in a much stricter sense even than some distinguished divines of the English church, p. 135. It is not to be understood by these quotations that all Unitarians, especially those of the present day, would concur in these views of the doc- trine of Original Sin [from the author of an account of Mr Firmin's reli- gion, the Rev. Samuel Bourn and Milton's Christian Doctrine, 2G0, 261, 267J, any more than all [Trinitarians would assent to the representations which are given of it by Jeremy Taylor, by Professor Hey, or by the late Bishop of Winchester, but they are cited for the purpose of showing that the profession of Ai'ian or Unitarian opinions is no test or measure of a man's faith on other points, and that such opinions have been often held in conjunction with a belief in Original Sin, and might be so by Lady Hewley or any Arian of her day. 2nd. On the Atonement. What has been said of the doctrine of Original Sin may be said also of the doctrine of the Atonement. Among eminent divines of the Church of England as well also among those belonging to the Independents, views and explanations have been given of this doctrine, which differ very much from one another, if not in the ideas intended to be represented, certainly in the form and manner of expressing them. It is candidly acknowledged by Bishop Butler : ' Some have endeavoured to explain the efficacy of what Christ has done and suffered for us beyond what the Scripture has authorised ; others probably because they could not explain it, have been for taking it away, and confining his office as Redeemer of the world to his instruction, example, and government of the church. Whereas the doctrine of the gospel appears to be, not only that he taught the efficacy of repentance, but rendered it of the efficacy which it is, by what he did and suffered for us ; that he obtained for us the benefit of having our repentance accepted unto eternal life ; not only that he revealed to sinners that they were in a capacity of salvation, and how they might obtain it, but moreover that he put them into this capacity of salvation, by what he did and suffered for them ; put us into a capacity of escaping future punishment, and obtaining future happiness. And it is our wisdom thankfully to accept the benefit, by performing the conditions upon which it is offered on our part, without disputing how it was pro- cured on his.' Analogy of Religion, p. 217, ed. 1802. 'The sacrifice of Christ,' says Archbishop Magee, 'was never deemed by any who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of Atonement to have made God placable ; but merely viewed as the means appointed by divine wisdom through which to bestow forgiveness.' Discourses on Atonement and Sacrifice, vol. I., p. 22, 5th edit. Dr. Hey in the appendix to the eleventh article on the Doctrine of the 136 Atonement, says: 'The Christian might make his profession in some form like that before used, ' I believe thac God will confer eternal happiness on all sincere Christians notwithstanding some imperfections of theirs, on account of the merits, the sufferings, and the death of Jesus Christ.' Lecture, vol. III., p. 327. Now these views of the Atonement as thus stated by Bishop Butler, Archbishop Magee, and Professor Hey are very much the same as those entertained by many distinguished Arians or Unitarians, such as Milton, Mr Bourn, Dr. John Taylor, Mr Peirce of Exeter, Dr. Price, &c, and if other Unitarians have written upon this subject in a somewhat different strain, it only proves that among them as well as among Trini- tarians also, there is no exact agreement, no perfect unity of opinion, upon all the various points of Christian doctrine, and that the fact of a man's profession of Unitarianism, of his being a believer in, and wor- shipper of one God in one person, does not of itself determine what his belief is either in the doctrine of Atonement or on that of Original Sin. Thei'e are probably very few Unitarians who would object to the explanation given of the sacrifice of Christ in the words before quoted, of the great defender of the doctrine of the Atonement, Archbishop Magee. With him they regard it as 'the means appointed by divine wisdom through which to bestow forgiveness.' [Biddle, Milton, Bourn, Peirce, Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Price, are then quoted]. From these and many other similar passages which might have been quoted from Arian and Unitarian writers it is clear that the denial of the doctrine of Original Sin and of the Atonement is by no means a consequence of the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity, but that on the contrary, the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity has been and is fre- quently accompanied with a belief in both the other-mentioned doctrines. The passages, therefore, from Bowles's Catechism and the funeral sermon can raise no fair proof of Lady Hewley's conforming to the Calvinistic or even the Trinitarian creed. It is notorious that the points on which these allusions turn are those in which the relaxation was earliest, so early as to gain their name (Baxterianism) from a divine who died in the seventeenth century. Arminianism, it is also clear, was early prevalent, and the language quoted would apply, no one can doubt, to Arminian views, but if we are to give license for deviations into Arianism [query Arminianism] 'we can see nothing to prevent a further progress to High Arianism, &c. The high and strict tone of Calvinistic doctrine on these subjects we have already seen was the first point of difference among the Presby- terians and Independents, and broke up 'the Happy Union' in 1694.* * The strange assertions of these last two paragraphs will be the subject of remark hereafter. 137 It seems necessary to set out, nearly in full, the suction of the Proofs which contains quotations intended to show what is there termed the liberality of the Presbyterians before 1709, the fact of that liberality being the chief question at issue in the litigation, and it has been thought most convenient to postpone that section to the end of the appellants' statement, and to prefix to it, or incorporate with it, the other quotations bearing on the same subject. By this means the argument is better presented to the reader, and is also better answered. Separation op Presbyterians and Independents in 1G9G, and its grounds. Doctors Bogue and Bennett (the Independent historians of dissent, the latter being one of the relators' witnesses) thus describe the progress to Arminianism and thence onwards. ' The controversy in the former period* respecting the works of Dr. Crisp is said to have proved injurious to the Presbyterian interest. The evils of the Antinomian system, Dr. Williams, one ot their body, had exposed with great clearness and force. His pieces wei'e much read, by the young ministers of that denomination, and inspired them with horror for everything which had the name of Antinomianism, and pro- duced a determination to keep as great a distance from it as possible. In their fear and flight they unwisely cast away a part of the truth. The doctrine of grace had been abused to licentiousness, and they kept it out of the people's sight ; the righteousness of Christ had been per- verted into a contempt of sanctity in heart and life, and instead of glorying in the truth and enlarging on it with all the ardour of the most cordial delight, they either omitted it altogether, or only introduced it to show how much it might be abused. Through the unhappy influence of such sentiments they gradually receded from the truth, and many of the Presbyterian ministers departed from the Evangelical doctrines into Arminianism and High Arianism, and some at last into Socinianism.' Arminianism was certainly the first step taken by those who quitted the strict faith of the old Nonconformists. But at the very earliest period, when we learn that Arminianism was making progress, we find it jealously watched as connected with a tendency to further laxity, even to Socinianism. A book was published in 1697 with this title : The Growth of Error, being an exeercitation concerning the rise and progress of Armi- nianism, and more especially Socinianism, both abroad and now of late in England. The writer states in the preface : ' When I frrst observed how suddenly the Socinian heresy spread itself throughout the nation I *The quotation refers to the second period of the authors, from the deatli of Anne to the accession of George the Third, their first period having been from the paaaing of the Act of Uniformity to the death of Anne. 17 138 could not satisfy myself without making some inquiry how it came to pggg I have traced out some footsteps in the Arminian party conducing towards the Socinian cause. . . . As there are gradual recesses from the truth, the first and least observable turn from it prepares the way for greater, but while near unto truth the error is so like it that it cannot be easily discerned or detected, and he who makes the first step towards it doth, ere he is aware, slide into greater. How many slide into ArminianLsm, and from thence pass over to the tenets of Socinians.' p. 3. 'The Arminians who pretend a middle way between the orthodox and Socinian are, in the twinkling of an eye, fallen under Socinus, his banner.' p. 84. [Quotations are then made fi'om Calamy's Life of Baxter. Vol. I. ; pp. 537, 5-19, 550, 560. Burnet's History of his Own Times. Vol. II ; folio, p. 2-18, besides Dr. Touhnin's account.] The controversy with Dr. Daniel Williams turned on the imputation of Christ's righteousness, which the orthodox believe in respect of a sinner's justification (or pardon and acceptance,) but not, as the antinomians do, in respect of the unrepented of and unforgiven sins of a justified man. So that neither Original Sin nor the Atoneiiient were involved in the matter, as supposed in the paragraph at the end of p. 136. Dr. Bogue and Dr. Bennett throw the blame almost exclusively on the Independents, as it is not known that a single Presbyterian at that time held Arminian notions. Mr Howe gives the following* account of the manner in which the controversy was brought to an end. " This [a scheme of doctrine reduced into an order] through the blessing of God such as have used a sincere and ingenuous freedom with one another have found an effectual expedient to deliver their minds from mutual doubt concerning each other, that because of some different modes of expressing their sentiments they held very different opinions : which they have found to be a mistake on one hand and the other, and have given and received satisfaction. They intended nothing that ought to be reckoned into the account of Socinian, Pelagian, Popish, Arminian, or Antinomian errors." The doctrines in which, as Mr Howe testifies, they were all agreed, will be found in a subsequent page. The declarations published by or in behalf of the United Ministers of London in 1693, 1695, and 1696, in their attempts to preserve the Union, all express continued adherence to the standards acknowledged in the Heads of Agreement. 139 There are two authorities for the assertion that the Presby- terians retained Calvinist opinions almost up to the time of the Salters' Hall meeting, which are perfectly conclusive in answer to the Proofs, and to all who took the Socinian side in the controversy, and which can scarcely be gainsaid by any one. Dr. Nichols, in his attack on the Dissenters in L715, having said: " If we consider the different phrase and method of their prayers, some being Calvinistical, others Anuinian, though we could think the Holy Spirit would descend to the singularities of these theologists, yet we must not charge him with such con- trarieties and clashings as they are guilty of:" Mr James Peirce answered, "Who, I pray, are those Arminiaus among us? Our author, perhaps, here meant the Quakers or some of the Ana- baptists. But if we will speak the truth, the Arminians them- selves are hardly Arminians in offering up their prayers tc God." Vindication of the Dissenters ; 2nd edition, corrected 1 71 8, p. 401. Dr. Calamy, in his Brief but True Account of the Protestant Dissenters in England, 1717, p. 44, says, "But notwithstanding these and some other such differences among themselves [on the mode of church government and baptism] they generally agree in the doctrinal articles of the Church of England (which they subscribe)* the confession of faith, and larger and smaller * Dr. Calamy mentions subscription here not merely as a legal necessity, but as a real consent of the mind, and nowhere gives a hint of any objection being felt by his own body to the requirement or the practice, though writing purposely to inform foreign Protestants of the opinions of the Nonconformists he was hound to state it if it bad existed. In the same manner reference is made to the matter by other Presbyterians, Baxter says, in 1676, "We readily subscribe the doctrine of faith and sacraments contained in the Thirty -nine Articles;" in his account of The Profession of several whom these times have made and called Nonconformists : and hi 1(180 " We subscribe the doctrine of the Church of England in the Articles;" The 'second part of the Noncon- formist's Plea for Peace, 192. In 1695, the author of Notes upon the Lord Bishop of Salisbury's four late Dis- courses, p. 16, says. "The Dissenting ministers by their subscriptions plainly show there is no separation on their part." Nathaniel Taylor, in 1702, says, "Our churches are a sound and orthodox part <>f the church, and the doctrinal articles of the Church of England are sound and orthodox, which we have subscribed to." Dr. Sherlock's Cases, &c, considered, and the Dissenters vindicated from the Charge of Schism, p. 44. Theophilus Lobb, in 1712, says. "Do our conforming brethren plead their subscrip- tion to the doctrinal articles of the church? We boldly plead the same." p. 88. Dr. Charles Owen, in 1715, Bays, " We profess no religion but that of the church, whose doctrinal articles our ministers subscribe ex animo, as a test of then :ism, and. I am sure, stick closer to them than many of the chun h." 140 catechisms, compiled by the assembly of divines at Westmin- ster, and the judgment of the British divines at the synod of Dort about the quinquarticular controversies." Mr Joshua Wilson says that one of the earliest avowed Arminians among- the Presbyterians was Dr. George Benson, who left Abingdon in 1729 on becoming such, as his change of opinion was disapproved by his people. He had previously published three sermons to the young, which he afterwards suppressed. Mr Walter Wilson bears testimony to the Calvinistic opinions of several who are mentioned in the Proofs in a manner which would induce a very different impression, as for instance with regard to Dr. Wright. Eeasons for believing that the great bulk of the Presbyterians were not only orthodox, but Calvinistic till about 1740, have been already given in pages 34 to 36. So much is said as to Mr Baxter's departure from Calvinism that it is necessary to state his opinions in this respect in his words. " I have perused oft the confession of the Assembly, and verily judge it the most excellent for fitness and exactness that I have ever read from any church. And though the truths therein, being of several degrees of evidence and necessity I do not hold them with equal clearness, confidence, or certainty, and though some few points in it are beyond my reach, yet I have observed nothing in it contrary to my judgment, if I may be allowed these expositions following." The first of these relates to passages which speak against universal redemption. This (he says) "I understand not of all redemption and partic- ularly not of the mere bearing the punishment of man's sins and satisfying God's justice ; but of that special redemption proper to the elect, which was accompanied with an intention of actual application of the saving benefit in time." On the article, " The Catholic Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be," he says, " I under- stand it not of the church as now existent, but as it shall be on its perfection at the end of the world, when all the elect shall be called. I understand these words 'which is invisible' as distinguish- ing the church as invisible from the church as visible. For I conceive that Christ hath an universal visible church, called one by the unity of their profession." And now (he continues) I leave to Mr Crawdon and others to consider, whether a Jesuit, a papist, a socinian, or arminian will consent to this copious con- fession of the Assembly, with these expositions or limitations as I Ill lit to be fierce in the way of a sect.' Dr. Glanvill, Philosuphia Piu, 1671, p. 110. Perhaps the most important of all his writings, as developing his real temper and spirit, is that full and complete piece of self-examin 142 ation which is printed in the Reliquse Baxterianre, a work containing his memoirs of his own life and times, published in a folio volume in 169G, by his friend Mr Matthew Sylvester. In this he shews what changes his opinions had undergone since he first became one of the lights and guides of the people. ' My judgment is much more for frequent and serious meditation on the heavenly blessedness than it was heretofore in my younger days. I then thought that a sermon on the attributes of God aud the joys of heaven were not the most excellent .... and nothing pleased me so well as the doctrine of regeneration and the marks of sincerity, but now 1 had rather read, hear, and meditate on God and heaven than on any other subject, for I perceive that it is the object that altereth and elevateth the mind, which will be such as that is which it most frequently feedeth on.' 'At first I was greatly inclined to go with the highest in controversies, on one side or other, as with Dr. Twiss and Mr Rutherford, and Spanhemius de Providentia et Gratia. But now I can so easily see what to say against both extremes, that I am much more inclinable to reconciling principles, and whereas then I thought that conciliators were but ignorant men, that were willing to please all and would pretend to reconcile the world by principles which they did not understand themselves ; I have since perceived that if the amiableness of peace and concord had no hand in the business, yet greater light and stronger judgment usually is with the reconciler than with either of the contending parties.' pp. 129, 130. ' I am not too narrow in my principles of church communion, as once I was. I more plainly perceive the difference between the church as congregate or visible, and as regenerate or mystical, and between since- rity and profession ; and that a ci'edible profession is proof sufficient of a man's title to church admission, and that the profession is credible in foro ecclesia3, which is not disproved. I am not for narrowing the church more than Christ Himself alloweth us, nor for robbing Him of any of His flock.' p. 130. 'I am not so much inclined to pass a peremptory sentence of damna- tion upon all that never heard of Christ, having some more reason than I knew of before to think that God's dealing with such is much unknown to us, and that the ungodly here, among us Christians, are in a far woi'se case than they.' p. 131. 'I have spent much of my studies about the terms of Christian con- cord And these three things alone would easily heal and unite all the churches. 1st. That all Christian princes and gover- nors take all the coercive power about religion into their own hands* *The extracts from Baxter arc in this and the following pages completed by addi- tions within f ] The correction was made by Mr Joshua Wilson. 143 [though if prelates and their courts must be used as their officers in exercising that coercive power so he it,] and that they make a difference between the approved and tolerated churches, [and that they keep the peace between these churches and settle their several privileges by a law]. 2nd. That the churches be accounted tolerable who pro- less all that is in the Creed, Lord's Prayer, and Decalogue in particular, and generally all that they shall find to be revealed in the word of God, and hold communion in teaching, prayer, praises, and the two sacra- ments ; not obstinately preaching any heresy contrary to the particular articles which they profess, or seditiously disturbing the public peace. And that such heretical preaching and such seditious unpeaceableness, or notorious wickedness of life, do forfeit their toleration. 3rd. And that those that are further orthodox in those particulars which rulers think fit to impose upon their subjects, have their public maintenance and greater encouragement. [Yea, and this much is become necessary, but upon supposition that men will still be so self-conceited and uncharit- able, as not to foi'bear their unnecessary impositions ; otherwise there would be found but very few who are tolerable that are not also in their measure to be approved, maintained, and encouraged. And if the primitive simplicity in doctrine, government, and worship, might serve turn for the terms of the church's union and communion, all would be well, without any more ado : supposing that where Christian magistrates are they keep the peace and repress the offenders, and exercise all the coercive government. And heretics who will subscribe to the Christian faith must not be punished, because they will subscribe to no more, but because they are proved to preach or promote heresy, contrary to the faith which they profess.'] ' I do not lay any great stress upon the external modes and forms of worship as many young professors do I find that judgment and charity are the cause of it as far as I am able to discover. If I were among the Greeks, the Lutherans, the Independents, yea the Anabap- tists [that own no heresy nor set themselves against charity and peace], I would hold sometimes occasional communion with them as Christians, . . . . though my most usual communion should be with that society which I thought most agreeable to the word of God if I were free to choose.' 'I am more and more sensible that most controversies have more need of right stating than of debating ; and if my skill be increased in anything it is in that ; in narrowing controversies by explication, and separating the real from the verbal, and proving to many contenders that they differ less than they think they do.' pp. 130, 134. The whole of this document, which was written about 1G70, is well deserving the reader's attention as showing the working of the Presby- 1 14 terian mind, from the time when it was relieved from the restraints of an Establishment, to the time when it appeared in the possession of liberty under the Act of Toleration. For Baxter is not to be regarded only as an individual, but as one who from his closet or his pulpit greatly influenced, if he may not rather be said to have entirely guided, the minds of that body of which he was regarded as a distinguished ornament. From the passages cited we may collect that even in the reign of Charles II. he had begun to regard with some disdain the controversies which divided Christians, and to look with most esteem on those who would unite men's hearts and minds in the bond of Christian unity and peace, that he would open wide as was possible the doors of church communion and fellowship, that he would even admit Arians and Socinians who do profess all that is in the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments ; all persons, in short, who received the scriptures as containing a divine revelation. He even expressly renounces the doctrine that those who never heard of Christ are without the pale of salvation. Earlier indeed he had taken the ground that the fundamentals of Christian faith are to be found in the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, in direct contradiction and opposition to those who have increased their number. The occasion was a solemn one, and the testimony which he bore to this liberal interpretation of Christianity complete. It was in the debates in Parliament concerning the clause respecting religious liberty in the instrument by which Cromwell was made Protector. Baxter was consulted by the committee. Dr. Calamy, Abridg- ment of the Life of Baxter, 1713, p. 121, relates what passed thus : ' He proposed offering to the Parliament the Creed, Lord's Prayer, and Ten Commandments as the essentials or fundamentals of Christianity containing all that is necessary to salvation. When they objected that this might be subscribed by a Papist or Sociniau, his answer was that it was so much the better and the fitter to be the matter of concord ; but if they were afraid of communion with Papists and Socinians it should not be avoided by making a new rule or test of faith which they will not subscribe to, or by forcing others to subscribe to more than they can do, but by calling them to account whenever in preaching or writing they contradicted or abused the creed to which they have subscribed. [This is the work of government, and we must not think to make laws serve instead of judgment and execution, nor must we make new laws as oft as heretics will misinterpret and subvert the old.] They resolved, however, to hold on in the way they had begun, and so all that he had left to do was to use his endeavours to prevent their multiplying fundamentals needlessly.' Now there has certainly been no period in the history of the Pres- byterian foundations in which the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Com- 145 raandrnents were not in constant use publicly and privately, and pro- bably none in which the particular articles of belief expressed in the Apostles' Creed did not form articles of the creed both of trustees and beneficiaries, though the use of creeds in general as creeds, has been always greatly discountenanced by them. Baxter's principles were also what may be denominated liberal or even latitudinarian respecting the use and interpretation of Scripture as a rule of faith. The following passage is extracted from his Paraphrase on the New Testament, 1685 : ' IV. It is of great importance that we err not by giving too little or too much to the sacred Scriptures, from both which extremes many dangerous errors flow. 1. On the left hand those err that deny it to be God's word, of infallible truth intelligible and perfect as to its proper use, without human supplements written or oral, doctrinal or canon laws ; and those that deny it to have infallible ascertaining evidences of its truth. These befriend infidelity, heresies, prophaneness, church tyranny, leaving it to clergymen to make us a new faith, new sacra- ments, and a new religion at their pleasure ; and to persecute good men that dare not renounce the Scripture's sufficiency and Christ's perfec- tion, by obeying their dictates and canons as co-ordinate with Christ's, if not co-equal. These make church concord utterly impossible, while they deny the sufficiency not only of the essentials but of all the Bible, to be the terms of concord, without their supplements or additions ; as if Christ, that is the author and finisher of our faith, and the maker of his own church, had not so much as told us what a clmrch or a Chris- tian is, or whom we must take for such into our love and communion, nor fixed the necessary terms of union, but left them to none knoweth whom, even fallible men liable to error and tyranny, that can but get uppermost and say then that they are the true church, and the masters that must be obeyed, while they are themselves of as many minds as they are of different countries, interests, and degrees of knowledge and sincerity.' 'On the other side those overdo in ascribing to the Scripture, who say that God had no church, or the church had no infallible rule of faith and life before the writing of it ; and who say that men converted by the creed, catechisms, preaching, or tradition, without knowing the Scripture, can have no saving faith, and that think none can be saved that doubt of any canonical books, text or matter, whether it be God's word; or that say Scripture is so pei'fect that there is no human imperfec- tion of the penmen found in phrase, word, or method, and that God could not have made it better ; or that every book may be known to be canonical, and every reading to be right, when copies vary, without historical tradition, by its own evident light ; and that we have no more 18 146 cause to doubt of any word or matter than of the truth of the gospel ; and that reason is of small use either for the proof or exposition of the Scriptures, but the most illiterate, if he found a Bible that he had never heard of, may by its own light know its truth and sense as well as studious learned men, and that no other books need to be read ; and that the Scripture is a sufficient teacher of physic, logic, and gram- mar, &c, and that nothing is to be used or done in the external forms, modes, and accidents of God's worship, but what is particularly com- manded in Scripture ; and that it telleth every man whether he be sincere and justified, or not ; and not only telleth him how to know it by inward evidence, with many other such mistakes, proceeding from mistaking the use of the Scripture, by which its perfection must be measured, which all tend to confusion, and at last to infidelity, or doubting of the whole when these errors are discerned.' This shows the freedom at that period of the Presbyterian mind twenty years before the date of these foundations.* There is subjoined another extract which shows how much this good man longed for the spirit of unity and peace among Christians. ' I never heard that Arminius was called an Arminian, nor Luther a Lutheran, nor Bishop Laud a Laudian ; but if you be upon the knack of making names you best know your ends, and best know how to fit them to it. But serious- ly, do you not know my judgment ? Will not about eighty books inform you ? How, then, can I help it ? No, but you know not what party I am of, nor what to call me ; I am sorrier for you in this than for myself : if you know not I will tell you ; I am a Christian, a mere Christian, of no other religion ; and the church I am of is the Chris- tian church, and hath been visible wherever the Christian religion and church hath been visible ; but you must know what sect or party I am of? I am against all sects and dividing parties ; but if any will call mere Christians by the name of a pai'ty, because they take up with mere Christianity, creed, and Scripture, and will not be of any dividing or contentious sect, I am of that party which is so against parties. If the name Christian be not enough, call me a Catholic Christian ; not as that word signifieth an hereticating majority of bishops, but as it signifieth one that hath no religion but that which by Christ and the Apostles was left to the Catholic church, or the body of Jesus Christ on earth.' Preface to Church History of the Government of Bishops and their Councils abbreviated, 1681. [In the addendum to this Preface it is said, p. 48, ' He that denieth the Deity of Christ denieth His essence, and he that denieth His essence denieth Christ, and is no Christian.'] Baxter had at one period of his life the opportunity of frequent intercourse with Sir Matthew Hale, the Chief Justice of the King's * See also the extract page 4. 147 Bench, one of the most learned and most religions men of his age. After the death of the Chief Justice, Baxter published a tract entitled ' The Judg- ment of the late Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale, on the Nature of True Religion, 1684.' In this we have the following passage coincident in spirit and feeling with much that we find from Baxter's own pen. 'He that fears the Lord of heaven and earth, walks humbly before Him, thankfully lays hold of the message of redemption by Christ Jesus, strives to express his thankfulness by the sincerity of his obedi- ence, is sorry with all his soul when he comes short of his duty, walks watchfully in the denial of himself and holds no confederacy with any lust or known sin ; if he falls in the least measure is restless till he hath made his peace by true repentance ; is true to his promise, just in his actions, charitable to the poor, sincere in his devotions ; that will not deliberately dishonour God though with the greatest security of impu- nity, that hath his hope in heaven and his conversation in heaven, that dare not do an unjust act though never so much to his advantage, and all this because he sees him that is invisible, and fears him because he loves him, fears him as well for his goodness as his greatness ; such a man, whether he be an Episcopal, or a Presbyterian, or an Independent, or an Anabaptist, he hath the life of religion in him, and that life acts in him and will conform his soul to the image of his Saviour, and walk along with him to eternity.' [The following is the passage referred to in p. 81.] ' Two things have set the church on fire, and have been the plagues of it for above a thousand years. First enlarging our creed, and making more fundamentals than God ever made. Second composing, (and so imposing), our creeds and confessions in our own words and phrases. When men have learnt more manners and humdity than to accuse God's language as too general and obscure, (as if they could mend it), and have more dread of God and compassion on themselves than to make those funda- mentals or certainties which God never made so ; and when they reduce their confessions first to their due extent, and second to Scripture phrase (that dissenters may not scruple subscribing) then I think, and never till then, shall the church have peace about doctrinals. It seems to me no heinous Socinian notion which Chillingworth is blamed for, namely, let all men believe the Scripture, and that only, and endeavour to believe it in the true sense, (and promise this) and require no more of others, and they shall find this not only a better, but the only means to suppress heresy and restore unity, &c.' Saint's Rest Preface to part II. [The following quotation from Baxter is made in the Proof! in illustration of the Presbyterian opposition to creeds, supra 72, with others which do not carry the l'easoning further, except one, which will be noticed afterwards. ] 148 'Canons of this kind they durst not swear subjection to because they thought them very uncharitable. If a weak mistaken Christian may be a true Christian, though faulty, they could not see why a mistaken con- gregation of pious persons might not be a true church, though faulty. . . . . The silenced ministers thought it very fit to leave those to themselves, who were so confined in their charity, as thinking it their duty to embrace all those as brethren who feared God and wrought righteousness ; and to esteem all those as true parts of the church of Christ, among whom there is the true christian faith and worship, how different soever their particular sentiments or modes might be, or what failures soever there might be amongst them, that were consistent with an honest upright heart and life.' Calamy's Abridgment of the Life of Baxter, vol. 1, p. 236 to 245. [The quotations from Baxter at pp. G8 and 132 should also be read in connection with the present subject.] As to the reference to the creed, it is to be ascertained what meaning Baxter ascribed to that formula. " The creed is but the exposition of the three articles of the baptismal covenant, f I believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/ The Nicene Creed is called by some ancients the Apostles' Creed too, and both were so, for both are the same in sense and sub- stance." Treatise of Love and Knowledge ; Practical Works, vol. iv., p. 507. In his Catechizing of Families, 1683, these expressions occur. " It [the Apostles' Creed] is the very sum and kernel of the New Testament, and there you may find it all, with much more; but it is older than the writing of the New Testament save that two or three words are added since. I told you before that Christ himself did make the nature and terms of Christianity, com- missioning his apostles to make all nations his disciples, bap- tizing them into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is the sum of the creed first made by Christ himself." Practical Works, vol. iv., p. 73. " The doctrine of the Trinity in Unity is the very sum of all the Christian religion as the baptismal covenant assureth us." p. 75. 1 ' The Scriptures fully prove Christ to be God, and one God with the Father. The form of baptism proveth it." p. 79. - " The baptismal covenant expounded in the ancient creed is the sum and symbol of Christianity. All the baptismal articles and covenant must be understood competently by all who will be saved." Address prefixed to Catholic Theology, 1675. 149 " It is not that covenant when any essential part is omitted. To believe in the Father, and not the Son, or not in the Holy Ghost, is not that covenant." Defence of Nonconformists' Plea for Peace, 1680, p. 148. " What knowledge is necessary in the adult unto their lawful baptism ? So much as is necessary to an understanding consent to the baptismal covenant, or to an hearty giving up themselves to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost He that knoweth that Jesus Christ is God and man, the redeemer of the sinful world, and the mediator between God and man ; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the Virgin Mary, fulfilled all righteousness, was crucified as a sacrifice for man's sin, &c. . I think knoweth as much of Christ as is necessary to baptism and church communion." Love and Knowledge compared, 1689. P. W. Vol. iv., pp. 550, 551. Accordingly Mr Baxter's proposal to the parliamentary com- mittees suggested that Socinians, having subscribed the Creed, might be called to account whenever they contradicted or abused the truth to which they so subscribed. [The 5th supplement is on the Apostles' Creed, and the following abridgement of it should be read here to shew the unfair use made of Baxter's name in the Proofs.] The circumstance of Lady Hewley's reference to this Creed having been alleged, on the hearing below, as an evidence of her orthodoxy, some observations directed to that point will be subjoined. The fate of this Creed in the history of the controversies of the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century as to hereti- cal tendencies, and as to the fundamentals of Christian faith, will be rather singular, if it should now come to be cited as evidence of orthodoxy ; the fact being that during the seventeenth century and in the beginning of the eighteenth, the latitudinarians and the opposers of creeds and doctrinal subscription (including Chillingworth, Jeremy Taylor, Baxter, &c.,) were continually referring to it, and wishing at any rate to limit subscriptions to it, while the orthodox continually objected to it as containing none of the fundamentals, or essentials, (the peciiliar doctrines as they are called) of Christianity. Baxter, it has been seen, proposed it as the test, which was objected to specifically because it would admit Socinians. It may be sufficient, however, to cite the case of Mr Locke ; against whom the hottest attack (made on account of his Reasonableness of Christianity) turned on this very point ; and we shall only quote the words of his orthodox opponent (Edwards) as quite sufficient to dispose 150 of the new theory in favour of this creed being likely to be intended or understood in those days as a test of orthodoxy. If it is really of that character, Mr Locke was most unnecessarily harassed and maligned by his opponent ; who on the ground of his preference for the very same Creed which is now used as an argument for Lady Hewley's orthodoxy, held him to be a Socinian, or in fact a good deal worse. The proposition of Dr. Edwards was, that a belief in the Apostles' Creed, which Locke, (like Jeremy Taylor after Tertullian and Claren- don), had held to contain the essence of Christianity, was in fact no belief at all. ' That if a man believe no more than is in express terms in the Apostles' Ci-eed, his faith will not be the faith of a Christian.' Vindi- cation of the Reasonableness of Christianity. Edition, 1824. p. 277. It deserves consideration whether on this notorious state of the argument, as it stood in the most popular religious controversy of the day (that of Mr Locke) the adoption of this creed by Lady Hewley may not with more fairness and probability be used as proof of her heterodoxy, and of her conformity to Mr Locke's school. Lord Barrington, the Presbyterian leader, is expressly stated to be Locke's disciple. The Apostle's Creed, so far from being a test of what is called orthodoxy, has in fact been frequently adopted by Anti-Trinitarians and Arians in their catechisms and expositions of doctrine as containing a convenient summary of their faith, and has even been appealed to by them as an ancient symbol and evidence, peculiarly favourable to their opinions. In proof of this assertion may first be cited the following passages from some of the older Unitarian tracts. Some thoughts upon Dr. Shei-lock's Vindication of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. 2nd ed., 1691, pp. 18, 20. Grounds and Occasions of the Controversy concerning the Unity of God contained in a volume entitled ' Agreement of Unitarians with the Catholic Church,' 1698. p. 13. Brief History of the Unitarians. 2nd ed, 1691, p. 49. [It is then stated that the creed occurs in Mr Peirce's Catechism appended to his sermons published in 1728, and in the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey's edition of the Liturgy for the use of the Essex Street Con- gregation. 3rd ed. 1785, p. 12]. In the subsequent edition it was omitted, not however on acco\int of the slightest objection being made to the doctrinal articles, but ' Because not being written by the apostles, it was deemed to be wanting in pro- per authority ; because it seemed unwarrantable to require of persons a declaration of their faith in assemblies for Christian worship, and because the imposition of creeds has at all times been the source of great mischief and dissentions.' Advertisement to the fourth edition. [It is added that the creed is also inti-oduced in the baptismal service 151 for adults aud litany, in the edition of the Liturgy published at Salis- bury, 1777, a new Sarum use.] In the quotations reprinted in pp. 143, 4, Baxter is not speak- ing of terms of communion, but of toleration by the civil magis- trate. His method for church-dealings with Socinians may be learnt from the following extract from Mr Joshua Wilson's Historical Enquiry, p. 35 : " In 1668 some conference and corres- pondence took place between Dr. Owen and Mr Baxter on a concord between the Independents and Presbyterians, in which some discussion arose as to the means of keeping out the Socin- ians, f who/ says Dr. Owen, ' are numerous and ready to include [intrude] themselves upon our communion/ He adds, ' the Creed as expounded in the first four councils will do it.5 Mr Baxter in reply states his reasons for not making a larger pro- fession necessary than the Creed and Scriptures. One of them is, that ' judging heretics by the law of God is a fitter remedy against heresy than making a new rule for that purpose. Either (he adds) they are heretics only in heart, or in tongue also and expression : if in heart only we have nothing to do to judge them. Heart infidels are and will be in the churches. If they be proved to be heretics in tongue, then it is either before they are taken into the communion of the church or after. If before, you are to use them as in case of proved wickedness ; that is, call them to public repentance before they are admitted : if it be after, they must be admonished, and rejected after the first and second contemned admonition. And is not this enough ? And is not this the certain regular way ? Is it not confusion to put law for judgment, and say there wants a new law or rule, when there wants but a due judgment by the rule in being? If there be nothing against Socinianism in the Scripture it is no heresy ; if there be (as sure there is enough, and plain enough) judge them by that rule and make not new ones." Narrative of Life, part m. pp. 63, 65. Baxter's notions as to toleration were most imperfect. He held that those who were tolerated "are to be restrained from preaching against any great, sure, necessary doctrine or prac- tice." True and Only Way of Concord, 1680. p. 274. " Rulers may forbid men doing hurt on pretences of charity, e.g., physicians to give men pernicious drugs, or preachers or others to seduce men to idolatry, or blaspheme Christ or draw men to 152 Mahometanism, Socinianism, &c." The Judgment of Nonconfor- mists of Things Indifferent commanded by authority, 1676. p. 75. In another place he says, " The errors which men should be restrained from preaching or propagating are innumerable, [among them he specifies] "That the doctrine of the Trinity is contradictory or impossible to be true. " That it is unnecessary to be believed or preached. . . . " That Christ is but a creature or not eternal, or not of the same divine essence as is the Father 11 That infants have no Original Sin, no guilt of Adam's sin, and no sinful pravity of nature. " That therefore infants have no need of a Saviour to suffer for them, nor of a pardon " That Christ was not a satisfying sacrifice for sin. " That Christ's righteousness and sacrifice are not the true meritorious cause of our righteousness, pardon, justification, and salvation. " That Christ sendeth not forth his Spirit to be his agent and witness to the end of the world in sanctifying his elect .... " That faith and repentance are of nature, or by mere natural power and free will, and not the gift of grace through Christ. " That God giveth grace equally to all till good improvers make a difference." The True and Only Way of Concord, 1680. pp. 293-317. So in another work he forbids keeping Socinians out of the church by subscriptions, trusting to their punishment by the civil power on their discovery, and to their then being excommunicated. "If any heretics (as Arians, Socinians, &c.) would creep into the ministry there shall not be new forms of subscription made to keep them out, (which it's like, with their vicious consciences would be ineffectual, and would open a gap to the old church tyran- nies and divisions ;) nor an uncertain evil be ineffectually resisted by a certain greater mischief. But while he keepeth his error to him- self he is no heretic as to the church (non apparare being equal to non esse) and when he venteth his heresy he is responsible all the ways aforesaid, and may be by the magistrate punished for his crime, and by the churches be branded as none of their communion; viz., the regular way of reforming crimes by judgment and exaction, &c." A Moral Prognostication, &c, pub- 153 lished to instruct the sons of lovo and peace in their duties and expectations, 1681. Mr Brooks, another eminent ejected minister, bears striking evi- dence of an enlarged and liberal spirit at the earliest date, that of the ejectment. Several other farewell sermons in the same spirit might be quoted. ' Legacy 10. Labour mightily for a healing spirit. This legacy I would leave with you as matter of great concernment. Labour mightily for a healing spirit : away with all discriminating names whatever, that may hinder the applying of balm to heal your wounds : labour for a healing spirit : discord and division become no Christian ; for wolves to worry the lambs is no wonder ; but for one lamb to worry another that is unnatural and monstrous. God hath made his wrath to smoke against us for the divisions and heartburnings that have been amongst us. Labour for a oneness in love and affection with everyone that is one with Christ ; let their forms be what they will ; that which wins most upon Christ's heart should win most upon ours ; and that is his own grace and holiness. The question should be, what of the Father, what of the Son, what of the Spirit shines in this or that person 'I And accord- ingly let your love and affections run out. That is the tenth legacy. ' Legacy 12. Take no truths upon trust, but all upon trial. Acts xvii., 11. It was the glory of that church that they would not trust Paul himself. Paul, that had the advantage above all for external qualifications ; no, not Paul himself. Take no truths upon trust, bring them to the balance of the sanctuary ; if they will not hold water there, reject them.' Farewell Sermon, Aug. 17, 16G2. Complete collection, ed. 1663. p. 361. [This was Thomas Brooks, who was ejected from St. Mary Maga- dalene, Fish Street Hill, and was the author of a Treatise of Holiness and other works. Calamy says he was a congregatioualist. I was assured by a friend (the Rev. G. S. Bull, now lying dead) that there is not one word savouring of latitudinarianism in the sermon.] The same kindly and liberal spirit appeared in another dissenting divine of great influence down to 1705, namely, Mr John Howe ; whose works, entitled ' The Blessedness of the Righteous,' and ' The Living Temple,' long continued to be favourite books of practical divinity in the Presbyterian body. Howe was born in 1630, ejected by the Act of Uniformity in 1662, and died in 1705. Dr. Calamy, besides what he says in the account of the ministers ejected, wrote a biographical memoir of him. In this he informs us that Mr Howe was 'an utter enemy to all impositions. As he took the liberty of judg- ing for himself so he freely allowed it to others. He was lor the union and communion of all visible Christians, and for making nothing 19 154 necessary to Christian communion but what Christ has made necessary, or what is necessary indeed to one's being a Christian. He was of opinion that much service might be done to the common interests of religion by a frank mutual communication of doubtful thoughts, if such disquisitions were pursued with more candour and less confidence, and without regarding the interest of any party whatever. In a word he looked upon the Christian scheme not as a system of opinions or a set of forms so much as a divine discipline to purify the heart and reform the life : here he laid the main stress, as appears from all his writings, and with respect especially to disputable things and the mere appem dages of religion as he often calls them, he was as much for a free inquiry into them as any man could be of that age.' But we may take the evidence from the writings of Mr Howe himself. In the dedication of a sermon preached on the day of thanksgiving for the return of King William on the restoration of peace in 1697, he thus expresses himself : ' To sum up all, then shall we be in happy circumstances when we shall have learnt to distinguish between the essentials of Christianity and accidental appendages, and between accidents of Christ's appointing and of our devising, and to dread affixing of our own devices to so sacred an institution ; much more when every truth or duty contained in the Bible cannot be counted essential or necessary ; when we shall have learned not only not to add inventions of our own to that sacred frame, but much more not to presume to insert them into the order of essentials or necessaries, and treat men as no Christians for wanting them ; when the gospel shall have its liberty to the utmost ends ©f the earth ; when the regenerating spirit shall go forth with it and propagate a divine and godlike nature everywhere among men ; when regeneration shall be understood to signify the communicating such a nature and such dis- positions to men ; when the weight of such words comes to be appre- hended, ' He that hateth his brother abideth in death ;' when to be ' born of God' ceaseth to signify with us, being proselyted to this or that church formed and distinguished by human device ; when religious pretences cease to serve political purposes ; when the interest of a party ceases to weigh more with us than the whole Christian interest ; when sincerity shall be thought the noblest embellishment of a Clmstian ; ' when the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,' &c. then will 'our peace be as a river, &c.,' p. 23. [Among the ' earlier testimonies' to Presbyterian opposition to creeds, &c, referred to at p. 71, supra, is a sentence from ' Bishop Davenant, quoted by Howe.' With the context added within [ ] it is as follows.] [I believe it could not but give some trouble to a conscientious con- 155 forming minister, if a sober pious person, sound in the faith and of a regular life, should tell him he is willing to use his ministry in some of the ordinances of Christ, if only he would abate or dispense with some annexed ceremony which in conscience he dare not use or admit of. I believe it would trouble such a minister to deal with a person of this character as a pagan because of his scruple, and put him upon consider- ing whether he ought not rather to dispense with man's rule than with God's. I know what the same Bishop Davenant hath expressly said,] ' He that believes the things contained in the Apostles' ('reed and endea- vours to live a life agreeable to the precepts of Christ, ought not to be expunged from the roll of Christians, nor be driven from communion with the members of any church whatever.' Howe's Works, edition 1862, p. 270. Mr Howe's argument shews that he attached as much mean- ing to the creed as Mr Baxter did, and had it been otherwise he would not have referred to Bishop Davenant as a latitudinarian. It is of importance when perusing such passages as this to recollect what were accounted by such men as Baxter ' fundamentals,' namely, what was ' contained in the Lord's Prayer, the Apostles' Creed, and the Ten Commandments,' and how far this position of itself at once removes them from the earlier Puritans and from the Independents of their and the present date, who insist specifically on subscription to the doctrine of the Trinity, and adhere, in fact, closely to the views of Scripture doctrine defined in the Longer and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines who met at Westminster in 1644. Other doctrines not to be found in those three sources were no doubt, and it is admitted that they were, held by both Baxter and Howe, but the point is, that they were held not as the essentials and fundamentals of Christianity if Baxter's explication of these fundamentals is to be held sincere. Neither is this to be taken as but the opinion of some two or three persons of peculiar turn of mind in a large community. Baxter and Howe are, it' any, the persons who governed the opinion of the community to which they belonged, and who, if any, are to be received as representatives of that creedless and non-articled community. Further we find the whole body some few years after almost unanimous in the profession of them. Mr Howe published two sermons, which he entitled The Car- nality of Religious Contention, with reference to the disputes originating in Dr. Crisp's posthumous Works. In the second head of the first of these sermons he enlarges on the incomparably great things in which both parties were agreed as what " all sincere Christians really cannot but be agreed upon, "and it will be seen how far he was from the indifference as to doctrine ascribed to him 156 in tho Proofs. The passage will be quoted in a subsequent page. The importance which he attached to the doctrine of the Trinity may be learnt from the several pieces he printed upon it. Mr Howe is claimed by the Congregationalists as one of their body, for although his last congregation, in Silver Street, was Presby- terian, his first church at Great Torrington was congregational, and he seems to have been of that order when chaplain to the two Protectors. He attended the Savoy Conference, in 1658, as Protector's chaplain. A testimony to the early tendency of the Presbyterian ministers to liberality may be drawn from the Rev. Martin Tomkins, the compa- nion of Lardner in his studies, both being educated at the University of Utrecht, whence they returned to England in 1703. Shortly afterwards Mr Tomkins settled at Stoke Newington ; his congregation and he differing on doctrinal subjects, in 1718, he published his ' Case,' in which he thus expresses himself, pp. 23, 24, Note. ' Withal some of the ejected ministers, as well as many of those who conformed, considering the goodness of God, were of so large and extensive a charity as to apprehend, that whosever walked sincerely up to his light with a general repentance of his unseen errors, was in a state of acceptance with God, by virtue of the covenant made with fallen Adam, Noah, &c. Now such thought it unreasonable to be forced so much against candour as this amounted to, (until they saw more reason alleged than they could meet with on the behalf of the principle), that whosoever did not punctually believe the Athanasian Creed must undoubtedly perish.' [This sentence is again quoted in the Proofs, p. 32, thus :] Dr. Calamy insists strenuously on this freedom from the authority of creeds or of other men, as the honourable distinction of the Protestant dissen- ters of England. In his abridgment of the Life of Baxter he had in the words of that divine, as stating the original grounds of nonconfor- mity in 1662, opened the principles which the Presbyterians afterwards carried out to their legitimate extent. From the statement of these grounds we will make a few extracts. ' They must assent and consent to St. Athanasius his creed, in which creed there is this expression, ' which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.' This, to our fathers, seemed very harsh. . . . Withal some of the ejected ministers &c Noah,' &c. [There ending the quotation]. It is clear that the ministers of 1662 referred to the case of heathens, and Mr Tomkins must have had the same meaning; the light he refers to can only be the light of nature, for 157 his remarks cannot relate to the case of men possessed of the Bible, as it would otherwise set asido not only orthodoxy, but Christianity also. It has not been possible to refer to a copy of his case, but as ho was justifying himself after his dismissal alluded to at pp. 43, 97, he no doubt introduced these sentences as a quotation and in reference to the Athanasian creed. This passage, to whomsoever the sentiment is to be attributed, is so clearly alien to the subject that it will not be noticed again. It misled Mr Rolfe before Lord Lyndhurst, but he seems to have discovered its non-applicability before the hearing in the Lords, as he did not quote it then. Mr Tomkins, after his dismissal from Stoke Newington, regu- larly attended the ministry of Mr Barker, an uncompromising Trinitarian. We find the same comprehensive and liberal spirit in the ministers of the next generation [this paragraph should have preceded the quota- tion from Mr Tomkins], those who were the immediate successors of the ejected ministry, and who entered on their ministry long before the date of the foundation in question. Thus we shall find that Dr. Calamy himself, who was ordained to the ministry in 1694, who was through life a very eminent and influential person in the class of Dissenters to which he belonged, and who was a personal friend of Lady Hewley, though there is no reason to doubt that he held sentiments which are commonly called orthodox, yet held them in subserviency and subordina- tion to the great principles of charity and freedom of inquiry, as is evident from the manner in which he has spoken of his fathers in the ministry, Howe and Baxter, in the passages already cited, as well as by his other writings. [The passages from Calamy in reference to Baxter's opinions, pp. 156, 148, is in the Proofs continued thus.] Calamy then follows this up in the dedication to his third volume, by his view of the leading principles of nonconformity. ' The main principles of nonconformity were the same at that time that they were before ; and the same afterwards, and from that day to this that they were then ; and they are these : That all true church power must be founded on a divine commission ; that where a right to command is not clear, evidence that obedience is a duty is wanting ; that more ought not to be made necessary to an entrance into the church than is necessary to the getting safe to heaven ; that as long as unscriptural impositions are continued, a further reformation in the church will be needful in order to the more general and effectual reaching the great ends of Christianity ; and that every man that must answer for himself hereafter must judge for himself at present. These were the chief principles of the old Puritans. They were the principles of our fathers, and they are also ours ; and I think them very capable of being well supported and so defended as to be in no danger of being over- thrown, either by reason or argument, or scripture authority.' p. 15. These original principles he asserts in the same book to have been carried to further liberality by the existing Nonconformists. ' It is well known that we have very generally imbibed, and that upon principle, and after close consideration, much larger notions of liberty than could obtain among many of our predecessors, which re- commends us not a little to a number of gentlemen of thought, and sense, and influence, in the age wherein our lot is cast.' p. xi. In a subsequent work he thus expi-esses himself : 'The first thing which I would here have considered is the utter unwarrantableness of narrowing the terms of Christian communion. Some are in strange confusion about this matter ; they either can't or won't distinguish between fixing circumstances, the fixing which is so necessary, that without they are some way or other fixed, divine wor- ship can't be kept up, and the making terms of communion of such things as are not truly needful to the regular or orderly management of divine worship, nor can in the least promote the ends of worship, and which the great Lawgiver has given none a right or warrant to impose. But though men should unhappily confound these things in their thoughts and discourse, yet they are in reality widely different. The making new terms of Christian communion, or narrowing those terms which our Lord himself has fixed, is what the word of God very freely declares against. It is what the honour of Christ as King in his church, is very nearly concerned in ; and it is the evident unjustifiable- ness of this that I take to be a main pi-inciple of conscientious Noncon- formity. This is the principle that the old Puritans and we entirely agree in, though they or many of them were disposed, it must be con- fessed, to further compliances with the national establishment, than many of us are now free to ; having more hopes of a further reformation by consent than we can now see grounds for, when things seem fixed for perpetuity ; and all the bars that may be are laid in the way of any alterations and amendments, though they should be ever so needful. And this principle, that the terms of communion are not to be narrowed, is so truly scrip- tural, and so agreeable to the nature of Christianity, which was not intended to be a topical and national religion, like that of the Jews, but was designed for a religion that should obtain universally, that though it has long been contested, yet he that hath all along, first or last, appeared for his own truths in his church, when there has been a debate 159 about them will, in all probability, remarkably clear this before the contest comes to an end.' Comfort and Counsel to Protestant Dissenters 1712. pp. 36, 37.* Another influential family in the Presbyterian body was that of the Oldfields, three brothers of whom, sons of a minister ejected in Derby- shire, were ministers in this denomination. One of them (Nathaniel) died a young man in 1696. Among the printed tracts of that period is a character of the Rev. Nathaniel Oldfield in an epistle from the Rev. Mr Shower, another eminent Presbyterian minister, to Mr Joshua Oldfield, in which the writer speaks thus : 1 Next to his piety, or as a part of it, his peaceableness and charity in opposition to bitterness and dividing zeal and a narrow spirit, was very commendable and exemplary. He could unite with Christians in all things necessary, and was not for making more fundamentals and neces- saries than Christ hath made, or for other terms of Church communion than the terms of our common Christianity, and therefore was ready to receive all whom he believed Christ would receive. He was of one church with all those whom he hoped to meet in heaven. Endeavouring to hold the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, because he acknow- ledged there is but one body, one spirit, one Lord Jesus Christ, one hope, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, from whom, and by whom, and for whom, are all things. This charitable spirit (let who will call such moderation lukewarmness) with serious diligence to please God, and do what service we can in our several places, will be accepted with God, and yield us comfort living and dying, and will I doubt not * It is clear from the account which Dr. Calamy has left of the disputes of 1719, that he professed himself as a Trinitarian like his father and grandfather, and was so esteemed by his brother ministers, subscribers or non-subscribers, but as a passage from his work on the Trinity has been made the ground for such criticism in the Proofs as is to be found in p. 134, supra, the following passage must be quoted from the volume containing the words so injuriously remarked on. "To be baptized into the name of any one, most properly is to be devoted to him, to be called after him, to be bound to adhere to and follow him, and to live according to his will .... when we are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and tho Holy Ghost, we are consecrated to them and bound to glorify and worship them and serve them religiously. This form of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, refers to the whole scheme of Christian doctrine, which centres in tha discoveries that are made as concerning the sacred Three. The sum of Christian know- ledge may be reduced to the doctrine of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which therefore, as far as it is revealed in Scripture, is supposed to be consented and submitted to, by such as yield to this institution. We are baptized in the name of each, that is, into the belief of the doctrine of each as it is delivered in the sacred Scriptures. And this is a doctrine by which the Christian religion is remarkably distinguished from all other religions either of Jews or heathens ; and which summarily comprehends all that is necessary to be believed by us in order to salvation. In this doctrine, the peculiar glory of the Christian religion lies This way is the sense of this glorious doctrine to be revived and spread, one generation after another, and of this rather than any other, because this was the doctrine by which it 160 -be better thought of hereafter when the little names of distinction and matters of dispute that now divide Christians and Protestants shall be fox'gotten.' [The quotation from Mr Shower's Sermon (1712) omitted in p. 72, as far as is material, runs thus.] ' He (Dr. Grew) was a true lover of pure and disinterested religion, and orieved that the divisions and disputes among good men about less important matters should be carried so high, and managed with such unbecorniDg warmth and fierceness ; or that any should be persecuted for their different sentiments, who desired to live peaceably with their neighbours.' 1 He valued the substantiate of pure Christianity, wherein all agree, without laying a mighty stress on lesser matters of human addition and imposition. And if ever God designs to give nourishing days on earth to the Christian church, one would think it must be by reviving a spirit of serious piety and practical religion, and whenever that comes to be most valued and to be distinguishing, nothing will be made a test and boundary to Christian communion but what is founded on plain reason or express revelation ; nothing but what is necessary to make a man a good Christian, render him acceptable to God, and carry him safe to the heavenly Canaan.' The Mr Oldfield, to whom the letter was addressed, was afterwards Dr. Joshua Oldfield, who in 1719 was the Moderator of the Assembly of ministers at Salters' Hall, who had to discuss and decide upon the question of requiring subscription to the doctrine of the Trinity from Dissenting ministers, and who decided against it. The writer, Mr Shower, was a designed that Christians as such should he distinguished. It has heen, therefore, upon the professing to believe this doctrine, that persons have all along been received ;is members of the Christian church ; and that by the order of him by whom this church was founded. And it was his plain intention that his followers, by being baptized in the name of the Father, and the Holy Ghost, should be distinguished from Pagans and Infidels as well as by being baptized in the name of the Son, be distinguished from the Jews, who disowned the Messiah upon his appearance It seems as much as the love of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, is worth to them for persons so devoted ever to desert this doctrine, or pour contempt on the name of any of the sacred Three to whom they were jointly devoted. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in the baptismal charge and commission represented as having an equal right to our faith, worship, and obedience. They that according to the Scripture hold Three Persons and one God, to whom they were devoted, and endeavour to give to each the love and honour, worship and obedience, that is respectively due, have solid comfort afforded them by that Christian covenant on which their hopes are bottomed." pp. 168, 169, 171, 173, 175, 356, 359. This method of educing all Christianity from the baptismal covenant is exactly the same as Baxter's, and is in perfect accordance with the extract, the remark on which has occasioned the last long quotation. These sermons of Dr. Calamy were preached at the Tuesday morning lectures, in Salters' Hall chapel, which is represented by the Proofs aa the rallying place of the liberal theologians. 101 minister not less influential. He was the brother of Sir Bartholomew Shower, an eminent lawyer j so that wc have in fact in these passages the conjoint opinions of three of the most influential ministers in the Presbyterian body, delivered by them in public in 1696, several fears before the date of these foundations. Mr Shower's views will be found illustrated hereafter in his Remarks on Toland's Memorial of the State of England, ]70.">. [Mr Shower died in 1715, and Dr. Oldfield in 1729.] Mr Shower in the funeral sermon speaks of Mr Oldfield as having " zeal for truth/' and enlarges on the necessity of "sound doctrine." In his sermon to ministers and people at Mr Brad- bury's ordination in 1 707, (his being chosen by Mr Bradbury to preach that sermon shews that gentleman's appreciation of him), he says : " Have not all English Protestants common enemies that would be glad to involve us in a general ruin, and shall we contribute to it by discords among ourselves, for want of a spirit of charity, unity and mutual forbearance ? common enemies, I say, not the Romanists only but such as strike at all revealed religion, overthrow the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and deny the Divi- nity of our blessed Lord/' This passage is given because the phraseology of Mr Shower in the extracts in the Proofs might have been used by an Arian, while his printed sermons show his perfect orthodoxy. This instance very well illustrates the doubts which may be raised, though really ill-founded, upon extracts from Evangelical divines his contemporaries, owing to the cold and guarded manner of writing which they learnt from their sneering and unbelieving age. The Socinians are in consequence of this enabled to claim them, until a search into the matter is instituted with an ex- penditure of time and trouble which few meu are at once able and willing to incur. Dr. Joshua Oldfield shows his own spirit in bearing testimony to that of one of the fii'st race of Nonconformists, the Rev. Robert Fleming, who died in London in 1716 ; and the following are extracts from Dr. Oldfield's funeral sermon on him : ' Let us submit to sufferings, striving against sin. They quit their places, the favour of the government, and all prospects of advancement under it, to keep a good conscience. Let us zealously plead and stand up as they did for Christ against the imposing of human devices or inventions relating whether to faith or worship. Had this been generally done, Popery could never have risen in the church.' p. 19. 20 162 ' He made his Bible the absolute governor of his religion, whilst some use it as a lacquey to theirs. He followed what he apprehended to be the meaning of it, after prayer with serious consideration and inquiries, and allowed that any man has a right to do so too. For want of this, how few real or intelligent Protestants are there to be found amongst the numbers of professed ones ! He was a generous friend to all man- kind, and therefore an enemy to all imposition as well as persecution, to Popery in the church, and tyranny in the state which would intro- duce and support it.' p. 36. ' If in some things he differed from others, it may well be allowed him, who was always free in allowing others the liberty to differ from him, without any rough or injurious treatment.' p. 37. Dr. Oldfield had under him in 1698 the celebrated Dr. Lardner, who was subsequently an avowed Unitarian ; so that the presumption is that he received no very exclusive instruction. [See supra, p. 86.] Another minister may be cited, Francis Tallents (born 1619, died 1708), of whom Baxter says, ' He was a good scholar, a godly blameless divine ; most eminent for extraordinary prudence and moderation and peaceableness towards all.' The circumstance mentioned of him is not of much importance taken by itself, but it affords an example of the tone which we find these exemplary men taking on all occasions. 'In 1691 he entered into his new place of worship, built for that purpose, and preached his first sermon there on Isaiah lvii, 15. He caused it to be written on the walls of the meeting-place that it was built not for a faction or party, but for promoting repentance and faith, in communion with all that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.' Calamy's Life of Baxter, Vol. n., p. 551. [Mr Tallents appears from Dr. Calamy's account of him to have left the Establishment with great reluctance. His meeting-place was burnt down by a Church-and-King mob.] This liberal and enlarged spirit of peace and charity is to be regarded not as the exception but the rule. Those who had been of a narrower and more exclusive spirit, or who placed points of faith in importance above love, and tolerance, and freedom of scripture inquiry, had in the recent separation to which we have alluded, gone with the other party. A more general testimony to the growth and prevalence of this spirit is to be found in the following passage of a letter of the Rev. Matthew Henry, son to an ejected minister, and who was at the time of writing it, 1709, minister to the congregation of dissenters at Hackney. This is the Matthew Henry whose exposition on the books of Holy Scripture was long a work highly valued in the denomination to which he belonged. ' You cannot think how it rejoiceth my heart to hear from one so 1G3 well able to judge of that excellent spirit both of devotion and modera- tion which yon observed in London, where I am very much a stranger. Blessed be God for such promising tokens of the continuance of his presence with us, and such earnests of further mercy he has in store for us. I have been vexy much pleased to observe the growth of the spirit of moderation and charity among the dissenters, as far as my acquaint- ance has reached.' Correspondence of Ralph Thoresby, Vol. il, p. 161. Very little is said here as to Matthew Henry, but in other publications by Socinians during the controversy a moderation and liberality are imputed to him which in their phraseology con- veys the notion of imperfect orthodoxy. At other times it is said that his Commentary shews that he was no Calvinist. Reasons for this attempt may be discovered in the possession by the Socinians of his chapel at Chester, and the frequent reference which has been made to that circumstance. It conveyed to the general mass of religious people a better, or at any rate a stronger, notion of the whole dispute than any other fact which could be mentioned. Every one of them knew something of Matthew Henry's Commentary, and the assertion, that the chapel built for him was in the possession of Socinians, carried to their minds a conviction of wrong and infamy in the desecration which no argument could produce. Beside Mr Mottershead of Nantwich, at whose house Mr Henry died, and who had been trained for the ministry by him, being a year resident in his house, was the minister who introduced Arianism into New- come's chapel in Cross Street Manchester, and we have seen the inferences drawn from pupils in respect to their tutors. As to Mr Henry's liberality with regard to attacks on the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to quote his remarks. "Mr Emlyn was with me to-day, September 1, 1705, and adheres to the Arian heresy. I had a deal of talk with him and endeavoured to shew him that even his own principles are nearer to the orthodox than the Socinian." "It was a pleasure to Socinus, that arch-heretic, that he had no master. We wish it had been his fate to have had no scholars." Williams's Life of Henry, pp. 180, 181. Mr Henry's confession of faith at his ordination is given in Mr Williams's Life of him. In it he says of the doctrine of the Trinity, " This is a revealed mystery which I do believe but cannot comprehend." He embodied in it the twentieth answer of the Assembly's Catechism, for which see note. 164 In 1702 he published a Scripture Catechism in the manner of the Assembly's, in which he founds a question on every principal word of the old manual, and answers it from Scripture.* There is an amusing candour in the use of the past tense in expressing the admiration for Howe and Henry, of the "Presby- terian body" " to which [they] belonged." In 1704 was published a very popular tract printed on one sheet for general circulation, entitled, ' The Layman's Reasons for his joining in stated communion with a congregation of moderate Dissenters,' which Calamy has preserved in his additions to his abridgment of Baxter, vol. i., p. 673, stating ' that it well deserves to be preserved.' In this there is not a word about doctrinal purity or conditions of any sort ; but on the other hand the writer expresses himself as follows : ' And through the grace of God I think I can truly say this is my character. I am heartily concerned about my soul, and my everlasting condition. It is my care and desire to please God, and to work out my salvation. All other interests and concerns are nothing to me in com- parison with this. I seriously profess I am afraid of sin, and am solici- tous to be found in the way of my duty, and to get all the help I can to forward me towards heaven, and fit me for it. Hereunto I can add * The following is an extract, omitting the Scripture, from the analysis of the twen- tieth answer : " God, having out of His mere good pleasure from all eternity elected some to eternal life, did enter into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of a state of sin and misery, and to bring them into a state of salvation by a redeemer. Might not God justly have left all mankind to perish in their fallen state ? Yes. . . . Could man help himself out of his state of sin and misery ? No. . . . Did God contrive a way for man's recovery ? Yes. . . . Did God particularly design the salvation of a remnant of mankind ? Yes. Are there some whom God has chosen ? Yes. Is there a certain number of such? Yes. Were they chosen from eternity ? Yes. Were they chosen for the sake of anything in themselves ? N». But of his mere good pleasure ? Yes. Were they chosen to salvation as the end ? Yes. And to sanctification as the means ? Yes, Was it for the glory of God ? Yes. Shall the election obtain ? Yes. Does our salvation begin there ? Yes. Are others passed by ? Yes. Does God know certainly whom he has chosen ? Yes. Do we know it ? No. Can we know our own election otherwise than by our being sanctified? No. Were the elect given to Christ ? Yes. Did he undertake their salvation ? Yes. Was it promised him that he should effect it ? Yes. And was he himself assured of it? Yes. And d»cs it always prove so ? Yes. And shall any of them miscarry ? No." 105 this further protestation that through the grace of God 1 have a catholic charity for all good Christians. I cannot monopolize the church ; it is narrow enough, I dare not make it narrower. I love a good man what- ever party he belongs to, and him that follows Christ, though he doth not follow with me. He that fears God and works righteousness, is accepted of God and shall be accepted by me. 'My practice is this. I join myself sometimes with the assemblies of the public establishment, if an opportunity offers itself on a week day, or if I happen on a Lord's day to be out of the reach of such assemblies as I choose statedly to join with, I freely and cheerfully attend the divine service of the church, knowing nothing in the prayers but what I can heartily say amen to, which 1 choose rather to do than answer aloud after the minister. And this I do that I may testify my catholic charity, and my communion with, and affection to all good Christians, though I be not in everything of their mind. Hereby like- wise I endeavour to fulfil all righteousness, and in my place I bear my testimony to that which is of God in the public establishment wherein I do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. But I constantly join in all the ordinances with a congregation of moderate and sober dissenters, with them I hold stated communion.' This tract was included in the edition of Matthew Henry's Miscellaneous Works, printed in 1 726, and has appeared in all sub- sequent editions of thern. It is a defence of Nonconformity, and as such, relates only to the questions between the supporters of the Establishment and the Dissenters. It assumes that they all held the same faith, and therefore what is said has no bearing on difference of doctrine. There was, in fact, no assembly for heterodox worship in the three kingdoms in 1704. Whenever we are able to obtain information of what was going on among the leaders of the denomination, we trace marks of the prevalence of the same liberal feeling. Whatever evidences the tone of exhortation and preaching of the Presbyterian ministry among themselves, when occasion called them together, is of course important to be noted oh the present occasion ; with this view we refer to a funeral sermon published in 1702, as preached for the Rev. Mr John Fairfax, (minister at Barking and Ipswich), on the 23rd August, 1700, by Samuel Bury, minister of the Presbyterian congregation at Bury St. Edmonds, the leading town of Suffolk, where the dissenters were very numerous. Mr Bury was educated at Mr Doolittle's academy, Islington, and was there contemporary with the celebrated Matthew Henry, of whom he once said, ' he was to me a most desirable friend, and I love heaven better since he went there.' 106 Mr Fairfax, on whose funeral the neighbouring ministers were gathered together, was of the family of the Lord General Fairfax, a Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, who had been ejected from Barking, in Suffolk, under the Act of Uniformity. Calamy, in his account of the Suffolk ministers, treats him as their chief and leader. The principal Presbyterian minister of the district thus addressee his brother ministers so assembling on the funeral of their late leader. ' To you my brethren in the ministry. . . . The only exhorta- tion I would humbly offer upon this occasion is this : that since other burning and shining lights are removed, let us endeavour to be such ourselves for the future, that the interest of Christ may suffer the less by the death of others, and that this may come yet nearer, I hope it will be no offence that we may shine forth, more especially these four ways : 1. In the plainness of our ministry. 2. In the heavenliness of our lives. 3. In the catholickness of our tempers. Let us never impale religion within parties, or believe that none can be saved besides our- selves, or presently call for fire from heaven on those that will not receive us. Let religion itself in its own latitude be the common bond of all union, and whatever differences may be amongst us, in smaller mat- ters, let us be lovers of all good men. It was Mr Jeremy Burroughs's motto upon his study door that Opinionum varietas et opinantmni unitas non sunt aa-va-Tara. 4. In our devotedness to all good. In the preface Mr Bury, addressing himself to the same persons, exhorts them to be men of charity that [they] may not impropriate Christ or confine the grace of God within the circuit of their own opinions, but to shine forth in the catholickness of our tempers.' It will be observed that (in this address by a principal minister to his brethren on their qualifications and duties) there is not even an allusion to doctrine except in the way of regarding it altogether as a matter of latitude and charity. Mr Bury removed in 1718 to Lewin's Mead Chapel, Bristol, then and now a leading Presbyterian congregation of the west of England. We shall find him continuing in the same liberal views throughout his life. He seems to have been a believer in General Redemption in opposi- tion to the Calvinists. In his Exhortation to Mr Samuel Savage at his ordination, 1714, p. 69, he says : 4 As to the point of Universal Redemption, it is observable that the catechism expressly asserts that we are bound to keep God's command- ments upon the account of his being our redeemer. But all are bound to keep God's commandments ; therefore he so far redeemed all as to lay upon them an obligation thereby which all unbelievers shall be judged for refusing and slighting ; which could not be if the non-elect were no 167 way concerned in it.' He recommends < unity and peace,' the reading of healing authors, and says, ' The many excellent Irenicums that learned men have wrote are of the best of our books.' p. 70. Mr Bury left a tract entitled, A Dying Pastor's Last Legacy to his Flock, written a little before his death at Bristol, in 1730. It is printed in the Protestant Dissenters' Magazine, vol. i., p. 248. In it he says : VI never was prostituted to any party, but have endeavoured to serve God as a Catholic Christian. I could not conform to the present establishment of the Church of England, because of difficulties which upon the most impartial study have appeared to me as insuperable. Nor could I ever be reconciled to the temper of unpeaceable Dissenters, who would censure or unchurch all men that were not of their way. I have loved a conformist as heartily as a nonconformist, where both have been for conscience sake ; and where the power of godliness hath equally appeared in both, they have equally shared in my sincere love and affection.' Mr Bury's case is important as his late testimony to liberality of opinion is connected with evidence of its existence at the early period of 1702, first cited. Mr Bury's case is referred to three times, so that it challenges careful examination. Mr Fairfax was, according to Dr Calamy, thoroughly evangelical, (as may be inferred from what is here said of him,) and so eminent a man that Mr Bury appears, from the account of the sermon in the Nonconformist's memorial, to have been allowed, though without episcopal ordination, to preach his funeral sermon in the church from which he had been ejected. That Mr Bury was chosen to preach such a man's funeral sermon is sufficient testimony to him. But so far from not alluding to doctrine except in the way of regarding it altogether as a matter of latitude and charity he, according to the condensed account just referred to, expressly said of Mr Fairfax, " He was an orthodox minister who adhered to all the doctrinal articles of the Church of England." Mr Bury's expressions as to General Redemption are such as the Independents of the present day would use. The refer- ence to the catechism, and the tone of the sentence in which it occurs, indicate, to those accustomed to such writing, that he himself was of the old opinions. The Irenicunis up to 1714, had been devoted almost exclusively to the controversy between the Establishment and the Nonconformists. The last of the extracts shows the parties referred to in the first of them. 168 His last legacy to his flock is i*eprinted entire in Mr Murch's volume with the remark that it contains nothing that might not be written by a Unitarian minister of the present day. It is too long for insertion here, but no one accustomed to the style of evangelical divines will fail to recognise the writer of it as of their party. Allowance must always be made for the ministers of the first half of the last century, since it was the habit of the time to keep doctrine in the background. But though this was true of Bury's generation, especially towards the end of his life, it was not so of Fairfax's, with which we have to do. Mr Bury's theology may be known from the fact that the funeral sermon for his wife, of whom he wrote a life, was preached by the Rev. William Tong, then of Salters' Hall, a Subscriber, who, Mr Walter Wilson says, though he ranked with the Presby- terian denomination yet associated very much with the Inde- pendents. Mr Tong was also Matthew Henry's biographer, who died in 1716, and although there is no other biography which gives so good an account of the Dissenters of his generation, yet it is never quoted in the Proofs. Mr Bury's congregation is a very remarkable instance of the connexion between the Presbyterians and Independents. The first two ministers, Mr Weeks and Mr Joseph Kentish, are claimed alike by the Lewin's Mead Chapel and the Bridge Street Chapel. The license to Mr Weeks on the occasion of the Indul- gence in Charles the Second's time, is however preserved in the vestry of the latter place. The explanation that suggests itself is that on the Presbyterians removing from Tucker Street to Lewin's Mead the Independents remained behind in the aban- doned chapel. In 1710 the Rev. Strickland Gough became co-pastor of Independents at Tucker Street, after being minister of Presbyterians at Lewin's Mead, and there can be no question of his orthodoxy. From Mr Murch's account of the Lewin's Mead congregation it appears that they did not change their old hymn-book, (sup. p. 36), until the death of Mr Bury's successor, Mr Diaper. This is one of the congregations which has always been managed by a committee, and it is the most wealthy body of nonconformists in the West of England. This is shewn by the unexampled provision of coach-houses and stables among their congregational buildings, as they do not allow distance of residence to prevent their attendance at the worship of their choice. 169 Mr Benjamin Bennet, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, carries ua back to a sufficiently early period for every purpose, being chosen minister in 1699. [The following quotations are from supplement number 1, where Mr Bennet's opinions are discussed in connexion with those of the other Northern ministers.] ' Either every man must judge for himself in matters of religion or not. If not, how come we to assume this liberty to appeal from those who would impose upon us, to Christ, the Lord of conscience This has hitherto been the rock on which the dissenters stand, their impregnable fort, which they never have been and never can be beat from unless they beti'ay themselves and give it up. And if this be our right as Christians it is every Christian's right, and how inconsistent must it be for us who need it, and claim it for ourselves ; to deny it to others.' Memorial of the Reformation chiefly in England, p. x. It is presumed that this must place beyond all question the fret that [Mr Bennet] did hold sentiments of the most liberal kind in respect to the right of private judgment in matters of religion ; and that he would have held in abhorreuce the recent decisions of the Courts of Chancery which deprive the body to whom he belonged of this, their distinguishing principle, and which are in direct variance with what he and so many other of his brethren have repeatedly asserted to be the foun- dation on which they in their dissent, rested, and for which many of them embraced dissent. It will not do to say that these were the opinions of here and there a speculative man amongst them. It has been shewn on the best possible evidence that such a man as Dr. Calamy became a minister among the dissenters rather than in the church, in order that he might secure this freedom. The earnest4 ness with which Dr. Samuel Wright,* the Carter Lane minister, asserted it has been already shewn, and the testimony borne to it by other eminent London ministers. We have now the most eminent and influential minister in the four northern counties, which were to be a principal scene of Lady Hewley's benefactions, pleading earnestly for the principle, and not averse that the principle had led the most distinguished lay dissenter of the time a little astray from the orthodox sentiments of the generation that was gone by ; this too as early as 1721, when so many ministers had in consequence of the exercise of this right re- * Dr. Wright's' words are, "I think it is in the general an agreed point amongst the Protestants that no man has a right to impose his sense of the Bible upon another any more than to impose a new Bible and Scripture itself upon him. In effect the on. is pretty much the same as the other. The grand point which the Dissenters are (1712) contending for is this, that nothing be insisted on as a term of communion bul what our blessed Lord has required and laid down as such in the received canon of Scripture.'' 21 170 nounced the Trinity, and it must be presumed that Mr Bennet could not be so inattentive to the natural working of the principle as not to perceive that as it had led Peirce, Hallett, Sager, Billingsley, Stogden, Foster, Chandler, and many other ministers, to renounce the orthodoxy of their forefathers so it would go on producing the same effect, nor could any one say how far the deviation might go, short of the absolute renunciation of the Divine authority of the teachings of Christ and his apostles. In the year 1722 Mr Bennet published a small volume entitled Trenicum, or a Review of some late Controversies about the Trinity, private judgment, church authority, &c, wherein the right of Chris- tians to judge for themselves in matters of religion is vindicated, and objections to the contrary answered, some remarks concerning fundamen- tals are offered, and the certain and only terms of peace and union are laid clown, p. 109. He might have foreseen what has happened when he penned the conclusion of the following remarkable passage : ' Though a person be never so impartial, diligent, faithful in the study of his Bible, and never so capable of understanding it ; though he believe every doctrine he finds there ; though he make it his great care and business not only to live but recommend to others the religion of the Bible, yet if he cannot pro- nounce the church's shibboleth, i.e., if he do not harmonize with the pre- vailing party that call themselves orthodox, and the church, in every opinion of theirs, he must be a sacrifice in that way and manner which obtains when and where he lives ; must help to furnish an act of the faith in one place, for the entertainment of the holy inquisitors ; undergo also the torture of a bastinading more cruel than death; or where these methods of wholesome severity do not prevail must at least be rased out of all charitable lists.' This is really in fact what has now been done. Yet the writer of these lines must be presumed to have known what was the intention of the lady whose beneficence was scattered among the ministers of his denomination everywhere around him, better than they can be known now. p. 110. We obtain a view of what Mr Bennet considered as being worthy to be regarded the fundamentals of Christian doctrine as understood by the Presbyterian body in his day, in which we find not a trace of Calvinism ; and his Trinity is of the most subdued and moderate character, such as answers not to any orthodox description of the doctrine and which could not answer to the test of the courts below. 'In short, Christians are, I think, agreed on such articles as these, which may be reckoned among the fundamentals. That God is, and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him, that the Scripture is the 171 word of God, that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, and is come in the flesh ; that there is but one God, and yet that there are three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to whom the Scripture ascribes divinity ; that the soul is immortal ; that there is a future state of reward and punishments ; that the interest and happiness of the soul is to be preferred to that of the body, and the affairs and concernments of eternity to those of time (which is the grand principle and foundation of practical religion) ; that all our intercoms and our acceptance with God is through a mediator, who died for our sins and rose again for our justi- fication, who ever lives to make intercession for us ; that God treats with sinners upon terms of faith and repentance; that without holiness no man shall see the Lord ; that it is appointed for all men once to die and after that the judgment. I had almost added that we take Christ for our only master in religion, and depend on his favour alone for our encouragement therein. ' 7. Whatever difficulty there may be in stating fundamentals, fixing their precise number, or the certain criterion by which they may be infallibly distinguished and known, it may be concluded, I think, with great assurance, that no impartial sincere inquirer after truth ever did or ever shall err in fundamentals.' How much of doctrine esteemed ortho- dox he virtually excludes appears from his reasoning on this proposition : but still more strikingly from his illustrations of the next proposition, which is thus fearlessly enunciated : '8. The not observing the distinction between errors fundamental and not fundamental, and pronouncing men heretics for their differing opinions and mistakes (supposed or real) in matters of little moment and consequence in i*eligion, has been the main source of animosities and schisms, and the great occasion of oppression and tyranny in the church from age to age.' And again, '9. Though, as has been granted, it is not easy to determine what are fundamentals and to define heresy, 'tis less difficult to determine what are not fundamentals ; and it may certainly be ooncludod from what has been said that many of these doctrines about which we have had the wai'inest and most uncharitable contests are not fundamentals.' Under this head he plainly and in terms shuts out the doctrine of the Trinity from the class of fundamentals. ' The same remark may be applied to the doctrine of the Trinity, as it has been a subject of dispute and been stated in several and different schemes. I can't think it (the disputed part) has the importance of a fundamental. Men may be equally sincere, equally pious and good, and equally accepted of God, notwithstanding their different sentiments in this controversy. Nor is it plain enough to pass for a fundamental, nor 172 easyenough to be understood, nor clearly enough revealed. Let any of our Bchemista go through our congregations, whether among Churchmen or Dissenters, with their draught of this doctrine; and a proper number of queries in their hand relating to it, and I'm mistaken if they don't find upon inquiry by the answers they'll get either that their doctrine is not fundamental, or th.it the generality, even of the best character for religion, are no Christians. Let them ask what they understand by three hypos- tases or persons ; or what their notion of a person in the Trinity ; how they understand it that they are three and yet but one ; what the difference between person and personality ; what's meant by the eternal genei-ation of the Son and procession of the Holy Ghost. If some have learnt any terms of speaking from catechisms, confessions, Trustees. James Holt, j Gentlemen : I do most cordially recommend the case of the people at New Church, and their minister, my lately acquired but highly esteemed friend, to your regard. Bury, May 6 th, 1815. W. Allard. * This is to be remarked as an instance <>f Arminianism even among Methodists, ending in Socinianism. The same thing has happened among the Quakers, who are an Arminian sect in the United States more than in England ; and the same must bu ad ruitted of Grotius and his party, the first Arminians and the Latitudinal ians. 248 To the Trustees of Lady Hewley's Fund. Gentlemen : We, the undersigned, beg leave to recommend to your particular- attention the case of the Reverend John Ashworth, the resident Minis- ter of a society of Unitarians which has recently been established at New Church, a populous manufacturing district. The congregation consists- chiefly of weavers, a sober, honest, and industrious people, but of very limited means for the support of a minister. Wm. Hassal, G. W. Elliott, Wm. Walker. Rochdale, May 8th, 1815. Richard Astley, Wm. Kershaw, Rawdox Briggs, John Rhodes, J. R. Ralph, Joss Thomsox, C. H. Dawson. Halifax, May 10th, 1815. This document was a very important piece of evidence. The flippancy of the language, when contrasted with the character of Lady Hewley, produced an effect which could not have been otherwise obtained, and as the trustees would not declare their faith it told it for them. It was not merely that the trustees- made a large grant for them to this place shewing that the memo- rial was to their mind, but it was thought worthy of being printed (not by any means for reprobation) in the Unitarian Maga- zine, the Monthly Repository. By the means of this magazine it became known to the relators and was proved in the suit ; the minister of the chapel was examined, and he verified a copy of the magazine put into his hands. This chapel is said to have been the only one Unitarian in its origin which the trustees put on their list, and it received £12 a year from 1815 to 1830. This fact should be stated for praise as well as blame. Public attention had long been drawn to this charity, and at length had so far settled upon it, that it was clear it was only a matter of time and circumstance how long- the trusteeship should remain in the families who had possessed themselves of it. At last, in August, 1824, the leading Socinians of Lancashire met at the Spread Eagle, in Manchester, to dine and present a silver tea 249 service to the Rev. James Grundy, on his leaving the chapel in Cross Street in that town. This chapel was built by the exer- tions of Henry Newcomc, ejectod from Manchester in 10(i2, who has left some sermons to shew his opinions ; among them s e which, by their title, show that his theology was of the old school, as " The Sinner's Hope," and " The Covenant of Grace effectu- ally remembered." After dinner of course there was speech- making, and the Rev. George Harris, of Bolton-le-Moors, among other offensive remarks, said that " the spirit of orthodoxy was mean, cruel, vindictive, and persecuting," and also that it was " direful and demoralising in its effects." The report of the speeches at this dinner occasioned a news- paper controversy, in which the late George William Wood, Esq., afterwards M.P. for Kendal, on the Socinian side, and on the orthodox, Mr George Hadfield, now member for Sheffield, his native town, then a practising solicitor in Manchester, took the chief part. Mr Hadfield was drawn into the matter by a letter from Mr Samuel Kay, solicitor to Cross Street Chapel, in which that gentleman threw out a challenge to try the right of Cross Street Chapel. Mr Kay, who stated that an ancestor of his was one of the original founders of Cross Street Chapel, and that his family had ever since been members of the congregation, made the following candid admission : In the course of the last century undoubtedly a great change has taken place in the opinions of English Presbyterians in general. Tin: late pious Mr Mottershead found his congregation about ninety years ago rigid Calvinists ; having been uniformly influenced by a spirit of calm enquiry and Christian candour, he left them at his decease, after a ministry of nearly fifty years, Arminians and Arians. His colleague, Mr S. Seddon, was the first to speak in our chapel what were then called Socinian doctrines ; but it does not appear that many, certainly not the greater part of his hearers, concurred with him in opinion. Mr Hadfield, in 1824, published a volume with the title, " The Manchester Socinian Controversy," containing an account of the dinner at the Spread Eagle, and the letters in the news- papers, with introductory remarks as to Presbyterian chapels in the hands of Socinians, a list of the chapels so circumstanced, and a particular notice of Dr. Williams's and Lady Hewley's chari- ties. At the end of the notice of Lady Hewley's charity ii was ;!1 250 intimated that the friends of orthodoxy were contemplating an investigation into it. Prefixed to Mr Hadfield's book was a portrait of Mr New- come, subjoined to which was the following sentence from Mr John Howe : He was a burning and a shining light ! O Manchester, Manchester ! that ancient fenced seat of religion and profession ; may Capernaum's doom never be thine ! May thy Heyrick, Hollingworth, Newcome, and thy neighbours Angier and Harrison, and divers other men, never be witnesses against thee ! In the next year the committee of Rotherham College, of which Dr. Bennett and the Rev. Thomas Smith were then tutors, took the Hewley charity into their consideration, and requested Mr W. P. Rawson and Mr Joseph Read, both of Atter- cliffe, with Mr Hadfield, to present a memorial to the Charity Commissioners respecting it. They prepared a memorial of the facts, and sent a copy of it to the Board in London, and another to the commissioners then in eyre. In consequence of the in- formation thus communicated, Mr Wilkinson Matthews and Dr. Burnaby examined Mr J. P. Heywood at Wakefield, and the Rev. C. Wellbeloved at York, having previously obtained from the latter a statement as to the alms-houses, from which they made a short report. The commissioners then appointed a meeting at the Tontine, Sheffield, on 7th April, 1826, and the memorialists, with Dr. Bennett and the Rev. James Mather, waited on them there, and it was determined after this interview that another me- morial should be presented, commenting on the information which the commissioners had communicated, and urging that the matter should be brought before the Chancellor. The commissioners reported that " It must be considered at least very questionable whether preachers or students of Unitarian belief or doc- trine could properly be admitted to receive stipends and exhibitions under Lady Hewley's charity, and that they thought the question which had arisen in the case ought to be submitted to the consideration of a court of equity, in order that a judicial declaration might be pronounced as to the proper mode of administering and dispensing the charity in the particular respect above noticed, and that directions might be given as to its management and application." In consequence of this opinion, Sir James Scarlett, then Attorney General, laid the papers before Mr Pemberton, now Lord 251 Kingsdown, and ho gave an opinion upon it advising the com- missioners not to interfere in the matter. The Attorney-General concurred with him, and the commissioners decided that the busi- ness should bo no further proceeded in. This opinion was read to Mr Hadfield, but a copy was refused him. He recollects that it was to the effect that as the deeds described in general terms the objects of Lady Hewley's bounty, and did not expressly exclude Unitarians, Mr Pemberton considered, without giving an opinion on the merits, (though he thought the case differed from some of those reported), the commissioners would best exercise the discretion by the act vested in them if they declined insti- tuting proceedings on such a subject as the theological disputes between Trinitarians and Unitarians. Application was then made to the commissioners for a list of the persons to whom the charity was last distributed ; but this also was refused. The secretary's letter stated that "As the selection of proper objects, with the description in the deeds establishing the charity, and the deter- mination of the allowances to them, appear to have been committed by the foundress entirely to the discretion of the trustees, the commissioners did not think it would be useful or proper to examine further than they had done respecting the peculiar religious sentiments of individuals participating in the charity, without previous judicial determination that the profession of Unitarian principles forms a positive ground of exclusion." Mr Hadfield brought the subject before a meeting of the Lancashire County Union (of Independents) on 9th April, 1829, and it was resolved that a copy of the report should be published at the expense of the Union, under his direction. Mr Hadfield added notes to the report, and with this accom- paniment it was widely circulated. Mr Joseph Blower, of the firm of Vizard and Blower, of Lin- coln's-Inn-Fields, happening to be in Leeds at a meeting of the association was applied to, and agreed to undertake the business on receiving a comparatively trifling sum for his outlay; two- fifths were undertaken by Yorkshire gentlemen, two-fifths by Mr Hadley, for Lancashire, and one-fifth by Mr Wilson, for London, but Mr Blower's firm remained by his offer the largest contri- butor to the undertaking. Little more than half the sum sub- scribed for was called up. Mr Joshua Wilson also offered the assistance of his deep 252 acquaintance with the books published by the Dissenters of Lady Ik'wloy's time and the history of religious opinions in England, On the 18th June, 1830, an information was filed by the Attorney- General on the information of Thomas Wilson of Highbury Place Lon- don, Joseph Read of Wincobank Sheffield, George Hadfield of Man Chester, John Clapham of Leeds, and Joseph Hodgson then of Halifax afterwards of Bakewell, (described as Dissenters protected by the Tolera- tion Act), and was amended on 15th December, 1831. The defendants were the Grand Trustees : Samuel Shore Esq. of Norton Hall near Shef- field, whose grandfather was appointed a trustee in 1755 ; Offley Shore Esq. a son of Mr Samuel Shore ; John Pemberton Heywood of Wake- field Esq. M. A. Camb. and barrister-at-law ; Peter Heywood Esq. M. A. Camb. and barrister-at-law, a son of Mr John Pemberton Heywood ; Thomas Walker of Killingbeck near Leeds Esq. a magistrate of the West Riding ; and Daniel Gaskell of Lupset Hall near Wakefield Esq. M.P. for Wakefield ; and John Wood Esq. barrister and chairman of the Board of Stamps and Taxes ; And the trustees of the hospital, the Liev. Charles Wellbeloved Dissenting Minister of the Presbyterian congregation in the St. Saviour's Gate Chapel, York ; the Rev. John Kenrick, of York, a Dissenting minister of the Presbyterian denomi- nation ; Thomas Bischoff Esq. of Leeds ; Varley Bealby Esq. of York ; Joseph Henry Oates Esq. of Leeds ; George Palmes Esq. of Naburn near York ; all of them, with the exception of Mr Palmes, who was a member of the Church of England, Dissenters belonging to the Presby- terian denomination, and the Grand Trustees being all members of old Yorkshire Presbyterian families. The information was originally filed against the two Messrs. Shore, the two Messrs. Heywood, Mr Walker and Mr Gaskell, Grand Trustees, and Mr Wellbeloved alone of the sub-trustees ; bvit Mr Wood was auda- ciously appointed a manager of the estate pending the suit, and it was found necessaiy to make him and the omitted sub-trustees parties. The amended information stated, among other things, that Lady Hewley was in those times considered to be, and was called by those of the same religious sentiments, a godly person, and was a dissenter from the Established Church, and that she was in her religious belief a Cal- vinist and Trinitarian. That she belonged to the congregation or attended the meeting-house or chapel in St. Saviour's Gate York, which was partly endowed by her. That Dr. Coulton and the Rev. Mr Hotham were the first preachers at that chapel. That daring the time of the religious persecutions of the English Presbyterians and Independents and other persons calling themselves 253 godly Dissenters from the Established Church, in the reign of Charles the Second, Lady Hewley stood forward as the protector and supporter, in Yorkshire, of the ejected ministers of St. Bartholomew's Day, 1662, under the Act of Uniformity of the 13th and 14th of ( iharles the Second, and of the persons calling themselves godly who were Nonconfor- mists, and who were subject to pains and penalties in those days for their forms of religious worship. That her charitable works were specially extended to the poor and ejected ministers and Nonconformists of those days, and that she is men tioned in the diary of Oliver Hey wood, one of the most zealous of the Nonconformist and ejected ministers. That being minded and disposed to devote her property to the pur- poses mentioned in the foundation deeds, she had frequent conferences with her friends on the subject, as well as consultations with counsel, under whose advice, and after long and mature deliberation, and several years before her death, she entered into and executed the deeds therein- after mentioned. The information then sets out the indentures of 1704 and 1707, and the rules left by Lady Hewley for the government of the hospital. It then states that Richard Stretton, the trustee first named in the said indentures of trusts, was a Nonconformist of considerable note in those times, and that he is recorded in Calamy's Memorial of Noncon- formist Ministers. That Dr. Uoulton, the original preacher at St. Saviour's Gate Chapel, whose ministry Lady Hewley attended, and who was her friend ami spiritual adviser, and sole executor of her will, is named as another of the said original trustees and also a manager of the hospital ; and that the Rev. Mr Hodson, who is named a manager of the hospital, was one of the attesting witnesses to Sir John Hewley's will, and the private chaplain of Lady Hewley ; and that the other trustees and managers of the Hospital were men who in those times were called, by persons of the same religious persuasion, godly persons ; and that all the original sub-trustees and managers were dissenters from the Established Church, and at the date of the deeds and indorsement nominating and appointing them, and at the death of Lady Hewley, were persons within the protec- tion and entitled to the benefit of the Act of Toleration of the 1st of William and Mary, and were none of them subject to the penalties of the Act against Blasphemy of the 9th and 10th of William III. That Mr Bowles's Catechism was well known amongst Dissenters at that time, and that a tenth edition thereof was printed and sold by John White, of the city of York. That Lady Hewley continued to be a godly Dissenter from the Established Church to the day of her death ; and that she waa attended 254 in her last illness by Dr. Coulton ; and that her will commenced as stated before. That she died on the 23rd of August, 1710, and that Dr. Coulton preached her funeral sermon containing the passage extracted before. That new trastees of the charities and new managers of the hospital were from time to time chosen and appointed, and the charity estates and premises conveyed to them by the survivors of the said original trustees and managers and their successors. And that the fifth appointment and conveyance to new trustees took place some time in the year 1755, when the then survivors chose and appointed Samuel Shore, Aymer Rich, and Thomas Lee to be new trustees. That the said Samuel Shore, Aymer Rich, and Thomas Lee were persons of considerable wealth and influence, and that they were the friends and patrons of a young Dissenting minister, then in indigent circumstances, called the Rev. Newcome Cappe, and who had been edu- cated at an Independent College, and, by their interest, obtained the said Rev. Newcome Cappe to be appointed the assistant of the Rev. Mr Hotham, as the preacher at St. Saviour's Gate Chapel, in Novembei', 1756, being a short time before Mr Hotham's death, Mr Hotham then being of great age ; and also that Mr Cappe should be the sole preacher of the chapel after the death of Mr Hotham, in May, 1756, there having been formerly always two preachers at St. Saviour's Gate Chapel ; and that Mr Cappe became a great favourite with the new trustees ; and that Mr Cappe was, or shortly after his appointment to be the preacher of St. Saviour's Gate Chapel became, an Arian, and afterwards what iss now commonly called a Unitarian. That Robert Moody, one of the trustees, died in the month of May, 1767 ; and that upon Mr Moody's death the charities fell entirely into the hands of trustees belonging to the class or denomination of Chris- tians now commonly called Unitarians ; and that the Reverend New- come Cappe and his party managed and conducted the almshouse and hospital ; and that the family of the Shores have, ever since the year 1756, been and still are trustees of the charity ; and that the Rev. New- come Cappe continued to be a sub-trustee or manager of the hospital, and continued to receive a stipend as a poor and godly preacher to the time of his death, which happened in the year 1799, and that he left the congregation of St. Saviour's Gate Chapel, whom he had found strict Calvinists in their religious belief, changed to be what are now common- ly called Unitarians. The last appointments of grand trustees and managers, and sub- trustees or managers of the hospital, are then set out. That save and except the said John Pemberton Hey wood, Petei I Icy wood, George Palmes, and John Wood,'" each and every one of the " It was supposed that these gentlemen would all style themselves " Churchmen." 255 said trusters and managers, sub-trustees and governors of Lady HewleVs charities, was in his religious belief what is commonly called a Unita- rian, and was a member of, or belonged to the sect, or class, or denomi- nation of Christians commonly called Unitarians, and attended a congregation or chapel commonly called or passing under the ordinary and popular appellation of a Unitarian congregation or chapel, or attended a chapel where doctrines of the Unitarian persuasion were preached or taught, or where doctrines commonly called, or taken or be- lieved to be Unitarian, were preached or taught. That Mr Wellbeloved succeeded Mr Cappe on his death in 1799, and that he was then the preacher of Saint Saviour Gate Chapel, and that he was what is commonly called a Unitarian minis ter, or a minister of the Unitarian persuasion or denomination, and that he was what is commonly called a Unitarian in his reli- gious belief and doctrine, and that he was a member of, or be- longed to the sect, or class, or denomination of Christians com- monly called Unitarians, and that he preached and taught what are commonly called or believed to be Unitarian doctrines in the said chapel, and that the congregation attending the said chapel belonged to, or were of the sect, or class, or denomination of Christians commonly called or passing under the ordinary and popular appellation of Unitari- ans ; and that the said Reverend John Kenrick was what is commonly called a Unitarian minister, &c, as alleged with regard to Mr" Well- 1 teloved. That the annual rents and profits of Lady Hewley's charities amounted to £2,900, or thereabouts, and that a great part of the said rents and profits were then applied by the said then trustees, sub-trustees, and managers, in and towards the support and propagation of doctrines commonly called Unitarian, by giving stipends to the ministers, and to the widows of the ministers, and to the poor members of the congrega- tions of the sect, or class, or denomination of Christians commonly called Unitarians, and by sending formerly six exhibitions, and afterwards five exhibitions, to students at the Manchester College at York ; and that the said College was commonly called or passed under the ordinary or popular appellation of the Unitarian College, or the Unitarian College at York; and that the said Manchester College was reputed and com monly believed to be, and was in fact an establishment supported by the sect, or class, or denomination of Christians commonly called Unitarians ; and that the said College was principally for the purpose of supplying a succession of regularly educated ministers in their class of Dissenters, as appeared from the thirty-second annual printed report of the said College, made in the month of August, 1818, and the printed circular letter of the said appellant, the Reverend Charles Wellbeloved, at tih< end of the said report. 256 That the said charity funds were further misapplied, by making an allowance to the said appellant, the Reverend Charles Wellbelovetl, of £80 a year as a poor and godly preacher of Christ's holy gospel. That the qualifications required by Lady Hewley for the admission of the almswomen to the hospital, and the rules directed by her to be kept there, had been totally disregarded by the said sub-trustees or managers of the said hospital ; that the Creed and Mr Bowles's Cate- chism had been wholly rejected and laid aside, and that no other Cate- chism was supplied to the almswomen or taught in the hospital ; and that the almswomen on the Lord's Day attended the chapel in St. Saviour-gate, where the Reverend Charles Wellbeloved preached. That the said trustees, sub-trustees, and managers of these charities did not then make an allowance to the widows of godly preachers in distress, as a distinct class, and that no part of the charity funds were then applied for the encouragement of the preaching of Christ's holy gospel in poor places. That only one exhibition was then given to any Dissenting college, or academy, or school for the education of orthodox ministers of Christ's holy gospel; and that, in the year 1821, an application was made on the behalf of the Dissenting College at Rotherham, to send one of the exhibitions under Lady Hewley's charities to that establishment, which was refused on the ground that their number was full, they (the trus- tees) having sent exhibitions to the said Manchester College, being the whole number of exhibitions which they then sent. That in or about the month of September 1829, an application was made on behalf of the Dissenting College at Blackburn in Lancashire, to send one of the exhibitions under Lady Hewley's charities to that establishment, and the same was strongly recommended by the late Rev. William Roby, and by the Rev. Drs. Raffles and Clunie, and the Reverend Messrs. McAll and Coombs, which application was refused, on the ground that there was no vacancy in the list of exhibitions to stu- dents from the said trustees, and that there was no present prospect of one. That an application was made by and on the behalf of the Reverend Mr Calvert, as a poor and godly preacher of Christ's holy gospel, resident at Morley, in the county of York, and only receiving from his chapel a very small yearly stipend, which was refused, because the list of distri- butions to poor and godly ministers was full ; and that the said list of distributions at the time of such applications and refusals, as aforesaid, contained the names of many ministers or preachers belonging to the sect, or class, or denomination of Christians commonly called Unitarians, and that thereby the said applicants were excluded and deprived of the benefit of Lady Hewley's charities. 257 That the charity funds had been, and were then applied to or for tin; feenefit <>i' preachers or ministers of what are commonly called Unitarian chapels and congregations, and to persons of what are commonly called Unitarian sentiment, belief, and doctrine ; and that the sect, or class, or denomination of Christians commonly called Unitarians, was then an established and well-known sect, class, or denomination of Christians. That the said Samuel Shore, the younger, the Reverend Charles Wellbeloved, and the Reverend John Kenrick, were severally and respectively members of an association denominated "the British and Foreign Unitarian Association," and that annual reports were printed and published, or distributed, by the said association, and that by the said printed reports the said association was stated to be framed for the promotion of the principles of Unitarian Christianity at home and abroad, the support of its worship, the diffusion of biblical, theological, and literary knowledge on the topics connected with it, and the main- tenance of, the civil rights and interests of its professors ; and the first leading object of the said association was, by the said reports, stated to be the promotion of Unitarian worship in Great Britain, by assisting poor congregations, and sending out or giving assistance to missionary preachers, and the second, the publication and distribution of books and tracts, controversial and practical, in a cheap form. That the religious belief and doctrine of the sect, or class, or deno- mination of Christians, commonly called Unitarians, was wholly opposed to, and at variance with the belief and doctrine of the Established Church, and also wholly opposed to, and at variance with the belief and doctrine of the great body of Dissenters from the Established Church who were protected by the Act of Toleration of the 1st of William and Mary, at the time of the foundation of Lady Hewley's charity. That the said Act was an Act framed for the indulgence of Dis- senters in all forms and modes of worship then in use amongst them, and the enactments of which the great body of Dissenters themselves had a principal part in drawing up ; and that, by such Act, no toleration or protection was extended to the sect or class of Christians now com- monly called Unitarians. That the religious differences between the Established Church ami the great body of Dissenters wei'e not upon articles of faith, and the object of religious adoration or worship, but upon questions or ai'ticles of church government and of the divine origin thereof, and as to forms and ceremonies ; and that the great body of dissenters distinguished in those times by the names of Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist, differed among themselves solely on the said questions or articles of church government, and as to its divine origin and power, and as to forms and ceremonies, and that upon articles of faith and the object of 258 religions adoration or worship, they were all agreed amongst themselves and with the Established Church, as appeal's by and from the Larger and Shorter Catechism prepared by the Assembly of Divines, which said Shorter Catechism is now in common use for the instruction of young persons amongst the great body of dissenters, commonly called the orthodox dissenters. That at the time of the foundation of Lady Hewley's charities, the act of 9th and 10th William the Third against blasphemy was in force, and that the doctrines now held and preached by the denomination of Christians commonly called Unitaiuans, were then held to be blasphe- mous, and that in those times the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity was punishable with pains and penalties, under the said statute of 9th and 10th William the Third; and that chapels in which doctrines which are now commonly called Unitarian doctrines were preached, were not then legal places of public worship ; and that the belief and doctrine of the present sect, or class, or denomination of Christians commonly called Unitarians, was then illegal .and held in great abhorrence by the legisla- ture, and by the Established Church, and by the great body of dissenters, including the Presbyterians, the Independents, and Baptists of those days. That the term or name Unitarian, as the name of a religious sect, was of modern use, and was not in those times generally used, persons of the same, or nearly of the same persuasion, being then called Socini- ans ; and that there was no difficulty in distinguishing the being and doctrines of the sect, or class, or denomination of Christians now com- monly called Unitarians, from the other sects of dissenters commonly called the orthodox dissenters. That the belief and doctrines of the class or sect, or denomination of Christians commonly called Unitarians, were set forth in several of the books and tracts distributed by the said British and Foreign Unitarian Association, and that a catalogue of the said books and tracts was printed and published, or distributed, in each of the annual printed reports of the said association. * That the class, or sect, or denomination of Christians commonly called Unitarians, rejected as utterly unscriptural, each and every one of the following doctrines, that is to say : the Trinity of persons in the Deity j the Incarnation or true and perfect divinity of the person of the Son of God ; that the Son of God is the second person in the Trinity, and equal with the Father ; the divinity and personality of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, as the third person in the blessed Trinity, and equal with the Father and the Son ; the forgiveness of sins and salvation through the merit of the Atonement ; the Atonement or satisfaction for sin made * This paragraph was the chief amendment. 259 by the death of Christ ; that Jesus Christ is really and truly God, and as such, the proper object of religious worship ; and the doctrine of original sin, or that man is born in such a state, that if he were to die in the condition in which he was born and bred he would perish ever- lastingly. And that each and every one of the doctrines aforesaid was rejected as utterly unscriptural by the said appellants, the Reverend Charles Wellbeloved and the Reverend John Kenrick. That many of the class, or sect, or denomination of Christians com- monly willed Unitarians, called themselves Presbyterians, and called their chapels Presbyterian chapels, and that the term Presbyterian, as used by the sect, or class, or denomination of Christians commonly called Unitarians, had no definite meaning as to opinions or discipline, and that they differed, both in doctrine and discipline, from the acknowledged creed and ecclesiastical government of the churches recognized as Pres- byterian ; that their congregations were not subject to the form of government which characterizes Presbyterian churches, and that their ministers or preachers were not subject to a presbytery or to a synod. And that the said appellant, the Reverend Charles Wellbeloved, represented himself and his congregation to be Presbyterian ; that the said defendant was not subject to a presbytery or to a synod, and that his congregation had not that form of government which characterizes Presbyterian churches, and differed, both in doctrine and discipline, from the acknowledged creed and ecclesiastical government of the churches recognized as Presbyterian. That the chapel of Rossendale, Lancashire, was commonly reputed to be, and was commonly called an Unitarian chapel ; that the said chapel being considerably in debt, an application was made to the trus- tees of Lady Hewley's fund for assistance ; that the trustees received a memorial, stating at length the doctrines believed and taught by the applicants, and upon the said memorial granted a sum of £12, which had been continued annually, [and the offensive part of the memorial was then set out, see p. 44.] That the said trustees of the charities for many years allowed .£80 per annum out of Lady Hewley's charities to the said defendant, the Rev. Charles Wellbeloved, a sub-trustee of the charities ; and that the said appellant, the Reverend Charles Wellbeloved, preached a sermon on Sunday, the 23rd clay of January, IS'25, in the said Saint Saviour Gate Chapel, at York, in aid of a subscription for the erection of a Unitarian Chapel in Calcutta, and that the said sermon was afterwards printed and published at the unanimous request of his audience ; and that in the said sermon the said appellant styled himself, and spoke of himself as being a Unitarian, and addressed his congregation as being Unitarians, and promulgated what are commonly called or belie veil t<> be Unitarian doctrines, as by the said printed sermon appeared. 260 That all the ministers educated at the said Manchester College1, under the said defendant as theological tutor and principal, became preachers of what is commonly called Unitarian doctrine, and became ministers of what are commonly called Unitarian chapels and congrega- tions ; and that many of the ministers who had been educated at the said College called themselves Presbyterians ; and that the said trustees applied no part of Lady Hewley's charities to encourage the preaching of Christ's holy gospel in poor places. That the said trustees only sent five exhibitions from the charities, and only one thereof, until the years 1828 and 1829, to a Trinitarian or oi'thodox Dissenting College. That seven exhibitions, at least, ought to be sent ; and that the trustees ought therefore to be removed from being trustees and managers of Lady Hewley's charities, and that new trustees ought to be appointed by the Court of Chancery. And the said information prayed, That the court would be pleased to take the case of Lady Hewley's charities into its consideration, and that it might be declared, by the decree of the court, that ministers or preachers of what is commonly called Unitarian belief and doctrine, and their widows, and members of their congregations, or persons of what is commonly called Unitarian belief and doctrine, are not fit objects of Lady Hewley's charities ; and that exhibitions to the said Manchester College, or to any other colleges or schools where what is commonly called Unitarian belief or doctrine was taught or inculcated, were not fit exhibitions for promoting the education of ministers of Christ's holy gospel, within the intent and meaning of Lady Hewley's charities. And that the allowance of £80 to the said defendant, the Reverend Charles Wellbeloved, as the preacher of Saint Saviour Gate Chapel, was an unfit allowance or distribution of the charity funds, by reason of the said defendant, the Reverend Charles Wellbeloved, having been and then being one of the sub-trustees or managers of a part of these charities, and by reason of his not being a poor preacher, and not being a godly preacher of Christ's holy gospel, within the intent and meaning of Lady Hewley's charities, and by reason of what is commonly called Unitarian belief and doctrine being preached and inculcated by him in the said Saint Saviour Gate Chapel ; and that the said allowance of £80 might be wholly discontinued in future ; and that such order might be made, as to the past payments of the said allowance of £80 to the defendant, the Reverend Charles "Wellbeloved, as to the court should seem just. And that all the objects of Lady Hewley's charities might be deci'eed fairly and in such manner to participate in these charity funds as she meant ami intended; and in particular, that a fair and just proportion thereof might be distributed to and amongst poor and godly widows of poor ami godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel, giving a preference to 261 York, Yorkshire, and the northern counties ; and that a fair and just proportion thereof might be applied for the encouraging and preaching of Christ's holy gospel in poor places ; and that Lady Hewley's qualifica- tions and conditions for the admission of ahnswoinen to the said hospital or almshouse, and her rules for the management and regulation of the said hospital, or such of them as to the court should seem meet, might be restored or enforced in future, in such manner as the court should lie pleased to direct. And that it might be declared by the decree of the court, that such Dissenters alone as were commonly called orthodox Dissenters, and as would have been within the protection of the Act ot Tolera- tion of the 1st of William and Mary at the time of the foundation of these charities, and would not then have been subject to the penalties of the Act of the 9th and 10th William the Third against blasphemy, can now be considered as coming within the intent and meaning of Lady Hewley, and as entitled to participate in the benefit of her charities. And that the defendants, the then trustees, sub-trustees, and mana- gers of the charities, or such of them as to the court should seem proper, might be removed by the decree of the court from being trustees, sub- trustees, or managers of the charities. And the said amended information prayed an injunction, to restrain the trustees from proceeding to the election of any new trustees, sub- trustees, or managers of Lady Hewley's charities, and the appointment of a receiver, or that the court would be pleased to pronounce such declaration as to the proper mode of administering and dispensing Lady Hewley's charities, and to give such directions as the case recpiired, for securing the charity estates and funds, and to provide for the proper administration thereof in future. The defendants, the Grand Trustees, by their answer to the original information, filed 17th November, 1830, amongst other things say : They believe that Lady Hewley belonged to the class of Dissenters called Presbyterians, and that many of the Presbyterians of that period were Trinitarians ; but save from the probability arising from such last mentioned circumstance, they cannot say whether Lady Hewley was in her religious belief a Trinitarian, but they say that, according to the best of their information and belief, she was not in her religious belief a Calvinist or Independent ; and they say that Mr Bowles's Catechism mentioned in the information, and there referred to as containing the religious opinions entertained by Lady Hewley, does not, in the judg- ment of the defendants, inculcate a belief in the Calvinistic doctrines of the Trinity, the Atonement, Predestination, Irresistible Grace, or the Perseverance of the Saints. They add, that accordiag to their information and belief, Lady Hewley was a person of very enlarged benevolence, and 262 of great liberality and toleration of tlie opinions of others ; and that in the relief extended by her to the suffering Nonconformists, she was not actuated by an exclusive regard to the peculiar creeds or religious senti- ments of the objects of her bounty. They say, that St. Saviour Gate Chapel was a Presbyterian chapel, and that the teachers and ministers thereof were dissenters from the Established Church, and professed the doctrines common among the Presbyterians of that time, but what such doctrines were in particular they are unable to set forth ; however, they believe that one distin- guishing characteristic of that sect in England was, that they considered all persons eligible to communicate with them in the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper who professed to believe in Christ's Holy Gospel. That they do not believe that either Lady Hewley or any of the teachers or ministers in the said chapel were Independents, or followers of Calvin. They deny that Lady Hewley was desirous of devoting the principal part of her large property particularly or exclusively for the purpose of encouraging the preaching of Christ's holy gospel by Dissenting preachers of her own religious sentiments, for in the trust deeds there is no reference whatever to the religious sentiments of the preachers who are there pointed out as the objects of her bounty, and they do not believe that the object of Lady Hewley in insti- tuting the charity was to promote or encourage the spread of any stated doctrines or form of Protestant worship in particular, but that in a spirit of general benevolence she was desirous of extending her bounty to the numerous classes of professing Christians who were then, or might thereafter be, struggling with persecution and pecuniary difficulties, by reason of their dissenting from the Established Church, insisting on liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment in matters of religion. They cannot say whether any writings were left by Lady Hewley with any person except the Book of Pules of the hospital. However there is a tradition among the present trustees, derived from their pre- decessors, that Robert Moody named in the said information, did secrete or improperly obtain possession of some papers or writings relating to the said trusts and charities. That Lady Hewley was, during her lifetime, a very liberal patron of St. Saviour Gate Chapel, and that she made an ample provision for the Rev. Dr. Coulton, the minister officiating there during her lifetime ; and they believe that upon the death of Dr. Coulton, the original trus- tees and managers of the charity, and their immediate successors, in accordance with what they deemed to be the intention of Lady Hewley, and the spirit of her direction that the charitable dispositions or allow- 2G3 ances made by her to persons or places in York should be continued after her decease, allowed and paid out of the funds of the charity to Mr Hotliam, the successor of Dr. Coulton, as the minister of the said chapel, a stipend of £40 a year ; and they say they find in the book in which the receipts and payments of the trustees are entered, commencing in 1 729, several entries of half-yearly payments of £20 to Mr Hotham. They say, that, according to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, neither Dr. Coulton nor Mr Hotham was a poor person ; and that, according to the best of their belief, considering the interest taken by Lady Hewley in the chapel, and her liberal patronage of the Dissenting ministers officiating therein in her lifetime, it was not the intention of Lady Hewley that the minister of that chapel should be a poor person, but that he should be a minister distinguished as well for learning and the respectability of his station in life, as for godliness. They add, that according to the best of their judgment, regard being had to the increased nominal amount of the rents and profits of the charity estates, and the depreciation in the value of money, and to the ehange in the style and manner of living since the time when Mr Hotham succeeded Dr. Coulton, the stipend of £60 per annum allowed to Mr Cappe during the time that the defendant Samuel Shore was a trustee of the charity, and the stipend of £80 allowed to the defendant Wellbeloved before the filing of the information, is not more in propor- tion than the stipend of £40 allowed to Mr Hotham by the original trustees of the charity and their immediate successors. That they do not know that Mr Cappe found the congregation at St. Saviour Gate Chapel Calvinist, or left them changed to Unitarians, and followers of the doctrines of Priestly. On the conti'ary they believe Mr Cappe was not himself a follower of the doctrine of Priestly, but differed widely from him in religious sentiments. That Mr Cappe was not in the habit of preaching doctrinal sermons, but habitually urged upon his hearers love to God, faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the practice of holiness and righteousness. That the defendant Wellbeloved had been chosen by the congrega- tion at St. Saviour's Gate Chapel assistant minister to Mr Cappe, and that he had officiated as such assistant minister for nearly nine years previous to his (Mr Cappe's) decease, without any stipendiaxy allowance from Lady Hewley's trustees ; and that on Mr Cappe's decease he was elected to succeed him as sole preacher there, and they admit that he is now the sole preacher there. That Manchester College is an establishment chiefly supported by persons who call themselves Presbyterian Dissenters, and is for the purpose of educating ministers of that denomination ; that they believe that Unitarian sentiments are not required to be taught, and in fact arc 264 dot taught, in the College, and that the students are not required or' expected to profess Unitarianism, either on their admission, or during their residence at, or on their quitting the College ; and they say that the four exhibitions which, prior to the filing of the information, were paid by them to students then pursuing their studies there, were, like all former exhibitions, paid to the students, and not to the College, and would have been continued to them in case of good conduct, although they removed to another academy. That they are ignorant what are the particular religious opinions of any of the said four exhibitioners. That the £80 a year is paid to the defendant Wellbeloved as a faithful and godly preacher of Christ's holy gospel to a congregation that had never been able to raise more than from ,£20 to £30 a year out of their own means. That the management of the almshouse or hospital is conducted by the sub-trustees appointed for that purpose, pursuant to the directions of Lady Hewley, and that those defendants do not interfere in such management ; and they submit that they are not responsible for the same : they add, that they believe that the rules directed by Lady Hew- ley to be observed respecting the hospital are now observed there as fully and strictly as circumstances will allow ; but they believe they are not required to be able to repeat Mr Bowles's Catechism, and that they did not know such Catechism was in existence till it was published by Mr Hadfield. That a memorial from Kossendale was presented to them, because it is required by their rules that a memorial should be presented ; but they say that such memorial was not preserved, and they are unable to set forth the contents thereof: however, they do not believe that the same was to the purport or effect set forth in the information, because, although they have no recollection of the particular purport of the memorial so presented, they are convinced that if the same had been to the effect stated in the information, the same would not have been recommended and signed, as is required, by two respectable neighbour- ing ministers ; neither would the trustees have given attention to such statements. That, as trustees of the charity, they are willing and desirous to act under the directions of the court ; but they humbly submit that they ought not to be removed from being trustees and managers of the chari- ties ; for they insist that they were duly appointed trustees or managers thereof, according to the directions contained in the original deed of trust ; and that since the period of their appointments respectively, they have severally conscientiously, and to the best of their ability, duly acted in the execution of the trusts of the charity, and they have, to the best 265 of their judgment, in all respects acted in conformity with the spirit of Lady Hewley's directions regarding the management of the charity. That Lady Hewley did not in the original deeds of trust, or in her rules for the management of the hospital, or in any other documents, to the best of their knowledge and belief, give any direction regarding the peculiar mode of belief required to be entertained by the objects of the charities, save that, according to the rules of the almshouse, the alms- women are required to be of the Protestant religion ; and that, according to the best of their judgment and belief, the desire and intention of Lady Hewley, in founding the charity, was to encourage the preaching and practice of pure Christianity, without any exclusive regard either to the peculiar forms of Protestant Dissenting worship, or to the particular doc- trines inculcated by the different denominations or sects of Protestant Dissenters. That in the selection of objects of the charity, they have, to the best of their ability, acted in conformity with such intentions of Lady Hewley, and in compliance with the express directions contained in the deeds of trust, in so far as particular directions were therein given. That it has not been their practice to inquire what were the particular personal religious opinions of the applicants for the assistance of the charity, but that their inquiries have been always made with a view to ascertain as to the preachers, whether they were sufficiently learned to read and understand the Holy Scriptures, and were men of such godly character and conduct as were likely, in their lives as well as by their preaching, to promote the practice of Clmst's Holy Gospel, and were in such circumstances as to require pecuniary assistance from the charity. That so far is it from being true, as alleged in the information, that they have shown an undue preference to the dissenters commonly called Uni- tarians, that they have ascertained, from inquiries made since the infor- mation was filed and they believe it to be true, that a very great majority of the preachers and widows who receive stipends from the funds of the charity are what are commonly called Trinitarian Dissenters, and not what are commonly called Unitarians. That amongst persons holding what are called Unitarian principles there is great diversity of opinions, and that there is no fixed standard of their religious belief, save the Holy Scriptures. However these de- fendants believe that a very great proportion of them entertain a moral belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, ascribing to the Father the different attributes or characteristics or personam of God the Creator, God the Redeemer, and God the Sanctifier of His creatures. That as to such of the objects of the charity as attended places of Unitarian worship, or professed Unitarian sentiments, they cannot say what are their particular religious opinions ; however that, to the best of their belief, all of them are of the Protestant religion, and believe in the 266 divinity of the mission and office of their Lord and Savioiir Jesus Christ? and that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain the revealed will of God, and they receive the same as the rule of their doctrine and practice. They deny that any of the stipendiaries hold or profess doctrines that are, or ever were judicially held to be, bias phemous. They deny that any applications were made to them, before the in- formation was filed, to discontinue their stipendiary allowances, as is alleged in the information ; however they say that since the filing of the information they have discontinued the stipendiary allowances there- tofore paid by them, although they do not admit that the same were improperly made by them, they being in consecpnence of the filing of the information, desirous in the further execution of the trust, to act under the direction and sanction of the court. The answer of Mr Wellbeloved was very much to the same effect as the grand trustees' answer, and was filed 17th December, 1830. With regard to his own preaching in St. Saviour Gate Chapel, he says : That in St. Saviour Gate Chapel, he hath always, to the best of his judgment and belief, preached the pure doctrines of Christ's Holy Gospel ; that there is great diversity of opinion amongst persons professing Uni- tarian opinions, and there is amongst them no settled and admitted stan- dard of belief save the Holy Scriptures; however he saith, that they all, to the best of his belief, believe in the divinity of the mission and office of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain the revealed will of God, and that they receive the same as the rule of their doctrine and practice. He says that he hath in his preaching always inculcated the doctrines aforesaid ; and he hath never held, or professed, or inculcated, any doctrine which is, or which to the best of his information and belief, was ever judicially held to be, blasphemous. Exceptions were taken to both further answers on the ground that they did not state whether the defendants were Unitarians, or what were the peculiar doctrines of Unitarians, and to the answer of the trustees on the ground that they had not set forth a list of the bene- ficiaries. The trustees, on the 30th March, 1831, put in another answer, setting out a list of the beneficiaries, which will be found in the appendix. All the defendants argued the other exceptions, contending that they were not bound to answer as to their religious opinions, as they were immaterial in the suit, and because if they confessed to disbelief of the Trinity, at any rate to having preached in disproof of it, they would according to Lord Eldon's opinion, (he was then living), render them- selves liable to be indicted for it at common law. 267 Lord Henley, the master, allowed the exceptions, and the allowance was confirmed by the Vice-Chancellor, and by the Chancellor, Lord Brougham. The defendant, the Reverend Charles Wellbeloved, put in his fur- ther answer on the 15th October, 1831, which was in part in the follow- ing words. That the sense in which the term Unitarian is used in the informa tion not being defined, defendant is unable to set forth whether he is a Unitarian in his religious belief and doctrine, in the sense in which it is there used. That he believes that very few persons agree in the defini- tion of the term Unitarian, and that sects maintaining very different opinions claim it for themselves. That he doth not agree in some very important points of doctrine with any sect that either takes to itself, or receives from others, the appellation of Unitarian. That he uniformly represents himself, and desires to be considered by others, as a Pro- testant Dissenter of the Presbyterian denomination, and as one who firmly believes in the divine mission of Jesus Christ, and holds no other doctrines than those contained in Christ's holy gospel, to all of which defendant yields a full and cordial assent. However, defendant admits it to be true, that in the sense in which defendant uses the term Unita- rian, and which is hereinafter set forth, he is a Unitarian in his religious belief and doctrine. That in using the term Unitarian as applicable to himself, he means more specifically to denote that he believes and pro- fesses the following Christian doctrines (that is to say) : That to know God to be the true Cocl, and Jesus the Christ whom he hath sent, is eternal life. That it is defendant's duty to worship God according to the precepts and the example of his divine Lord and Master, who taught his disciples to pray to God as their Father in heaven, and to ask of Him what they needed in his name. That it is his duty to ascribe glory to the only wise God through Jesus Christ. That he acknowledges Jesus Christ to be the Word that in the beginning was with God, and rejoices in the doctrine of the Evangelist, that God so loved the world that he sent forth his only begotten Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. That he believes that God having sent him forth, was with him. That the works which he did, and the words which he spake, were not his own, but the words of the Father which sent him, and whose will he came to do. That he believes that Jesus was (as he said of himself) a man who spoke the truth he heard from God, and as God commanded or instructed him so he spake. 268 That defendant believes, according to the words of the Apostle Peter, that Jesus of Nazareth was a man approved of God by miracles, and wonders and signs, that God did by him. That having been crucified and slain, God raised him from the dead and made him both Lord and Christ : that then he was glorified by God. That, in conformity with the doctrine of the inspired Apostle, Paxil, defendant acknowledges and believes in one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him ; that there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, by whom God hath reconciled us to himself, who was made sin for us that we might be the righteousness of God in him, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works. That defendant acknowledges Christ as the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature, in whom it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell, who was made a little lower than the angels, but for the suffering of death crowned with gloiy and honour, that by the grace of God he should taste death for every man ; that he was made in all things like unto his brethren in all points, tempted like them yet without sin, and whom having become obedient to death, God highly exalted, giving to him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. That defendant believes that the purpose and grace of God was made manifest by the appearing of Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. That in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, he will render to every man according to his deeds. That to the before-mentioned doctrines of Chi-ist and his apostles defendant gives his unqualified assent, and that whatever is taught in Christ's Holy Gospel, concerning the existence, perfections, and govern- ment of God, the person and the office of Christ, the terms of pardon and acceptance with God, the duties of life, and a future state of righteous retribution, defendant gratefully and cordially receives and professes as divine truth • and save as aforesaid, defendant cannot set forth as to his belief or otherwise, whether or not defendant is an Unitarian in his religious belief and doctrine. However, defendant saith, that he is made a defendant to the said information in his cha- racter of a trustee or manager of the hospital in said information mentioned ; and defendant humbly submits, that in his said character of trustee, it is wholly immaterial what are the particular religious opinions of defendant, and humbly submits that he ought not to have been compelled to answer as to the particulars of his religious belief. 269 That ill the Saint Saviour Gate Chapel at York, in said information mentioned, defendant doth not preach the received doctrines of any particular sect, but he preaches that only which, after a diligent and impartial study of Christ's holy gospel, he conscientioiisly believes to be the pure doctrines of Christianity. However, defendant admits, that he doth in said chapel preach doctrines in accordance with the doctrines hereinbefore set forth by him, in illustration of the sense of the term Unitarian as used by defendant. That he cannot take upon himself to state what is the religious belief of the members of the congregation meeting at the chapel in St. Saviour Gate, York, for defendant saith he has made no inquiries, and received little information on the subject from the major part of them ; but from their continued attendance on his ministry, defendant presumes that their views of Christian doctrine are something like his own, and that they approve of his preaching ; and vsave as aforesaid, defendant cannot set forth whether or not the doctrines of Unitarianism, or of Unitarian Christianity, are preached by defendant in the Saint Saviour Gate Chapel at York, nor whether or not the con- gregation attending said chapel is a congregation of Unitarians. That the Manchester College in the said information mentioned, is supported chiefly by Protestant Dissenters of the Presbyterian denomi- nation. That it is an establishment for the purpose principally of sup- porting the churches of that denomination with a succession of ministers, but not for the purpose of instruction in the peculiar doctrine of any sect. That no such instruction is given, but that the principle upon which the institution is established and conducted is, that every student shall be left to the free and unbiassed exercise of his own private judg- ment in matters of religious opinion. That as the theological tutor at the said establishment, he most scrupulously adheres to that pi-inciple, endeavouring to impart to his pupils such instruction only as shall quali- fy them to interpret the Scriptures for themselves, excite in them a love of truth and a reverence for its dictates, and form in them a habit of searching the Scriptures. That it is his invariable practice solemnly to charge his pupils when they enter on a theological course of studies there, in the name of the God of truth, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life, in all their studies and in- quiries of a religious nature, carefully, impartially and conscientiously to attend to evidence as it lies in the Holy Scriptures, to embrace or assent to no religious principle or sentiment held or advanced by their tutor, or any one else, but as it shall appear upon the fullest examination to be supported by revelation, to labour to banish from their breasts all prejudice, prepossession, and party zeal, to study through life to live in peace and love with all their fellow christians, and steadily to assert for 270 themselves, and freely allow to others, the inalienable rights of judg- ment and conscience. Concerning Mr Bowles's Catechism he states : That in his judgment Mr Bowles's Catechism differs in some points of theology and religious belief very materially from the Catechism of the Established Church set forth in the book of Common Prayer. That among other discrepancies, the doctrine of the Trinity, which holds a very prominent place in the Catechism of the Church of England, does not at all appear in the Catechism of Mr Bowles. That the answers in Mr Bowles's Catechism are almost uniformly given in the words of Scripture, or nearly so, and the whole is drawn up with so much judg- ment, caution and moderation, that an Anti-Trinitarian catechist might use it. That according to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, Mr Bowles's Catechism has been out of print above a century, and that or any other Catechism, is not furnished to the almswomen or in the hospital, and that no direction for that purpose was given by Lady Hewley. The defendants to the original information, Samuel Shore the younger, John Pemberton Heywood, Thomas Walker, Peter Heywood, and Offley Shore, put in their further answer on the loth Oc fcober, 1831, by which they stated, that the sense in which the term Unitarian was used in the said information not being defined, they were unable to set forth whether they were Unitarians in the sense in which it was there used, and that they uniformly represent themselves, and desire to be considered by others, as Protestant Dissenters of the Presbyterian deno- mination, and as persons who firmly believe in the divine mission of Jesus Christ, and hold no other doctrines than those contained in Christ's holy gospel, to all of which they yield a full and cordial assent. How- ever, they admit it to be true, that in the sense in which they use the term Unitarian, they are Unitarians in their religious belief and doctrine ; and that they have read the further answer of the defendant, the Beverend Charles Wellbeloved, and that they use the term Uni- tarian in the sense iii which it is there defined. These answers were not deemed sufficient, and the defendants were ordered to put in further answers. They then state severally as follows : Mr Samuel Shore and Mr Offiey Shore say they are members of the Dissenting congregation meeting at Norton, in the parish of Norton, in the county of Derby, which is called a Presbyterian congregation. Mr Walker says he is a member of the Protestant Dissenting con- gregation at Mill Hill Chapel in Leeds, in the county of York, which he believes, to have existed more than a century and a half, long before the term Unitarian was used, and upwards of half a century pre- 271 vious to tlio creation of Lady Hewley's charities in question in this suit. That his grandfather was a dissenting minister at that chapel eighty-three years since, and until the time of his death ; and that his father William "Walker subsequently attended divine worship in that chapel until the time of his death, and that he hath always been a mcm- ber of that congregation. He adds that he hath never adopted the appellation of a Unitarian, and never, to the best of his knowledge, differed in his religious opinions from those of his ancestors. Mr John Pemberton Heywood says : That he has always professed himself to be a Dissenter of the Pres- byterian denomination. That his ancestors for many generations back bave professed the Presbyterian religion, and in that religion he was brought up, and has, as far as he knows, held the same faith, which he hath never left or changed or deviated from. That he holds no doc- trines which are not received, as he believes, by all the moderate and respectable part of the Church of England ; that he was from his earliest infancy taught the Lord's Prayer, the Apostle's Creed, and the Ten Commandments, which appear also to have been the foundation of the faith of Lady Hewley. That he has read, since this question was stirred, a good deal of the works of his ancestor, Oliver Heywood, who, in the information, is mentioned as the friend of Lady Hewley, and who was, as he himself states, very intimate with her, and he cannot find any ma- terial difference between the faith of the said Oliver Heywood and his own. That he was educated at Cambridge, where Dr. Paley was his tutor, and from the many conversations he had with him upon the sub- ject, he can safely assert that there was little or no difference in their religious opinions. That his ancestors have been for more than a century members of a congregation who meet at Westgate, at Wakefield, in the county of York, who have always been called, by themselves and other persons, Presbyterians, till by the relators, as he has heard, they were called Unitarians. That the said congregation have never adopted the name of Unitarians, nor do they, according to the best of his belief, hold any of the obnoxious tenets attribiited to them by the relators. That he has attended, and so did his father before him attend, the Established Church occasionally, to which he has always been friendly, and where he has frequently communicated, though he still continues to frequent and subscribe to the old Presbyterian congregation aforesaid. That he is now above seventy-five years old ; has practised with some success as a, banister for above fifty years ; has acted as a Justice of the Peace for the West Riding of Yorkshire near thirty years; has lived on good terms with all his neighbours, and is, he humbly conceives and submits, not unworthy to be a trustee of a charity, the object of which is to distribute money to poor godly preachers of the gospel and to poor widows and to other poor persons. 272 Mr Peter Heywood says : That he is son of the last-named defendant, and has been brought up in the same religious opinions ; that he was educated at the University of Cambridge, and took his degrees there, and is still a member of Christ College in that University, and that he attends the Established Church more frequently than any other place of worship, and that he is not a member of any Unitarian congregation. They all say, that they are not deeply skilled in polemics, or have wasted their time in the study of abstruse and mysterious doctrines, that save as aforesaid they are unable to set forth whether or not each of theru is in his religious belief a Unitarian or a member of a congregation or chapel where the doctrines of Unitarian Christianity are preached and taught. However they submit and insist, that in their character of trustees of Lady Hewley's charity, it is immaterial what are their parti- cular religious opinions, and they humbly submit that they ought not to have been required to answer as to the particulars of their religious belief. That as to the sub-trustees, Mr Bealby and Mr Kenrick attend at the chapel in St. Saviour's Gate; Mr Palmes professes to be a mem- ber of the Established Church ; Mr Oates attends the Presbyterian Chapel at Mill Hill, Leeds; Mr Bischoff attends the Presbyterian Chapel at Call Lane, Leeds ; and Mr James Wood attends some place of worship belonging to Dissenters of the Presbyterian denomination. Mr John Pemberton Heywood says, he subscribed to Manchester College, and so did others who were members of the Church of England, not to further the particular views of any sect in particular, but because they wished to encourage a place of liberal education, not bound down to any particular creed. They say they believe that the trustees originally appointed by the said Dame Sarah Hewley were all of that class of Dissenters called Presbyterians, to which class she herself belonged, and that with the exception of one or two instances of Church of England men, and of Robert Moody in their former answer mentioned, the trustees have always been of that class of Dissenters. Mr Gaskell, (who put in his answer separately, being abroad) an- swers 28th September, 1831, to the same effect as the two Mr Shores and Mr Walker. He refers to the draft of Mr Wellbeloved's further answer. He adds that he is a member of the congregation meetiug at Westgate in Wakefield, who have always been called, by themselves and other persons, Presbyterians, and who have never, as a body, adopted the name of Unitarians. These answers were not deemed sufficient, and the defendants were ordered to put in further answers. 273 Tn consequence of the ground taken by the defendants the information was then amended, for the purposes of bringing before the court the managers of the hospital, of defining the sense in which the term Unitarian was used by the informants, and of interrogating the defendants as to the particular doctrines commonly held and professed by the Unitarians in general, and by the defendants Wellbeloved and Ken- rick in particular. The Rev. Charles Wellbeloved, the Rev. John Kenrick, Thomas Bischoff, Varley Bealby, Joseph Henry Oates, and George Palmes, put in their answer to the amended information on 17th April, 1832. The substance is as follows : Mr Wellbeloved and Mr Kenrick say as to Mr Bowles's Catechism : That in their judgment the Catechism of Mr Bowles does not (sic) differ on points of theology and religioiis belief from the Catechism of the Established Church, as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, inas- much as the Catechism of the Established Church speaks of God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, whereas the Catechism of Mr Bowles no where used the title God in relation to the Son or to the Holy Ghost. That in their judgment Mr Bowles's Catechism does differ materially from the Catechism of the Assembly of Divines on points of theology and religious belief, inasmuch as Mr Bowles's Catechism makes no men- tion of the doctrine of the Trinity, of the divine decrees of election, of effectual calling, of justifying faith, of the perseverance of Saints, and other points on which the Assembly's Catechism insists largely and strenuously. That in their judgment Mr Bowles's Catechism does not differ from the said Assembly's Catechism as to the object of religious adoration or worship, inasmuch as the Assembly's Catechism defines prayer to be "an offering up of our desires to God in the name of Christ by the help of His Spirit," and Mr Bowles's Catechism defines it to be " a making our request unto God according to His will in the name of Christ." That they do not profess to be acquainted with all the particulars of the religious doctrine and belief of Protestant Dissenters called Unita- tarians, of which there is a great diversity, as mentioned in the former answer of the defendant Wellbeloved, but these defendants say that according to the best of their information and belief the doctrines of M r Bowles's Catechism are in accordance with the religious faith of the denomination of Christians called Unitarians, in all its principal points, and as far as thesw last-named defendants know, or are able to ascertain what are the doctrines which are held by the Protestant Dissenters called Unitarians, the only material difference between such doctrines [and the doctrines] inculcated in Mr Bowles's Catechism is that the said Catechism teaches that man is by birth sinful and liable to perish ever- 3 I 274 lastingly, whereas the Protestant Dissenters called Unitarians believe, so far as these defendants know or can speak to their belief, that man is from his birth by nature frail, an.d liable to fall into sin, but not that he will perish everlastingly for any sin of his birth if he have not knowing- ly and wilfully transgressed the commandments of God. That in their judgment the said Mr Bowles's Catechism does not differ as to the object of religious adoration or worship from the religious belief and doctrine of the Protestant Dissenters called Unitarians. The other defendants say, they are not well skilled in theologi- cal controversy, nor learned in the history of religious Dissent ; nevertheless, so far as they are informed, they concur in the judgment of the defendants Wellbeloved and Kenrick, in the matters hereinbefore answered xxnto by them. Mr Wellbeloved says as to Mr Cappe : That during the time he was acquainted with the said Mr Cappe he (the said Mr Cappe) always professed himself to be a Dissenter of the Presbyterian denomination. However this defendant believes it to be true that the said Rev. Newcome Cappe, in common with many Dissenters of the Presbyterian denomination, ever since the foundation of the said charities, had many religious opinions similar to the religious opinions held by Protestant Dissenters, now commonly called Unitarians. That to the best of his information there are no means of knowing what the said Mr Cappe found the congregation of St. Saviour Gate in their religious belief, but the defendant doth not believe that he found them strict Calvinists ; on the contrary this defendant hath always heard and believed that they belonged to the class or denomination of Pro- testant Dissenters called Presbyterians. However this defendant believes it to be true that at the death of the said Mr Cappe, which happened in the year 1789, a large portion of the said congregation who still con- tinued to be Presbyterians did entertain opinions similar to those which this defendant understands to be denoted by the term Unitarian. That the remarks and dissertations [of the said Mr Cappe, published by his widow] differ in many important points from the opinions held or supposed to be held by Unitarians. All the defendants say with regard to Unitarianism : That much misapprehension prevails as to the nature of the tenets held by the Protestant Dissenters called Unitarians, and these defend- ants are unable to answer with any degree of certainty as to what the doctrines are which are commonly called or believed to be Unitarian doctrines, but that according to the best of their information and belief each of the trustees and managers of the said charities, and as to whose religious opinions and practices enquiry is particularly made in the said information, is a Christian and a Protestant, and believes in the divine 275 mission and office of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain the revealed will of God, and receives the same as the rule of his faith and practice ; and that each of them represents himself to be, and desires to be con- sidered as a Protestant Dissenter of the Presbyterian denomination ; and that each of them receives and professes as divine truth whatever is taught in Christ's Holy Gospel concerning the existence, perfections, and government of God, the person and office of Christ, the terms of pardon and acceptance with God, the duties of life, and a future state of righteous retribution, and that none of them holds any other doctrines than those contained in the Holy Scriptures, but that each of them yields a full and cordial assent to all the doctrines contained therein. That according to the best of their belief the doctrines held and pro- fessed by the persons adverted to in the information as being commonly called Unitarians, and particularly the doctrines held and professed by the trustees, managers, and sub-trustees of the charities to whom Unita- rian opinions are particularly attributed in the amended information approach more nearly to the doctrines contained in the catechism of Mr- Bowles, than to the docti'ine of any other known sect or denomination of Christians of the present day. The defendants, except Palmes, (who was a member of the Church of Eugland), say they have been informed and believe that ever since the passing of the Act of Uniformity the Protestant Dissenters have been usually divided, and are still usually divided, into three sects, classes, or denominations, that is to say, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Inde- pendents. They believe it to be true that amongst the Presbyterians and Bap- tists very many hold and, according to the information and belief of these defendants, ever since the foundation of the said charities many have held, opinions which are now called Unitarian opinions. They believe that the fact that many congregations of Presbyterian aud Baptist Dissenters hold and profess opinions now called Unitarian opinions is well known, but in the proper use of the term the persons holding opinions called Unitarian do not as such constitute an established sect, class, or denomination of Dissenters. They believe it to be true that the several defendants in the said in- formation in that behalf particularly named are accustomed to call themselves, and commonly call themselves, Presbyterian Dissenters or Protestant Dissenters. However they believe that in the sense in which the term Unitarian is defined in the said further answer of the defend- ant Wellbeloved to the said original information, they are also accustomed to call them [selves] Unitarians. They believe it to be true that the name or term Unitarian as the 276 name of a religious sect is of modern use, and was not at the time of the foundation of the said charities generally used, although to the best of their information and belief the doctrines entertained by the persons now called Unitarians in the sense in which these defendants understand the term, were entertained by many among the Protestant Dissenters of those times called Presbyterians and Baptists. That according to the best of their information and belief the doc- trines which are now entertained by the Protestant Dissenters, now called Unitarians, in the sense in which these defendants understand the term, are not the same, but materially differ from the doctrines which were entertained by and distinguished the persons in those times called Socinians, as in the said amended information mentioned. That to the best of their judgment and belief the religious belief and doctrine of the Protestant Dissenters, in the said amended information styled the sect or class or denomination of Christians commonly called Unitarians are not, so far as these defendants are acquainted therewith, wholly opposed to, and at variance with, the belief and doctrine of the great body of the Dissenters from the Established Church, who were protected by the Act of Toleration of the 1st of "William and Mary, at the time of the foundation of the said charities. That in their judgment there is difficulty in distinguishing the belief and doctrine of the Protestant Dissenters in the said amended informa- tion styled the sect or class or denomination of Christians commonly called Unitarians, from those of the sects of Dissenters in the said infor- mation stated to be commonly called orthodox Dissenters, because inas- much as there are great varieties of belief and doctrines among the Pro- testant Dissenters called Unitarians, and also among those in the said information alleged to be called orthodox, it is difficult to determine in what points the different sects agree, and in what points they differ. Defendants Wellbeloved and Kenrick say : They nowhere find in the Scriptures any such phrase as Trinity of persons in the Deity, and that the only passage which appears to teach this doctrine (namely 1 John v. 7, commonly called the text of the heavenly witnesses) has been rejected as spurious by many of the most learned theologians in the Established Church, and amongst the rest by Dr. Marsh, the present Bishop of Peterborough, and also by many Pro- testant Dissenters. They believe it to be true that in so far as the doctrine of a Trini- ty of persons in the Deity is to be found in the Scriptures, the Protestant Dissenters called Unitarians receive the same as scriptural, and that in so far as such doctrine is not to be found in the Scriptures, but not further or otherwise, the Protestant Dissenters called Unitarians l-eject the same as unscriptural. 277 They receive as worthy of all acceptation the doctrine of the Apostle John, that ' the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amon» us,' and they also believe, according to Mr Bowles's Catechism, that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God manifest in the flesh, and also that in him dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily ; but they no where And in the Scriptures any such phrase as the incarnation or true and perfect divinity of the person of the Son of God. They believe it to be true that in so far as the doctrine of the incarnation or true and perfect divinity of the person of the Son of God is to be found, s 7ra\ai 6 Qeos. And the tran- slation was, ' God, who in several parts and in several manners formerly spake to our fathers by the prophets.' Now, I do not mean to say that they have not translated the word Tro\vp.epms properly ; it might l-efer to many parts of space, or many parts of time. Our authorized translation was ' God, who at sundry times.' These new translators, however, thought proper to give themselves the character of extreme accuracy, by not adopting that which was good enough, but apparently selecting something which they thought better. The translation then proceeds : ' In the last of these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, for whom also he constituted the ages.' Now, the words in the original were (according to Griesbach) — 81 ov nal tovs alcovas erroirjo-ev. Feeling themselves, therefore, a little pushed hard when they translate St' ov 'for whom,' they have recourse to a note, by which it appeared that two or three persons had fancied that might be the proper translation. Supposing it to be so, it appeared to show a very great intention to be extremely correct, though it certainly was not the received translation ; nor do I think that any Greek scholar, unless he were previously biased in favour of a particular theory, would dream that such was the proper translation. The original text "then proceeds : os &>v d7ra.vyao-u.c1 ri]s So^y, koi xapaKTijp ttjs vTroo-rdo-eais avrov. And what was the pretended accurate translation of these words ? ' Who being a ray of his brightness, and an image of his perfections' — xapaKTijp rtjs {moo-Tcio-eccs avrov, an image of his perfections ! I was per- 291 fectly astonished, and could hardly have conceived it possible, before I had read it, that any person could have ventured to call this an improved vei-sion of the Scriptures, which has rendered the word vrroaTua-is 'per- fections.' It was perfectly plain, in that passage, the parties never meant to give a translation, but that they meant to fetter the under- standing of the reader by imposing their creed in the shape of a transla- tion. They then said — 'and ruling all things by his powerful word ' v re ra navTa ru> prjfiari rijs 8vvdp.eu>s avrov. They might as Well have said, 'by the word of his power;' but they did not choose to give the literal translation ; they chose rather to substitute words of their own which might express the sense, but which it was quite clear did not ex- press the literal meaning. To this they annex a meagre note, in which they first give their view of the meaning of the words, and then add the literal translation from the Greek. The translation then proceeds, 'for to which of those messengers spake God at any time, Thou art my Son, this day I have adopted thee1?' The passage they meant to translate Was, t'ivi yap eiVe nore twv ayye\u>u, Ylos fiov ei crij, iya> o-qpepov yeytwriKu ere ' there was not the slightest pretence to translate the word yeyewrjKu ' I have adopted.' The defendants' counsel had read passages from Locke's Essay on the Reasonableness of Christianity, in which he states that by the terras ' Son of God' the Jews understood the Messiah. And so they did : for in the second Psalm it is said, ' The rulers take counsel together against Jehovah and against his Messiah.' And shortly afterwards : ' I will declare the decree : Jehovah said unto me, Thou (art) my Son ; this day have I begotten thee.' The word in the Hebrew which thus represents something incomprehensible with regard to the Divine nature, b;it which of necessity conveys to the human mind the notion of the relation that subsists between Father and Son, is uniformly translated in the Septua- gint by the word yeyewrjKa when applied to a father. It is the word which several times occurs in the fifth chapter of Genesis, in which there was a detailed account of the births of all the antediluvian patriarchs given in succession ; the very verb used in the second Psalm was the verb used in that chapter, and the word used in the Septuagint was quoted by St. Paid. The gentlemen who had translated the Unitarian Testament had made it plain on the face of it that they meant to establish a doctrine, that our Saviour was not begotten in that sense in which the term was taken by the Church of England, and by the orthodox Dissenters, as they were called, to signify some divine operation, by means of which the nature of the Redeemer was the same as that of the Father. That they meant to oppose. And for the purpose of avoiding the inference which might be made in the mind of an unlearned reader, they wilfully 292 altered the word, and substituted a creed instead of a translation. And it is to be observed, that with respect to these important words, for the first time obtruded on the notice of the world, 'an image of his per- fections,' and ' adopted,' the translators have not thought it right to add a note, or give the least hint to the unlearned reader that the trans- lation is at all unusual, or in the least degree doubtful ; though the notes upon the words 'for whom' and 'his powerful word,' and the singular expression ' in several parts,' would induce an unlearned person to think that the new translators were minutely scrupulous and fastidiously accurate, and he would put confidence in them accordingly. The translation then goes on : ' And let all the messengers of God pay homage to him : and of these messengers the Scripture saith.' Now, it was to be observed, that here the words ' the Scripture ' were both in italics, as they ought to be if they were introduced at all, because there were no words corresponding with them in the original. The word ' saith ' evidently referred, as it appeared from their own trans- lation, to God ; but they chose to vary the phrase by saying first, ' God saith,' and then ' the Scripture saith,' which seems an alteration not only without any necessity, but totally unjustifiable. Then they said, ' And of these messengers the Scripture saith, Who maketh the wind his messengers, and flames of lightning his ministers.' It is truly astonishing to find such a translation as ' flames of lightning' given to the words irvpos cjAoya, which could not admit of that translation. It might be said that was what was intended, but certainly that was not said. They translated, ' God is thy throne for ever and ever ; a sceptre of rectitude is the sceptre of thy kingdom ;' and it might perhaps be true that that translation was right, though the commonly received translation is apparently less forced and more natural ; but there was this observation to be made upon it : that they had introduced in the mode of printing, as it stood in their version, the first word 'is' not in italics, and the second word ' is ' in italics. The unlearned reader would therefore, of course, consider the first word ' is ' as the rendering of a word found in the original text, and the second word 'is' as a word supplied by the translators, there being no corresponding word in the original text. If in the original, either of the Hebrew or Greek text, there were a word corresponding with 'is' between the words corresponding with 'God' and 'thy throne,' it would be difficult to avoid adopting the new translation. But there is not any such word either in the Hebrew or in the Greek. Here, then, is an attempt to support a translation altogether novel by an interpolation totally unauthorized. There is but one more observation to be made on the translation. The new translators having in the first instance translated the passage, 293 'O 7rota>v rovs dyyeXovs airoii irve vp.a.Ta , 'who niaketh the winds his messen- ger,' said at the end 'are they not all servants I' by way of translating oi>x\ irdvres etcri XeirovpyiKa 7rvevfiaTa \ supposing them to be right in the first instance in translating it 'winds his messengers,' it was clear they ought in the latter part to have said 'are they not all ministering winds?' (XeiTovpyiKo. TTvev/jiaTa) , to be consistent with themselves: at any rate, if they thought proper to change the phrase, and translate the word nvevfiara ' wind' first, and afterwards ' spirits,' they should have translated it ' ministering spirits,' which would have the sense of ser- vants ; but still it would be a correct translation, which theirs was not. I have taken this as a specimen of the whole ; I have looked at a variety of passages, and I do not remember to have seen any translation which could be considered more unsatisfactory, more arbitrary, more fanciful, more foolish, and, I am sorry to say, more false, than this thing called by the Unitarians an improved version ; and sure am I, that Lady Hewley would have thought it the worst calamity that could have happened to her, that persons should be considered entitled to participate in her charity, professing to call themselves ' godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel,' who would give their sanction to the publication of such a work as that. For the reasons I have assigned, she would, if the matter had been duly explained to her, have seen that it militated against that principle which the defendants' counsel said was the princi- ple on which she desired her charity to be administered, namely, the principle of free discussion, without creed, and by appealing only to the Scriptures as they stood. There is a vast number of other passages ; but it is perfectly useless to go through them. One remark, however, may be made upon the criticism of the new translators. They print in italics the latter part of the first, and the whole of the second chapter of St. Matthew, and the whole of the second chapter, and all the first chapter of St. Luke, except the four first introductory verses ; and this they do, as they tell us, in the notes in p, 2, and p. Ill, because those chapters and parts of chap- ters are to be considered as of doubtful authority, though they are to be found in all the manuscripts and versions which are now extant. In the progress of improvement, it may be discovered, that no parts of Scripture are genuine and authentic, except the first verse of Genesis and the last of Revelation ; and, according to the argument for the defendants, the preachers upon those two verses only, might still be con- sidered as 'godly preachers for the time being of Christ's holy gospel,' within the intent and meaning of Lady Hewley's trust deeds. I find, by the evidence, that Mr Wellbeloved and Mr Kenrick, and some third trustee, were subscribers to the institution called the Unitarian Society, which enumerated amongst the books it circulated this improved version 294 of the Scriptures, as it was called ; and my opinion is, that the question being, not who should participate, but what given individuals should be excluded, it is satisfactorily made out that no person who believes as Mr Wellbeloved has stated in his sermon he believes, or who acts as Mr Wellbeloved has . acted with regard to supporting that Unitarian Society which had published such a book as the Improved Yersion, could be considered as entitled to share in the charity of Lady Hewley. Therefore I think it clear, that no stipend ought to be continued to Mr Wellbeloved, or to any person preaching the doctrines he does ; and it is also clear, that the charity itself cannot be administered according to the intention of Lady Hewley, at least there is no reasonable security that it can be administered according to her intention, if it is allowed to remain in the hand* of persons who thought as he did, and who had acted as he had. I have no evidence whatever to induce me to believe that he had anything to do with the Improved Version, more than in assisting by his subscription the publication of it ; nor have I ever heard, nor have I the slightest conception, who were the fabricators of the book ; but I am quite certain Lady Hewley never would have thought this book did contain Christ's holy gospel, or that the persons who disseminated this book were to be considered disseminators of Christ's holy gospel. Therefore, my decree must, in substance, declare, that no persons who deny the Divinity of our Saviour's person, and who deny the doc- trine of Original Sin, as it is generally understood, are entitled to parti- cipate in Lady Hewley's charity ; and that the first set of trustees must be removed. It is sufficiently manifest that this lady never intended that there should be trustees of one sort to administer the dealing out of the funds amongst the persons who were named in the first deed, and trustees of a second sort to superintend the hospital which contained the poor alms- women. I therefore think, that all the trustees who are Dissenters and deny the doctrine of our Saviour's divine person, and the doctrine of Original Sin, must be removed ; and though there is no objection personally to Mr Palmes, yet as it appeal's that he is a member of the Church of Eng- land, he ought not to be continued a trustee. Of course there was an appeal to the Chancellor, and in July, 1834, it came on before Lord Brougham, who called to his assistance Mr Justice Littledale and Mr Baron Parke. After three days' argument, those Judges left for their circuits, when Sir E. B. Sugden had not replied, and before another day could be fixed Lord Brougham went out of office. 205 He offered to decide the cause (no doubt with the assistance of his learned assessors) which ho could have done by consent after his resignation of the great seal but ho could not then sit to hear counsel; and it was determined that Sir Edward Sugden's reply should not be waived, so it became necessary that the cause should be entirely reheard. It will not be considered ■strange that Lord Brougham's offer was declined when it is understood that, on occasion of the appeal against the allowance of the exceptions to the first answers, his lordship broke out into this culogium upon Mr Wellbeloved, (he being one of the defend- ants whose answers were excepted to for not stating his religious opinions), "one of the most virtuous, pious, and leaimed men who I will venture to say adorn any church. Of his virtue and piety the whole county in which he lives is witness, and especially the congregation that has long benefitted by his labours. I add to my testimony my prayer that they may long benefit under his ministration." This prayer should scarcely have been uttered in the Court of Chancery unless Mr Wellbeloved had been, in the general opinion of the community, " a godly preacher of Christ's holy gospel." It anticipated the whole matter in dispute, for if Mr Wellbeloved was a fit minister for his chapel he was a fit trustee of the charity and, as far as his opinions went, a fit recipient from the fund. Further these words of Lord Brougham were quoted by Sir John Campbell in the House of Lords, in support of his own statement (as Mr Wellbeloved's counsel speaking in his defence) that setting aside error in any of his religious tenets, a more pious man did not exist.* His lordship tried at one or both of the hearings before him (and he repeated it in the House of Lords) to alarm the relators into a discontinuance of the suit, by expressing his opinion that the attorney-general, acting for himself, would step in and claim * Lord Brougham's eulogy as quoted by the Attorney-General respected Mr Well- beloved's upholding some point of Socinianism against a dignitary of the Establish- ment : " The controversy was carried on without the least deviation from the rules of humanity, piety, and charity, exhibiting to the controversial world an example of which their whole history shows polemics stand greatly in need, that learning, sincerity, and zeal may well be united with the most entire forbearance and meekness." His lordship added that Mr Wellbeloved's mastery of his subject and his skdl in disputation were so great that he was victor in the contest, " though you and I, Sir Charles, knew thr.t all the while he was wrong." Sir Charles Wetherell had previously stated how much of divinity there was in the case with which the court had to deal, and had suggested that, as he had read was once done in Lord Bacon's time, two doctors of divinity should be brought from the schools to argue it. He took advantage of the mention of Lord 296 the Hewley estates for the Church. Indeed according to hig own account he repeated this when the relators refused to take his judgment when no longer Chancellor, adding, ' ' I know that is the opinion of a number of learned divines upon the subject/' Report of the Heai-ing in the House of Lords, p. 62. This threat was not taken any notice of, often as it was thrown out, except by the counsel for the defendants, who could not be expected to foresro such a suggestion from a Judge whom they were address- ing, and no other Judge gave it the slightest countenance. Lord Camden when solicitor-general was very positive on that point, though very cautious on others. The defendants thought so much of Mr C. P. Cooper's speech for Mr Wellbeloved on this occasion that they printed it. He was a very learned and able antiquarian lawyer, and in this speech, and the notes to it, he went into the bibliography of Arianism, so that his speech as printed presents a catalogue of Arian books such as is scarcely to be found elsewhere. In this speech he indulged in a prophecy that we must expect to see a body of Armiuian Independents, which has been fulfilled in the Mor- risonians. The Congregational Magazine for 1843, at p. 118, contains the following sentences : When the Solicitor-General, Sir C. Pepys, who was of counsel for the Unitarian trustees of Lady Hewley's charity, was arguing the case of his clients who were defendants in the suit of ' The Attorney- General v. Shore and others,' in a speech of several hours' duration, and delivered with great effect, he endeavoured to shew that in her ladyship's days the Presbyterians were opposed to all religious tests, and enter- tained sentiments of great liberality towards all sects and all sentiments and doctrines whatever, not excluding even the Unitarians ; but he was interrupted by the Chancellor, Lord Brougham, who emphatically declared : Bacon's name to say, that since his day the great seal had not been held by a man of Lord Brougham's varied learning, and to take for granted that theology was not omitted from the sciences with which his lordship was acquainted. On the same occasion Lord Brougham much perplexed the usher by saying to him " Usher, if the noise in court does not immediately cease 1 shall address your successor." His lordship was less happy in a legal illustration, being as yet not well seen in equity. To explain thart the law was not to be evaded he stopped Sir Edward Sugden to remark, " Just as we all know that as land cannot be disposed of by a will unless it has three witnesses, so a man cannot by a will, attested by two witnesses only, direct land to be purchased out of his personal estate and seutled in any particular way, because you see that would, in fact, be creating interests in land by an unattested will." The answer was " My Lord, that is the very thing I was saying everybody knows a man might do." The reply could only be, " Go on, Sir Edward." 297 'There never were people more wedded to their own particular dog mas than the Presbyterians (to do them justice) or who were less tolernnt to the tenets of other people. I speak with all reverence of those men to whom the liberties of the country and the constitution owe great obligations: though not so great as they owe to the Independents, who were the very founders of the constitution. Whenever the Presbyterian had power he was a very persecuting gentleman. His doctrine was this : Every man has a right to think as he pleases, but no man has a right to think wrong ; and he, the Presbyterian, was to judge of that. I assure you that was his way of arguing.' In a subsequent part of the same speech of this learned counsel his lordship again interposed and said, ' I do not say a word against the Presbyterians, with whom I am nearly connected by blood ; and I have a great regard for them.'* Extracts from Mr Gurney's MS. notes of the hearing on the 28th of June, 1834. The relators were again so liberal that they obtained an order from the attorney-general as far as he had power to sanction it, that the fees to counsel and other disbursements of the trustees' solicitors, connected with the ineffectual hearing before Lord Brougham, should be paid out of the charity funds. In April, 1835, the cause came before Lord Lyndhurst, and he followed his predecessors' example, and requested Mr Baron Alder- son and Mr Justice Patteson to sit with him. The manner in which they dealt with the theology of the case may be gathered from these extracts from the argument. The Lord Chancellor. — There is nothing said in Bowles's Cate- * His Lordship had previously, in the debate on the case of the missionary Smith, in 1824, pronounced the following eulogy on the Independents : " He (Smith) was an In- dependent, a minister of that numerous, conscientious, enlightened, and much to be venerated class of religionists, whom all must admire on account of the universal and unqualified toleration they have sanctioned. He was one of that class of men, be it remembered, to whose ancestors this country through all ages, however differently their particular tenets might be viewed by different persons, would owe a mighty debt of gratitude ; men, of whom it may with justice be said, that whatever were their excesses, which in the imagination of some excited ridicule, and in the judgment of others blame, had still in the purity of their lives rivalled the earliest professoi's of Christianity, and possessed the proud triumph, and I will proclaim it, even of having with the zeal of martyrs and the skill and courage of warriors, founded, by combating and conquering for us, the civil and religious liberties we now enjoy. I repeat, they were men who ought to be venerated, because they reached, singly and alone, an eminence of surpass ing glory. Their descendants, true to the generous principles of their fathers, still possess in a pre-eminent degree, the enviable distinction of exceeding every other reli- gious persuasion in their principles of toleration : with them it is so absolute and un- qualified, at all times so enlarged and extensive, that even the most liberal ami enlightened of the other sects have not reached to the same degree of perfection, though I rejoice to say, have made near approaches to it. Congregational Magazine, vii. 4Ki- 37 298 chism about the Trinity, but there are certain consequences resulting from the doctrine of Unitarianism [Trinitarianism], and inseparable from it ; all those are referred to in Bowles's Catechism : the doctrine of the Atonement, for instance. Mr Rolfe. — I dispute that there is anything about the Trinity. The Lord Chancellor. — That is involved in it. Mr Rolfe. — Yes, they say it is, in the opinion of these parties. The Lord Chancellor. — And Original Sin. Mr Rolfe. — That is not contained in Bowles's Catechism in the orthodox sense. Mr Knight. — Yes it is. Mr Rolfe. — I beg you to observe the distinction as to Original Sin. Mr Knight. — We have an early print of Bowles's Catechism, an exhibit in the cause. The year is not given, but it is printed at York, and obviously of considerable antiquity. Mr Rolfe. — I say that the doctrine of Original Sin not only does not appear in Bowles's Catechism, but there is a studied anxiety to show it does not appear. Now let us see : ' Who made you 1 God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. — To what end did he make you 1 He made me and all things for his glory. — In what condition did he make man 1 Righteous and happy. — Did man continue in that estate ] No : he fell from it by sin. — What is sin 1 Transgression of the Law of God.' That my learned friend knows well, or those who instruct him, would not do at all. That is not Original Sin at all. The Lord Chancellor. — That is sin generally : that is not it ; you should not interpose till you get a little further : ' What was the sin originally committed by our first Parents 1 The transgression of the Law of God. — What was the first sin of our first Parents'? Eating the forbidden fruit. — What was the fruit of that eating1? It filled the world with sin and sorrow. — In what condition is the posterity of our first Parents born ] In a sinful and miserable condition. — Wast thou born in that condition 1 Yes, I was conceived in sin, and am by nature a child of wrath as well as others.' That is the doctrine of Original Sin. Mr Knight. — And the next but one is still stronger. The Lord Chancellor. — ' Hath thy life been better than thy birth1? No, I have added sin to sin, and made myself above measure sinful. — What if thou shouldest die in the condition thou was born and bred in1?' Mr Rolfe. — And bred in] The Lord Chancellor. — Yes ; ' born and bred in ] — I should perish everlastingly.' All that is the known doctrine of Original Sin, the sin of our first Parents causing death to all their posterity ; is not that the doctrine 1 Mr Rolfe. — Not entirely : it goes a great deal further, I understand. 299 The Lord Chancellor. — You do not mean that God made man sinful in his original creation 1 Mr Rolfe. — No, but it means this, that the doctrine of Original Sin is not the sin that is a transgression of the Law of God, but the want of conformity to the Law of God, and that is consequently the answer to question the 14th in the Assembly's Catechism, — 'What is sin1? Sin is any -want of conformity unto or transgression of the Law of God.' Bowles's Catechism is, ' What is sin 1 The transgression of the Law of God.' This is not an unimportant distinction, because this is pointed out by Locke in his Reasonableness of Christianity. He says, 'I see the consequence of the sin of our first Parents, was to bring death into the world, but as I read the Scriptures, every man's sin is imputed to himself.' The Lord Chancellor. — I do not see the distinction between sin against the Law of God, and the want of conformity to the Law of God, so far as the act is concei'ned, because, if you commit an offence against the Law of God, that is a want of conformity to it. Mr Rolfe. — No doubt ; but the being born with a want of con- formity to the Law of God is the doctrine of Original Sin ; to transgress the Law of God, and thereby commit sin, is very different ; but it is quite enough for my argument, without going into those refinements, to show that the Catechism that Lady Hewley pitched upon to show that the alms-bodies were orderly and decent bodies, is the least. orthodox of all the then existing Catechisms. Now couple that with the fact — Mr Baron Alderson. — With respect to the distinction you take between the shorter Catechism and Bowles's, in the words, 'any want of conformity unto,' the quotation is the same ; ' Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the Law, for sin is the transgression of the Law :' the quotation is the same. The Lord Chancellor. — The sin of our first Parents was a trans- gression of the Law of God, — a positive act of disobedience of that Law, and the consequence of that is stamped upon all their posterity : you are born in that condition, and you add sin to sin by subsequent transgres- sions of your own, or by the want of conformity to the Law of God. You add to the sinful nature of your original state. Mr Rolfe. — An infant is guilty of sin according to the Assembly's Catechism. I do not see that he is according to Bowles's. Mr. Baron Aldersox. — Yes, or how could he be born in a sinful state ] The Lord ( !han< iellor.— ' I am conceived in sin, and am by nature,' that is, in my nature, 'a child of wrath.' Then the nexl question i^. 300 'Hath thy life been better than thy birth? No, I have added sin to sin ;' that is, the actual sin of my own to the Original Sin of my birth. Mr Rolfe. — There is no doubt that those expressions, exceedingly ambiguous, may admit of such a construction ; but it is the Catechism, of all then existing, that in the least degree pointed to those important truths. The Lord Chancellor. — If you were to ask me, I should say it was as clear as the other : nothing can be clearer ; it is as clear as can be, assuming the doctrine. Mr Rolfe. — As it appears to me so little turns upon it, I will not trouble, you further upon this point. The Lord Chancellor. — Go on to the next doctrine in the 5th page : ' I should perish everlastingly.' That is the doctrine of Original Sin. ' Is there no way to get out of this sinful and miserable state 1 Yes. — Is it to be done by any power or righteousness of thy own 1 No; but God in his rich mercy hath appointed a way. — What way hath God appointed 1 Only by Jesus Christ. — What is Jesus Christ 1 The Son of God manifest in the flesh. — What hath Jesus Christ done for Man 1 He hath laid down his life for our redemption. — What further benefit have we by him 1 Life and salvation. — Shall all men partake of this redemption and salvation 1 No ; there are many who perish notwith- standing.— By what means may a sinner obtain a part in this redemp- tion 1 By faith in Christ. — What is it to believe 1 To rely on Jesus Christ, and him alone, for pardon and salvation, according to the Gospel.' Mr Rolfe. — All those are the doctrines of the Unitarians, every one of them ; there is hardly a word here that is not in the words of Scripture ; but the fact is, if there is much to be relied upon in Bowles's Catechism — The Lord Chancellor. — Is not that the docti'ine of the Atonement? Mr Rolfe. — The doctrine of the Atonement, sub modo, that all mankind obtain salvation only through Jesus Christ, is the doctrine of the Unitarians as much as these parties. No Unitarians dispute it : it is rather the doctrine of Satisfaction than the Atonement that is dis- puted by the Unitarians, therefore all the expressions about the blood of Christ — The Lord Chancellor. — Upon all these points they did wisely in cutting the knot. Mr Rolfe. — No doubt, my Lord, according to the well-known words, " Christ took the bread and brake it, Christ was the word that spake it, And what that word did make it, That I believe and take it." That is the best mode ; but the question is whether Bowles's Catechism propounds the doctrine of the Trinity. 301 The Lord Chancellor — Those doctrines that flow as a consequence from the doctrine of the Trinity, and which, according to the evidence, the Unitarians reject, are clearly propounded. * * * * Mr Baron Alderson. — You do not refer to the next two questions: ' How does the Gospel teach us to rely on Christ ] So to cast our bur- den upon him as to take his yoke upon us. — "Why hath God appointed faith to this excellent use? Because faith gives him what he looks for, the whole glory of our salvation.' Mr Rolfe. — Gives him ! Mr Baron Alderson. — That means Christ. 'Because faith gives him what he looks foi", — the whole glory of our salvation.' You in- terpret that to be God : I should understand it to be Christ. Mr Rolfe. — I should not so have understood it; my attention has not been called to it — it may be so : I do not profess to be able to can- vass these things very accurately ; I find of all the Catechims then existing, I believe, upon the last point, — that of the necessity of any peculiar faith being necessary to salvation, — this Catechism is the least strong. Mr Baron Alderson. — What makes it clear to my mind is this, that the word faith is followed by the words faith in Christ, and then the words are, ' Why hath God appointed faith to this excellent use % Because faith gives him what he looks foiv — the whole glory of our sal- vation.' There can be no doubt about the meaning of Bowles. Mr Rolfe. — Now, I was proceeding to state what I consider to be a consideration more important to show what was Lady Hewley's inten- tion than anything else. The Lord Chancellor. — It is quite clear that it refers to Christ. ' What does it give him 1 The whole glory of our salvation.' Mr Rolfe — What is the reference 1 Mr Baron Alderson. — That will probably explain it. The 2nd of the Ephesians, 8th and 9th. Mr Romilly. — The next question is, ' How is faith wrought in the soul 1 By the Word and Spirit of God.' The text cited is, ' How then shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed ]' The Lord Chancellor. — Read the 2nd of Ephesians. Mr Knight — The 7th verse begins thus : ' That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness towards us through Christ Jesus.' Then begins the 8th verse : ' For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God : not of works, lest any man should boast, for we are his workman- ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.' 302 Mr Bakon Alderson— That might make it rather doubtful. Mr Romilly. — The next question is, ' How is faith wrought into the soul1? By the word and Spirit of God.' Romans, 10th chapter 14th verse, ' How then shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed V Mr Baron Alderson. — Then I think I am wrong in that passage. Mr Rolfe. — I confess I had not so understood it. Mr Knight. — I take it that the Catechism means Christ, and that the citation from the Ephesians shows they mean it ecpiivalent to the word of God. Mr Rolfe. — That is begging the whole question. Mr Knight. — No : the context shows it means our Saviour. It happened that as Lord Melbourne's administration was dis- missed by William the Fourth while the case was before Lord Brougham, that of Sir Robert Peel was virtually displaced by a vote of the House of Commons, when Lord Lyndhurst -had heard only the relators' counsel, Mr Rolfe, on the part of the defend- ants. The solicitors concerned saw that it would not do to have a third hearing before a Chancellor with the certainty of an appeal to the House of Lords; and it may have occurred to them that Sir C. C. Pepys, then Master of the Rolls, but who had been leading counsel for the defendants before the Vice-Chan- cellor and Lord Brougham, would very likely be Chancellor, as he became, being in the meantime one of the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal. However this might be it was arranged that the counsel for the Grand Trustees only should be heard, they taking charge of the sub-trustees' interests, and that the relators' reply should be given up ; and on this understanding Mr Rolfe and Mr Booth were heard on the 13th and 14th of April, Lord Lynd- hurst resigning the seal on the 23rd. This account is taken from the report of the speeches of these gentlemen, and from the shorthand writer's notes of the hearing in the House of Lords. Lord Brougham was not pleased that his offer to determine the case was not accepted. He referred to the matter in his remarks on judgment being given for the dismissal of the final appeal. This cause was originally heard before me in the Court of Chancery all but the reply. I had the assistance of two learned Judges, though, in consecpience of my giving up the great seal before the case was fully argued, no opinion was given, and none indeed was formed by me in the absence of the reply. My noble and learned friend who succeeded id» in the Co^rt of Chancery heard the. case through according to m.\_ 303 recollections, and gave the judgment which your lordships are now moved by my noble and learned friend near me to affirm. The hearing before him had, in fact, proceeded further than that before Lord Lyndhurst when they were virtually out of office so that his lordship's memory, however sensitive, was inaccurate. The speeches of Mr Eolfe and Mr Booth at this hearing were published by the Socinians. Two points in Mr Booth's speech must be noticed. Notwithstanding the decision of the Vice- Chancellor in favour of the relators and the report of the Charity Commissioners he urged that the information must be dismissed with costs. As Mr Rolfe said nothing of the kind it must be taken that he was not instructed to do so, and Mr Booth's in- veteracy can be accounted for only on the supposition that he was embittered by having exceptions for insufficiency allowed as to three sets of answers in succession which he had prepared. He knew what had been suggested by the relators as to the defendants' costs, and one would have thought that common decency would have prevented such remarks, and that so warm a partisan would have felt gratitude on his client's behalf, but not- withstanding the Chancellor had told him, " After the decree of the Vice-Chancellor, you can hardly ask for the information to be dismissed with costs," he went on, " I do not, of course, mean the costs of the appeal, I mean the costs down to the original hearing, supposing your lordship should be of opinion that there was not sufficient ground for the information, and that it was a speculation that has failed, and I should submit a speculation of a character that ought not to be encouraged if it do fail, I sub- mit the usual consequences should attend it." The other matter was that Mr Booth closed the first part of his argument, that relating to the eligibility of Socinians as beneficiaries of the charity, as follows : I will conclude by quoting a very eloquent passage characterizing the present proceedings, from a pamphlet I believe in your lordships' hands,* written by the Rev. Joseph Hunter, one of the class in question. I mean the Presbyterians, and I rejoice to think that he expresses the opinions prevalent among that body, that he expresses the opinions of some of the trustees I have reason to know, and I rejoice to think that * This discloses that the defendants had supplied the Judges with copies of Mr Hunter's pamphlet, just as they did the Lords with the Proofs (which was in great part a transcript of it). This method of proceeding was unusual and, most persons will think, most improper. 304 he expresses the opinions generally prevalent among the English Presby- terians. Bakox A T.DERSoy. What is the page ? Mr Booth. 71. He says he is speaking of the attack I have ad- verted to. It comes from that new body of people " who by their numbers have now almost engrossed the term Dissenter, and who are leagued against all that is elevated, all that is dignified, all that is venerable in society. The achievement of this object will best give them courage to attempt that higher object at which, with no equivocal effect, they are aiming at the destruction of the beautiful and venerable fabric of the English Church, and with it the best hairier against fanaticism, an order of enlightened, cultivated, and liberal ministers, who depend not for their existence upon the varying gale of popular favour, or are com- petent to adapt themselves to the ever-shifting opinions of men less enlightened than themselves.''* This passage in the speech and in the pamphlet, whether considered as an insult to Independents, or as a a paltry at- tempt to curry favour with the Chancellor, and the church party generally, is an exception to the manner in which the contest was carried on with these defendants. The Independents after- wards found the real Presbyterians much more offensive, while their contest with the Socinian party was carried on as charitably and courteously as could well be in the case of such an attack and such a defence. The judgment of Lord Lyndhurst was delivered in Gray's Inn Hall, oth February, 1836. Air Baron Alderson read the opinion of himself and Mr Justice Patteson, as follows : My Lord : My brother Patteson and myself having fully considered this case in which your lordship has desired to have our assistance, and having entirely concurred in our view of it, it becomes my duty to de- clare our joint opinion, together with the reasons by which we think it may be supported. His Lordship stated the deeds and Lady Hewley^s Rules for the almspeople, and then continued : * This paragraph shews that the similar erpression in the Proofs, supra p. 80, as to Nonconformist ministers, was intended to praise a supposed state of things in which those ministers should be independent of their people. So little respect had this self-chosen champion for the right of congregations (or churches) to choose and remove their minis- ters, which is the first principle of English Nonconformists. 305 Now it is contended on behalf of the relators fco the present suit, that this charity is to be confined to Protestant Dissenters entertaining a belief in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the Atonement, and in the doctrine of Original Sin ; in fact, those who are commonly called orthodox Dissenters, in order to distinguish them from others who entertain different opinions as to these important matters, and who are called in common parlance (though undoubtedly by no very accurate description in that respect) Unitarian Dissenters. In more correct language, perhaps, they should be called believers in the Unity of the Godhead without any distinction of persons therein. For we presume that those who differ with them in this respect equally believe in the unity of the Godhead, although they think (and that from what they consider plain texts of Scripture) that such mysterious unity is not in- consistent with the equally mysterious distinction of persons therein. If this question at all depended on any investigation of the compara- tive truth and excellence of these doctrines, or upon a critical examina- tion of texts of Scripture, (the only test to be applied by Protestants in such inquiries.) we should feel that this was not a proper tribunal, and that we were not sufficient for these things. But this case really turns upon a question of fact. If the Unitarian doctrines are consistent with the intention of Lady Hewley, the decision of the Vice-Chancellor is erroneous. If they are inconsistent with it, the declaration he has made, seems to us correct. The Vice-Chancellor's declaration in substance is, that no persons who deny the divinity of our Saviour's person, and who deny the doc- trine of Original Sin as it is generally understood, are entitled to parti- cipate in Lady Hewley's charity. There is no doubt as to the principles which are to govern our opinion ; they are fully laid down and explained in the Attorney- General v. Pearson and others, 3 Merivale 400, and may be thus shortly expressed: The Will of the Founder is to be observed. Then how is the Will of the Founder to be ascertained ? If it be expressed clearly in the deed or instrument of foundation, there can be no difficulty. If expressed in doubtful or general words, recourse must be had to extrinsic circumstances, such as the known opinions of the founder, the existing state of the law, the contemporaneous usage, or the like. Upon these principles, then, we proceed to consider the case. We may begin by laving the Church of England out of the question; for, although Lord Eldon says that a bequest for the worship of God would, prima facie, be one to the Established Church, yet it is quite clear from all the documents in this case, that this foundation was in favour of some class or classes of persons dissenting from the Church. 38 306 This point has not been disputed. But then this question arises, Who are the Dissenters whom Lady Hewley intended to benefit] The provision is fourfold. First, in favour of poor and godly preachers for the time being of Christ's holy gospel. Secondly, of poor and godly widows for the time being of poor and godly preachers for the time being of Christ's holy gospel. Thirdly, for the distribution of sums of money to encourage and promote the preaching in poor places of Christ's holy gospel, and for the education of young "men designed for the ministry of Christ's holy gospel : and, lastly, for the relief of such godly persons in distress as were fit objects of her charity. It is clear from this, that this pious lady had directly in view the encouragement of the preaching of the gospel by Protestant Dissenters, and that in three ways. First, by provision to preachers and to their widows. Secondly, by direct gifts of money for building places of worship or endowing them where built in places not otherwise able to support a minister. Thirdly, for the education of youth for the same Godly purpose. These three objects have plainly in view the propagation of some doctrines which she deemed to be of importance to the souls of men, and her fourth object was in complete accordance with the three others, being in truth the relief of the professors of the same doctrines, in case, from their narrow circumstances or unforeseen calamities, they should be reduced to pecuniary distress. What, then, were the doctrines in question 1 Prima facie, these would surely be the doctrines which she herself conscientiously entertained, aud there is no reasonable doubt what those doctrines must have been. But she has more particularly described in her second deed, and in the rules she herself formed, one class, viz., the poor pious widows whom she deemed to be fit objects of the bounty in the almshouse which she had built. They must be persons piously disposed and of the Protestant reli- gion ; they must be able to repeat by heart the Lord's Prayer, the Creed and Ten Commandments, and Mr Edward Bowles's Catechism ; and they must weekly attend (unless sick) some place of Protestant worship. To what class or classes of persons does this description extend I In the first place, it is expressly confined to Protestant Dissenters. In the second place, it seems clearly not confined to one class of Protes- tant Dissenters alone, because the widows are only required to attend some place of such Protestant worship. But, in the third place, it seems also as clearly intended to include those persons alone, who, though in many respects differing in opinion, yet agreed in some points which, probably, Lady Hewley thought fundamental; and we know from history that if it was her opinion, she was by no means singular in it. What, then, were the fundamental points ? We think they must 307 be taken to be those doctrines which are to be found in the Lord'y Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and Bowles's Catechism. It has been argued that the only qualification required is, the being able to repeat those by heart ; but we cannot think so meanly of Lady Mew-ley's understanding as to adopt that argument : we think she meant that they should accept these, and the doctrines therein contained, as a rule of faith, and that they should have them by heart, in order that they might be more deeply impressed with them, — precisely in I he same way and for the same purpose as the godfathers in the baptismal service of the Church of England, are required to cause the child to learn to say (which means to say by heart) the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and to be further instructed in the Chinch Catechism; and as, in the Rubric, the children are required to be brought for Confirmation to the Bishop, as soon as they can do this and have attained a fit age, no one can believe that these provisions were intended to try their memory and not to prove their faith. Then what are the doctrines to be found in these documents >. We may lay aside the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments, being measures about which all Protestants are we believe agreed ; at any rate, all the parties to this suit understand and assent to them in the same sense. Perhaps this may not be the case as to the Apostles' Creed, which, though certainly general in its language, has been usually confined as a creed to churches which did not doubt the divinity of our Saviour Jesus Christ. It is, as we have seen, one of the tests necessary for Baptism and Confirmation in the Church of England, and certainly is in that church by its Catechism explained in a Trinitarian sense, as plainly appears if we consult the Prayer Book ; for the child there answers that he understands by it, first, a belief in God the Father, the ( Ireator of all things ; secondly, in God the Son, the Redeemer of all mankind ; and thirdly, in God the Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier of all the elect people of God. Indeed, it is not improbable that Mr Baxter took the same view- of the doctrines contained in the Apostles' Creed ; for when, on one remarkable occasion, he proposed that subscription to the Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments should be alone sufficient as a test for church communion, it was objected that these might be sub- scribed by a Papist or a Socinian, he says, so much the better ; but adds, 'But if they were afraid of communion with Papists and Socinians, ii should not be by making a new test or rule of faith which they will not subscribe to, but by calling them to account whenever in preaching or writing they contradict or abuse the truth to which they have sub- scribed.' It would seem, therefore, that he thought that the preaching or 308 writing some of the Papist or Socinian doctrines would be contrary to the truth of these articles if they subscribed them : he must, we think, have referred to the second commandment as to the Papists, and to this Creed as to the Socinians ; for there does not appear to be anything else in his proposed test to which this observation could at all even plausibly apply. And this view of the Apostles' Creed confirms and is confirmed by the last document, Mr E. Bowles's Catechism. Now, in the first place, it is stated by all the witnesses, amongst whom are to be found some veiy distinguished divines of various persuasions, and who all agree in this, that this Catechism is essentially Trinitarian, and that it can be assented to properly by those alone who admit Original Sin and the Atonement made for it, and acknowledge the proper divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This would be quite sufficient, for there is no evidence on the other side, and we are to decide on the evidence. But on reading this Catechism ourselves, with that attention it requires, and considering it, we cannot doubt that if we were required to form an opinion on it, we should decide that the witnesses have taken a correct view of Mr Bowles's book. It does appear to us clear that these are the doctrines fairly to be deduced from it, particularly by comparing it with the passages of Scripture quoted in its margin. We would rather, however, put this point of the case on the general tenor of the whole Catechism and the uncontradicted evidence, than on our own view as to particular passages in it, lest we should. fall into an error on some controverted questions of criticism or theology, which are always delicate and dangerous subjects for unprofessional divines to handle. Upon the whole, then, we think that in the description which, by her own rules, Lady Hewley has given of the widows who were to be inmates of her almshouses, those only were meant to be included by whom the doctrines enumerated in the Vice-Chancellor's declaration were accepted as a rule of faith. Now we think it reasonable to con- clude that these widows who were to be the inmates of the almshouse are part of the fourth class, described in the deed of 1704 as 'godly persons in distress.' They are not only subjected in the deed of 1707 to the discretion of the trustees, being objects out of that class selected by Lady Hewley herself, but their description affords us the means of ascertaining, upon Lady Hewley's own authority, what she meant by the word 'godly' in both the deeds. If this be so, then the same ex- pression which is applied to the preachers and their widows ought to receive the same construction, it being plainly incongruous to give in one deed two meanings to the same expression. But independently of this, at all events, the qualification attached by Lady Hewley to .the 309 admission of the inmates of her almshouse distinctly shows what her own opinions were, and how anxious she was for their adoption by others : and then that anxiety would apply with far greater force to the adoption of those opinions by preachers whose duty it was to take active steps for the propagation of the doctrines they professed. For an error there would probably lead to evils of a much more extensive nature. It is not likely that a lady who wished to regulate the opinions even of the poor widows, the objects of her pecuniary bounty, could intend to pei*- mit her funds to be devoted to the active propagation of any other than the same fundamental doctrines. It is quite inconceivable that she could thus (if with reverence we may use the emphatic language of Holy Writ on this subject) have strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. We think, therefore, that Lady Hewley, by poor and godly- preachers, meant preachers professing the doctrines contained in the Vice-Chancellor's declaration. Again, if this be so, and if this be the class of persons whom she designates as poor and godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel, it is most rational then to consider the other bequests for the encouragement and preaching of Christ's holy gospel, and for the educating of young ministers of that gospel, as confined to the preaching of persons professing these same doctrines, and the educa- tion of youths for the ministry in places where those doctrines are pro- fessed. This view of the case appears to us to be much confirmed by the pe- culiar language of Lady Hewley's will, by that of her pastor, Dr. Colton, by the state of the law at that period, and by the general tenor of history, both as to the doctrines then usually professed by the great body of Dissenters at that time, and their non-interference with that particular provision in the Toleration Act applicable to Unitarian preaching. We were much pressed with quotations from various authors on this point by the learned and ingenious gentlemen who argued for the defendants ; but they have failed to satisfy us even as to the probability of any such catholic intention as that for which they contend having been entertained by Lady Hewley. Such a view may perhaps have been taken by a few speculative divines of great benevolence of feeling, but was never very generally received. It is indeed observable, that almost all the very men who held such opinions constantly asserted their own orthodoxy of belief on the points now in question, and that in no instance whatever that we remember, are they found to approve of the preaching or inculcating, by the teaching of youth, those doctrines now contended for and openly avowed by the Unitarian Dissenters in their discourses from the pulpit. The greater part, if not the whole, of those quotations 3eem to us 310 applicable rather to the terms of church communion than to the present subject. For the question now is upon a charity to be devoted to the active propagation of doctrines by pecuniary encouragement given to their professors, and is not whether, without any particular test, it may be allowed to persons differing on material points to wave them and, notwithstanding, to associate in one religious community together. We do not, indeed, think such a plan wise or likely to succeed in producing peace in the churches ; but we do not doubt that it has often been enter- tained by speculative men, who have not, perhaps, attended sufficiently to the results of practical experience in human life. But this argument as to a supposed Catholic intention, seems incon- sistent, also, with the probabilities of this case. Lady Hewley must have had fixed religious opinions, conscientiously and strongly felt by her, or else it is not likely that she would have made this foundation. It is very unusual for religious foundations to be made by any other than persons having strong and fixed religious opinions themselves. Those who entertain what are called latitudinarian notions on such sub- jects, are not commonly those who leave their property in this way. But waving this, it seems to us clear that Lady Hewley, by requir- ing the Apostles' Creed, or indeed any definite creed at all, as a neces- sary qualification in the case, has given hei'self a decisive answer to this argument, and has negatived the probability of her at least having ever entertained this supposed catholic intention, by which, looking forward into futurity, she is imagined to have contemplated a continual move- ment in advance of religion, in the course of which all her own peculiar doctrines should, with others, gradually be absorbed and lost in the light and splendour of what is called increasing knowledge and reason ; for the very object and peculiar advantage of a creed is, to prevent this per- petual fluctuation, and to fix religious opinions by bringing them con- tinually to a definite test. We have adverted to this part of the case, not as considering it a very important topic, but as it formed the principal ground of the argu- ment before us, we thought it not right altogether to pass it over. Upon the whole, our opinion is, that the declaration of the Vice- Chancellor is right. There is another part of the case, which relates to the course your lordship as a Judge in Equity ought to pursue, as to retaining or re- moving the trustees, in case your lordship's opinion should agree with and confirm that which we have now delivered. That will depend of course on the point whether your lordship is satisfied that these trustees do in fact profess opinions differing from those to the promotion of which Lady Hewley devoted her foundation, and whether in that case it is the duty of a court of equity to remove 311 them from a trust which they cannot so properly discharge as persons whose opinions concur with those of the foundress. But these are points on which it does nob become us to offer any opinion to your lordship. Lord Lyndhurst : This case was originally argued before my late predecessor in the office of Chancellor, in the presence of two of the learned Judges. Circumstances to which it is not necessary that I should particularly advert, prevented that noble and learned Judge from pronouncing any decision upon it, I regret that the parties were deprived of the benefit of his judgment. The case was afterwards argued before me witli the assistance of the learned Judges who are now pre- sent. It was argued with great ability and learning, and everything was brought to bear upon the subject that could properly be urged for the purpose of leading the court to a correct conclusion upon it, I cer- tainly could have wished that I had not been called upon to pronounce judgment upon such a subject. But the parties on both sides have expressed their wish that we should decide it, and I have felt it my duty to comply with that request. It must be satisfactory to those who are interested in the case, that, upon this occasion, I have had the assistance and advice of the learned Judges now present, so much distinguished for their intelligence, ability, and learning. It is highly satisfactory to me, not so much because I consider that there is any great difficulty in the case, as on account of its importance to the parties who are interested in it, and, I may add, also, on account of its importance to the public.'"" I agree enth'ely in the principle, stated by the learned Judges, upon which this case must be decided. In every case of charity, whether the object of the charity be directed to religious purposes or to purposes purely civil, it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intent of the founder, provided this can be done without infringing any known rule of law. It is a principle that is uniformly acted upon in courts of equity. If, as they have stated, the terms of the deed of foundation be clear and precise in the language, and clear and precise in the application, the course of the court is free from difficulty. If, on the other hand, the terms which are made use of are obscure, doubtful or equivocal, either in themselves or in the application of them, it then becomes the duty of the court to ascertain by evidence as well as it is able what was the in- tent of the founder of the charity, in what sense the particular expres- sions were used. It is a question of evidence, and that evidence will * Lord Lyndhurst requested two Judges to sit with him, as a matter of course, since Lord Brougham had done so. Lonl Brougham stated his reason was that "it might tend to have the effect of preventing the parties from being dissatisfied with tho judgment, and prevent an appeal." 312 vary with the circumstances of eacli particular case, it is a question of fact to be determined, and the moment the fact is known and ascertained, then the application of the principle is clear and easy. It can scarcely be necessary to cite authorities in support of these principles ; they are founded in common sense and common justice ;but if it were necessary to refer to any authority, I might refer to the case which has been already mentioned, the case of the Attorney-General v. Pearson, and to another case which was cited at the Bar, the case in the House of Lords. Throughout those judgments, the principles which have been stated were acknowledged and acted upon by a noble and learned judge, of more experience in courts of equity, and more experi- ence in questions of this nature than any other living person. I look upon it, then, that these principles are clear and established — that they admit of no doubt whatever. What, then, were the objects and the purposes of this charity 1 We look at the deed of foundation, and we find from it (the deed of 1704) that the object was to assist poor and godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel ; to assist poor and godly widows of the same description of per- sons ; to promote and encourage the preaching of Christ's holy gospel in poor districts and places ; to assist in the education of young persons in- tended for the ministry of Christ's holy gospel ; to assist poor and godly persons in distress. These are the objects of the deed of 1704. The deed of 1 707 provides for the maintenance of ten poor persons in certain almshouses that were founded by Lady Hewley. The rest of the pro- perty is directed to be applied to the same objects as are mentioned in the original deed of 1704. This is the substance of the provisions of the two deeds ; and the first question that arises, and essentially almost the only question, is this, Whom did the foundress of this charity mean to designate by poor and godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel ] And what were the prin- ciples and doctrines of which she intended to encourage and promote the preaching 1 It may be said, that the expression ' poor and godly preachers' is clear and precise ; but it is admitted on both sides, as well on the pai*t of the relators as on the part of the defendants, that it does not include ministers of the Established Church. However poor, however godly, how- ever pious, by the admission of the parties, they are excluded, and rightly. It appears, therefore, that the terms poor and godly preachers are to be taken with some limitations and restrictions ; and the question, therefore, is, what are the proper limitations and restrictions in this instance ] The first question then for consideration, in order to lead us to a correct conclusion upon this point, is, as to the particular religious 313 opinions of Lady Hewley, the foundress of this charity. There can be no doubt that she was in her religious faith and opinions a Presbyterian. It is a matter of history that she was so. It is admitted by the answer of Mr Wellbeloved and others of the defendants. It is proved by the evidence in the cause, by the evidence of those learned and respectable witnesses to whom the learned Judge has referred. It is not contested by any contradictory evidence. It is proved that she attended the chapel which she herself, I believe, built and in part endowed — St. Saviour's Gate Chapel — and which is admitted to have been a Presby- terian chapel ; Dr. Col ton, the preacher at that chapel, was an acknow- ledged Presbyterian ; he was her religious adviser ; he was the executor to her will ; he preached her funeral sermon ; — all these circumstances lead to the conclusion that she was in her opinions a Presbyterian. This being so, then, the next question in order is, what were the doctrines and opinions of the Presbyterians at that time 1 Upon this also I think no reasonable doubt can be entertained. The Presbyterians objected only to those articles of the Established Church that related to matters of discipline and church government. They did not object to any of the doctrinal articles of the Church of England. It is stated by the witnesses, and there is no contradictory evidence, that the Presbyterians of that day were believers in the Trinity and in the doctrine of Original Sin, as contained in the articles of the Church of England. If we go further we find the same points, to a degree at least, admitted in the answers of Mr Wellbeloved and others of the defendants. Veiy many, they say, of the Presbyterians of that day believed in the doctrine of the Trinity. The admission is qualified by the term 'very many,' which admits of an extensive latitude of construction ; but coupling this with the evidence, I am justified, I think, in coming to the conclusion, that the great body of the Presbyterians were in their opinions Trini- tarians. But that which appeal's to me to be decisive upon the subject is a document which was referred to in the course of the argument, namely, the heads of agreement that were entered into between the Presbyterians and the Independents, in the year 1691. In the eighth section of those heads of agreement, intituled ' Of a Confession of Faith,' they say that they hold either the doctrinal part of those commonly called the Articles of the Church of England, or the Confession or Catechism, shorter or larger, compiled by the Assembly at Westminster, or the confession agreed on at the Savoy, to be agreeable to their rule of faith and prac- tice. That document, therefore, appears to me to be decisive upon the question, because the particular articles to which they refer, namely the Articles of the Church of England, the Confession, the Shorter and 39 314 Lai-ger Catechism, and the confession agreed on at the Savoy, all contain expressly and distinctly, Trinitarian doctrines. If it were necessary to go further into this case for the purpose of showing what were the opinions of the Presbyterians at that time, I might refer to the Act of Toleration. It is well known that the Dis- senters were consulted in framing that Act, and that they were satisfied generally with its provisions. But we find in the seventeenth section that no person is allowed to preach, or is relieved from the penalties of former Acts of Parliament in preaching, unless he subscribes the Articles of the Church of England, with the exception of the 34th, 3oth, 36th and part of the 20th, which do not relate to doctrinal matters, but re- late merely to church government and matters of that description. The whole of this evidence, therefore, leads me to the conclusion, about which I think no reasonable doubt can be entertained, that the great body of the Presbyterians, as well as the Independents of that day, namely, at the commencement of the eighteenth century, believed in the doctrine of the Trinity and in the doctrine of Original Sin, which is contained in the Articles of the Church of England, and other documents to which I have referred. Was Lady Hewley, then, an exception to this general rule, as to belief with reference to the doctrine of the Trinity and with respect to the doctrine of Original Sin I It appears to me, when we have established that she herself was a Presbyterian, and that the general doctrines of Presbyterianism were such as I have stated, that it is incumbent upon those who contend that she was an exception to the general belief, to give evidence for the purpose of establishing that part ; that the burden of proof is upon those who make that asser- tion or that suggestion. But waving this, what are the probabilities of the case1? It is well known that the principles of Unitarianism were at first very coldly received, and were listened to with aversion, and even with disgust, more particularly among the laity. Lady Hewley, at the time to which I am referring, was a person advanced in life. Is it pro- bable, then, that she should have adopted these opinions, and upon points which, in one of the documents before me, are stated, I think by Dr. (Mr) Kenrick, to have been considered by all churches essential 1 There is another consideration that presents itself, arising out of the situation and character of Lady Hewley. She had attracted much at- tention. She was a person of great piety, of a certain rank, of great and unbounded charity. It must have been known, it would indeed have become a matter of notoriety, if she had entertained these opinions. It must have come down to us as a matter of history, had she enter- tained Unitarian opinions, in the same manner as in the case of Firmin — a person who resembled her in the charitableness of his disposition and character. But it is not necessary to rely upon probabilities in this case. 315 ,v e have direct evidence of the fact. The witnesses who have been so often referred to, declare that she was a believer in the Trinitarian doc- trines, and upon this point also there has been no contradictory evidence whatever. If we advert to the evidence of Mr Wellbeloved and others of the defendants ; what is it that they say to this point 1 They do not deny that she entertained Trinitarian opinions, that she was a Trinitarian in her belief. On the contrary, they say that they have heard and believe that very many of the Presbyterians at that period were Trinitarians, but, save from the probability arising from such circumstances, they cannot say whether she in her religious belief was a Trinitarian. They admit, therefore, the probability of her having been a Trinitarian, — which is substantially to the same effect, though not so strong in the expression as what Mr Wellbeloved is reported to have stated upon this subject to the Commissioners. For in their report they say, that Mr Wellbeloved concludes from Lady Hewley's attendance at the chapel during Dr. Colton's time, and from the general state of religious opinions at that period, that she did not entertain what are commonly called Unitarian sentiments. But the evidence as to this important part of the case does not rest here. Dr. Colton is admitted to have been a Trinitarian : no doubt is entertained upon that point. Dr. Colton must have been a Trinitarian, because, as he was the preacher at St. Saviour's Gate Chapel, he must have subscribed the articles, agreeably to the seventeenth section of the Toleration Act ; and we are not to presume that he would have subscribed those articles fraudulently, particularly a man of his charac- ter, his learning and his piety. Dr. Colton, therefore, was a Trinitarian, and, as 1 have before stated, he was the preacher at Lady Hewley's chapel. He was her adviser in religious matters ; he was the executor to her will ; he preached her funeral sermon ; and in that sermon there is the strongest evidence of the double fact of Dr. Colton himself being a Trinitarian, and of Lady Hewley, with whose sentiments he was inti- mate, entertaining also the same opinions. Never, therefore, was there a stronger body of evidence leading to any conclusion than this, to show that Lady Hewley did not entertain Unitarian opinions. But I do not stop here. There is that document which has been adverted to by the learned Judge, namely, Bowles's Catechism. Passing over the question, relating to the Trinity, although the witnesses who are conversant with the subject state that Bowles's Catechism is to be taken as a Trinitarian Catechism ; yet this at least is clear, that the doc- trine of Original Sin is expressed in that Catechism in the most clear and distinct terms. I agree entirely with what the learned Judge has stated, that when Lady Hewley requires as a qualification tor those 316 persons who are to be admitted into the almshouse, that they should be able to repeat by heart Bowles's Catechism, that she must be taken to have assented to the doctrines contained in it. If so, the evidence is clear that as to one material point she was a believer, viz., in the doc- trine of Original Sin. And if we may rely on the testimony of those witnesses who have been examined, that this is a Trinitarian Catechism, then that also establishes the fact of her being a believer in the doctrine of the Trinity. I have thus endeavoured to show that Lady Hewley was a Presby- terian, and also to show what were the general doctrines of the Presby- terians at that time. And the result of the further inquiry has been to satisfy my own mind that Lady Hewley was not an exception to the general rule of belief of that class of dissenters to which she belonged, but that she herself also was a Trinitarian, and a believer in the doctrine of Original Sin. That being the case, then, we are prepared for the more satisfactory consideration of the next point, What did she mean by ' Godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel1?' What were the doctrines the preaching of which she meant to promote and encourage 1 Is it possible to come to the conclusion, according to any ordinary rules of reasoning, that she intended to found a Charity and bestow her property for the purpose of preaching doctrines directly at variance with her own 1 And this not as to subordinate and trifling and formal matters, but with respect to points that have always been considered by every church as essential ; which she herself must have considered as essential. When I say points which have been always considered as essential, I am not using my own expressions, my own language ; it is the lan- guage, and these are the expressions, of a very learned person, Dr. (Mr) Kenrick, one of the defendants. In the sermon lying before me he says, " If others have established a distinction between those essen- tial articles of faith which cannot be rejected without perdition, and the non-essentials on which men may safely differ, we at least gain little by the relaxation ; for I know of no church which does not regard as essential those very ai'ticles which our name implies that we reject.' Can we believe then, I repeat it, that this pious lady would have given her funds for the purpose of promoting and encouraging the preaching of doctrines directly at variance with those opinions which she entertained upon points which have been universally considered as essential in matters of religious belief? At least it would require some fact or some argument to justify us in coming to such a conclusion. All the presumptions and probabilities are the other way ; and as a question of fact, I feel myself obliged to come to this conclusion, that it is 317 almost impossible to suppose that such could have been her view and intention. But another argument arises out of the Act of Parliament to which the learned Judge has referred, or rather out of the Acts of Parliament of that period. Those preachers who denied the Deity of Christ were exempted, if they preached, from the benefit of the Act of Toleration. That act was passed in the year 1G88. In 1698, ten years afterwards, and six years before the date of the first of these deeds, the Act against Blasphemy was passed, in which those persons who denied that any one of the three persons in the Trinity was God, were subject to the severest penalties. Those were called impious and blasphemous doctrines ; to teach them was called a detestable crime. I am not justifying the law I am making no comment upon it — I am stating only what the law at that time was. Those persons who by preaching denied the doctrine of the Trinity — I think the word is 'teach' — who either in writing, in teaching, or advised speaking, shall maintain those doctrines, are subject to the penalties of the act to which I have referred. It was contrary to law, therefore, at that time, to preach those doctrines. To give money for the purpose of encouraging and promoting the preaching of them would also in itself be illegal. What are the rules by which the conduct and the language of per- sons are to be interpreted 1 The rule is this — and it is a fair and proper rule — that where a construction consistent with lawful conduct and law- ful intention can be placed upon the words and acts of parties, you are to do so, and not unnecessarily to put upon these words and acts a con- struction directly at variance with what the law prohibits or enjoins. I cannot therefore bring myself to the conclusion, that Lady Hewley intended to promote and encourage the preaching of doctrines contrary to law — that she intended herself to violate the law. It would be con- trary to every rule of fair construction and legal presumption so to decide. It was argued, however, at the bar, that this law was now repealed ; and it was supposed that the repeal of the law would make an alteration in the consideration of the case. It does not appear to me, in the slightest degree, to affect the question. The question is, what was her intention at the time*? What, at the time when she executed this deed, she intended 1 Who were the persons whom she meant to include in it I What were the doctrines of which she intended to encourage and pro- mote the preaching 1 It makes no alteration in this respect — it makes no change as to her intention at the time that a century after the law has been changed, and that is considered as innocent which at that period was considered as illegal. On these two grounds then, each of which appear to me conclusive, first of all, that I cannot presume that 318 this pious lady intended that her estates should be employed to encourage and promote the preaching of doctrines directly at variance with what she must have considered as essential to Christianity, and that she could not intend to violate the law ; on those two grounds I feel myself, as a conclusion of fact, compelled to come to this determination — that she did not intend, under the description of godly preachers, to include those persons who impugned the doctrine of the Trinity, that she did not intend to promote and encourage the preaching of those doctrines. With respect to the law, and her respect for its authority, we find some evidence of it in the second deed — the deed of 1707, for she says, that if by any lawful authority the objects of her bounty, in that deed, cannot be carried into effect, then she directs her trustees to make a different application of the funds. It has been said, and the learned Judge has adverted to it— it has been said, in general terms, that the religious opinions of that day were liberal and comprehensive, and that in particular, Lady Hewley enter- tained large and liberal views upon subjects of religion. This, however, rests on general statement, of which there is no sufficient or satisfactory evidence, and from which I can come to no precise or satisfactory con- clusion. I am bound, therefore, for these reasons, having first estab- lished to my satisfaction that she was, in her religious opinions and belief, a Trinitarian, — I feel myself compelled to come to the conclusion, that she never intended that her bounty should be applied for the pur- pose of promoting or encouraging the preaching of Unitarian doctrines. This is the conclusion of fact to which I have come, and I have the more satisfaction in this result, because I came to it without at all knowing what were the opinions of my two learned friends, without having had any communication with them upon the subject. I formed my opinion upon a careful consideration of the case, thus agreeing, not only in the conclusions, but in the grounds and principles upon which the learned Judges have come to them, who have favoured me with their assistance on this occasion. The question then, for consideration that remains is this, By whom have these funds been administered, and in what way have they been administered 1 The trustees are, with one or two exceptions, both the trustees and the sub-trustees, proved to be Unitarians ; Mr Palmes is a member of the Church of England ; Mr Heywood was not proved to be Unitarian ; with respect to the rest, as I understand and read the evi- dence, they entertain Unitarian opinions. What are these doctrines'? What, in their answer, do Mr Wellbeloved and others of the defendants state to be Unitarian opinions 1 They state, that they believe it to be true, that the class of Christians styled Unitarians do reject, as unscrip- tural, the doctrine that Jesus Christ is really and truly God, and as such 319 a proper object of divine worship. They helieve it to be true that the class of Christians styled Unitarians do, many of them, l'eject, as un- scriptural, the doctrine of Original Sin, or that a man is born in such a state that if he were to die in the condition in which he was born and bred, he would perish everlastingly. These are the doctrines stated in the answers of Mr Wellbeloved and several of the other defendants as being the peculiar doctrines of the Unitarians. An observation was made, I think, by a learned gentleman whom I now see in court, on the conduct of Mr Wellbeloved with i-espect to his answers, stating that they were reluctantly extorted, obtained with difficulty. I think 1 owe it to Mr Wellbeloved and to the other defend- ants to observe, that from the natui'e and the delicacy of the subject, they were justified in using much caution, and if we can fairly refer the conduct of men to proper motives, we are not justified in ascribing it to such as are improper. Mr Wellbeloved may have considered that the questions were not, in the first instance, put in such a way as to lead properly to these answers ; and he may have thought it his duty to ex- ercise great caution on such a subject. But leaving this, besides the answers, we have, from the mouth of Mr Wellbeloved, and we also have from Mr Kenrick, clear and distinct statements of what the opinions of the Unitarians are upon the points in question. I refer to a document which is in evidence, a sermon preached by Mr Wellbeloved, at' Hull, in which he states his opinions in these terms: ' With the doctrines concerning the Deity of Christ, we also reject, as equally unscriptural, those which other Christian sects hold to be of such vital importance, relating to his office and the design and conse- quences of his death. We see nothing in the pages either of the Old or New Testament to justify the doctrines which are generally deemed or- thodox, relating to Original Sin ;' so that he also there states that they reject the doctrine concerning the Deity of Christ, and this also relating to Original Sin. In another part of the same sermon he says, ' but it will be said that we deny his Deity,' that is the Deity of Christ ; ' We refuse to acknowledge him as the second person of the Godhead ; we do not allow him to be one God with the Father, co-eternal and co-equal, or even God of God.' 'We confess,' he says, 'the Man Christ Jesus, but deny him as that incarnate, suffering and dying God, which he is believed to have been by all others who bear his name. True, we do deny the Jesus of the Athanasian and the Nicene Creeds, of the Liturgy and the Articles of the Established Church, of the confessions of faith adopted by almost all the churches of Christendom.' Nothing can be more clear and distinct than these statements, not only as to his own opinions, but as to the opinions of those who think with him, and who come under the class and denomination of Unitarians. 320 Now as to Dr. (Mr) Kenrick, another of the defendants upon this record, a gentleman of talent and learning ; he says, ' We are convinced that no doctrines can ultimately prevail among a people allowed to think and examine for themselves which, like transubstantiation, involve a sensible absurdity, or, like the Trinity, a metaphysical contradiction.' ' The surrender of their understandings,' he says, ' is a price which men will not long consent to pay for the belief of any system of Theology.' Such are the doctrines stated by two of the defendants as the doctrines of the Unitarians. I consider, then, the great body of trustees and sub-trustees are disbelievers in the Divinity, or to use the term of the Unitarians, the ' Deity of Christ,' and disbelievers in the doctrine of Original Sin. Having stated this, then the next question is, how and for what purposes have these funds been applied by these trustees 1 In what man- ner have they discharged the important duty that was entrusted to them 1 If we are correct in the conclusion we have come to, as to the intention of Lady Hewley, the funds have been misapplied, and misap- plied for a long series of years, and to a very great extent. This alone might be a sufficient ground for removing the trustees. But it has been said, that this was unintentional upon their part, that it was an error of judgment, that they put fairly and bona fide a construction upon the instruments that would have justified their acts. But looking at the evidence in this case, I am compelled to come to a different conclusion, and to say, though I do not wish to enter into detail upon the subject, because I am desirous, as far as possible, to abstain from everything that is personal on this occasion, I am compelled to say, using the most gen- tle terms, that there has been in my judgment a strong and Undue bearing in the administration of the funds towards the Unitarian doc- trines and Unitarian purposes. I shall not go through the evidence with respect to this part of the case, but shall content myself in referring only by way of example to two points. How has it happened that almost all the trustees are Uni- tarians 1 That the vacancies have been so filled up as to make the whole body substantially Unitarian, as to place the entire control of these es- tates, and funds, and the management of the whole charity, in the hands of Unitarian trustees, persons entertaining Unitarian opinions 1 Another subject to which I shall also refer in illustration of what I have stated, relates to the exhibitions to Manchester College. Almost all the exhibitions, of late years, have been given to persons edu- cated at that college. Upon a careful examination of the evidence, I must consider, that so far as relates to the education for the ministry, Manchester College is substantially an Unitarian Establish- ment. I refer to the evidence, among others, of Mr Manning Walker, 821 who was himself educated as an Unitarian, and was a member of that college. It appears to me strong and decisive upon this point. If I required further confirmation, I might refer to Mr Wellbeloved's letter, in which he calls upon the Unitarian Dissenters to subscribe to the support of that Establishment, for the purpose of maintaining a succes- sion of well-educated ministers in their class of Dissentei-s ; obviously- meaning — indeed the fact is proved by the evidence — meaning those of Unitarian opinions. These circumstances Avith others lead me, therefore, to the conclusion not merely that these parties have misapplied the funds, but, that in the exercise of their trust, they have manifested a strong and undue leaning in favour of persons of their own persuasion. I think, then, looking at these circumstances and considering the extensive and continued misap- plication of the funds which has taken place, and adverting also to the" consideration of the danger of future abuse, if persons maintaining one particular class of opinions are to be entrusted with the management and entire control of funds which are to be applied for the benefit of persons maintaining other opinions, that I am bound to come to the conclusion that the Vice-Chancellor was correct in removing the trustees. After what I have already stated, it follows, that I think he was correct in the declaration that he has made. And the result, therefore, of my Judgment is this, — Feeling myself confirmed in the principle of it by the learned Judges near me, and coming to the further conclusions which I have stated, founded upon these principles, I think that the judgment of the Yice-Chancellor should be affirmed. It is not a case for costs, and I think it should be simply affirmed. The reasons for the reversal and affirmance of the decree on appeal to the House of Lords are thus stated : The appellants are advised and submit, that the decree below is erroneous, for, amongst others, the following reasons : 1. Because there is nothing in the trust deeds denoting an intention to exclude preachers or other persons of Unitarian opinions (being in other respects fit objects of the charity), from participating in the funds of the charity ; and extrinsic evidence to show such an intention (or to raise a presumption of such an intention) is inadmissible. 2. Because the expression 'poor and godly preachers for the time being of Christ's Holy Gospel,' denotes, according to the meaning of those terms, at the date of the foundation deeds, (and which meaning is con- fii-med by the usage), Protestant Nonconformist preachers for the time being, who should make Christ's Holy Gospel the foundation of their faith ; and Unitarian preachers are such preachers. 3. Because the intention which the words of the trust import, ac- cording to the construction suggested in the last preceding reason, is a 40 323 probable and lawful intention ; and it is a sound rule of constimctioil, that if a probable and lawful intention can be collected from the words of a trust, the court will not look further for the intention ; and extrin- sic evidence to explain the intention (or to raise a presumption of inten- tion) ought not in this case to have been admitted. 4. Because, if the intention be doubtful, a usage which has prevailed ever since the foundation of the charity, and which is consistent with the intention, so far as that intention is expressed in the deeds, ought not now to be disturbed. The visage stated in the answers of the de- fendants is not contradicted by the evidence. If there be any doubt as to what the usage has been, it ought, it is submitted, to be ascertained by an inquiry before the proper officer of the court. 5. Because it is not a presumption of law, that a charity, founded by a Dissenter, whether for the promotion of preaching or of a more general nature, is intended by the fdunder (where not so expressed) ex- clusively for the benefit of Dissenters of the same sect with the founder, or who should agree with him, individually, in doctrinal opinion ; and extrinsic evidence of the doctrinal opinions of the foundress, with a view to raise such a presumption or to give a particular construction to the general language of the trust, was inadmissible. Not only is there nothing in the language of the foundation deeds, in the present case, to denote such an intention, but the contrary intention is rather to be inferred, from the circumstance that the trustees are not required to be selected from any given sect or denomination. 6. Because from the tenor of the trust, it does not appear to have been the intention of the foundress to impose any doctrinal test, or to require the profession of any given system of Christian doctrines by the preachers as a qualification for being admitted to participate in the charity : and that such an intention would have been inconsistent with the principles of the religious sect to which the foundress belonged, and cannot therefore be imputed to her as a pi'obable intention. 7. Because the intention of the foundress was, to confide to the trustees for the time being, appointed in the manner provided by the foundation deeds, a discretionary power of selecting objects of the charity within the limits prescribed by the deeds ; and for the court to prescribe other limits to the trustees, or to appoint other trustees, would be to defeat the intention. 8. Because, if it were the intention of the foundress that the charity should be confined to Dissenters of the same sect as the foundress (which was admitted to be Presbyterian), or who should agree with her indivi- dually in doctrinal opinion, the decree does not contain any sufficient provision for giving effect to that intention, or for ensuring the due ad- ministration of the charity in future. 323 As applicable to so much of the decree as directs the removal of the trustees, the following additional reasons are submitted : 1. Because error in judgment is not a sufficient ground for removal, and no case of misconduct is established against them. 2. Because the trustees are not, by the deeds, required to belong to any given sect or denomination of Christians ; and the holding of Uni- tarian opinions is not a ground of disqualification or removal. So far as relates to the case of Mr John Pemberton Heywood, Mr Peter Heywood, and Mr Wood, the following additional reason is sub- mitted : Because it is not alleged in the information that they are Unitavi- ans, or that they are, in any other respect, disqualified to fill the office of trustees of the charity ; nor was there any evidence in the cause of any such disqualification, even if such evidence had been admissible. As ajiplicable to the removal of the trustees of the hospital, the fol- lowing additional reason is submitted : Because there is no evidence in the cause, that the rules left by the foundress for the government of the hospital have been in any respect infringed by the trustees. So far as relates to Mr Palmes : 1. Because it is not alleged in the information that he is by his doc- trinal opinions, or in any other respect, disqualified to fill the office of a trustee of the hospital, and evidence could not properly be received to show any such disqualification. 2. Because if such evidence were admissible, a member of the Church of England is not disqualified to fill the office of a trustee of the hospital. R. M. Rolfe. James Booth. The reasons of the respondents are very short : From the said decree of his Honour the Vice-Chancellor, and the said order affirming the said decree, the said appellants have thought fit to appeal ; but the respondents humbly hope the same will be affirmed with costs, for the following among other reasons : 1st. Because Lady Hewley, by whom the charities in question were founded, was a Trinitarian in belief and doctrine, and the application of her charities to the benefit of ministers or preachers of what are com- monly called Unitarian belief and doctrine, and their widows and mem- bers of their congregations, was and is inconsistent with her design and intention. 2nd. Because the trustees and subtrustees removed (as well those who were proved to be Unitarians, as those who were not proved to be bo) had all systematically concurred in breaches of trust; and such of 324 them as were clearly proved to be Unitarians were not fit persons to be trustees or sub-trustees of the charities in question. J. L. Knight. E. KlNDERSLEY. It was argued on the 13th, 14th, and 15th of May, and the 24th, 25th, and 28th of June, 1839, before Lords Cottenham (Chancellor), Lyndhurst, Brougham, and Wynford,* and the Judges, of whom seven, Chief Justice Tindal, Barons Parke and Gurney, and Justices Williams, Coleridge, Erskine, and Maule, delivered their opinions on 10th May, 1842.f The Chief Justice Lord Denman and the Chief Baron Lord Abinger were peers ; Baron Alderson and Justice Pattison had previously given their opinions; Justices Littledale and Vaughan had re- tired ; Justices Bosanquet and Coltman were absent. Although at each previous hearing the time of the court had been taken up almost entirely with arguments founded upon quo- tations from documents and books shewing the opinions of Lady Hewley and the Presbyterians of her time, yet nearly all the reasons of appeal are based upon the position that the questions in the suit should be determined by reference to the deeds of foundation only, without extrinsic evidence. At the hearing in the Lords the further objection was taken that, supposing proper evidence was receivable for the purpose, improper evidence had been received. Lords Lyndhurst and Brougham showed their displeasure at these objections not being made before them, but reserved until the final appeal. The following dialogue took place in reference to this point : Lord Lyndhurst. — Was there any objection made to the reception of the evidence before the Vice-Chancellor '? This case came, I believe, three times before the court. It was heard by the Vice-Chancellor ; it was afterwards heard before the learned lord who has just addressed the house ; and it was afterwards heard before me. The same evidence was received upon each occasion, and I do not recollect, when it was heard before me, that any objection was made. * While the Lord Chancellor, except as to adjournment of the hearing, only in twelve instances put questions or addressed remarks to the counsel, the times that the other law lords did so were as follows : Lord Lyndhurst 78, Lord Wynford 30, and Lord Brougham 133 ; nor were they the only peers who took such part in the hearing, the Bishop of London, Dr. Blomfield, made observations or inquiries 55 times, the Bishop of Kochester, Dr. Murray, once, and Lord Kenyon 9 times. f The delay was very great, hut there was nearly as much on the appeal of Winter v, Perratt, which came on nearly at the same time. 325 Lord Brougham. — I have no recollection of any objection taken before me to any evidence at all ; but Mr Baron Parke is going to look at his note. Mr Attorney-General. — I will state to your lordships how it was. There was an immense body of evidence given, and there was an arrange- ment come to that it should all be read, that the relators might read what they pleased de bene esse, and that then that which was not evi- dence was to be considered as the speech of counsel. Lord Lyndhurst. — That is a course that never could be pursued, because that would leave it for the party to determine what is evidence, without any objection on the part of counsel and without argument. It never could have been the case. It may have been an arrangement among the counsel, but that is not the way to deal with the court. Mr Knight Bruce. — Personally, I have not the least recollection oi any such arrangement or agreement. I do not deny it, but personally I have no recollection of it. Mr Attorney-General. — I can show by most distinct evidence that the arrangement was come to when it was heard before the Vice-Chan- cellor. Then when it came on before my Lord Brougham, afterwards before Lord Lyndhurst, it was necessary that the same arrangement should be carried into effect, and that it should be heard upon the same basis before their lordships, as it had been before his Honour the Vice- Chancelloi*. Lord Brougham. — Then it would have been highly convenient and fair to the court, that the arrangement should have been disclosed ; and I am sure it never was disclosed. Mr Attorney-General. — I presume, upon the part of the defend- ants, that there having been that arrangement, it was not thought they could depart from it. x Lord Lyndhurst. — If the pai-ties allow that to be read in evidence which in strictness is not evidence, by an agreement between themselves, and if no objection is made to the evidence that is offered, the Judge gives his opinion upon the effect of the evidence. Mr Attorney-General. — If it was read in evidence, and if it ought not to be an ingredient in the judgment of the court, I say, with very great respect and with great confidence, that that judgment was errone- ous if it proceeds upon that evidence. Suppose facts are stated in a special verdict which ought to have no influence upon the judgment of the court, it is quite immaterial that they are stated. You are to take it pro non scripta for this evidence. Lord Lyndhurst. — Suppose evidence is offered at Nisi Prius, and an objection is made to it, and the party says, I waive any objection, 326 and the jury find a verdict upon that, and an application is made for a new trial, will not the Judge say, you waived your objection 1 Mr Attorney-General. — Supposing there to have been an objec- tion taken ^fco the competency of a witness, and that is waived, you can- not then move for a new trial upon the ground that the witness was incompetent. You are to take as a fact what the witness has proved. But supposing that what the witness has proved, being taken as a fact, is a fact wholly irrelevant, then it ought to be no ingredient in the ver- dict of the jury, and no ingredient in the judgment of the court. Lord Brougham. — That does not go to the admissibility, but to the eifect. Mr Attorney-General. — It goes to the eifect ; and my objection remains to me untouched, even supposing that this evidence had been read, and read without objection, or that the Judge upon argument had decided that the relator was entitled to read it. Lord Lyndhurst. — If facts were proved that were irrelevant to the issue, of course they ought to be rejected. Mr Attorney-General. — They ought to be rejected ; and I say I deny that it was established that Lady Hewley was a Trinitarian.. But I will assume, for the sake of argument, that it was proved most dis- tinctly that she was a Trinitarian. Lord Wynford. — You cannot deny that there was very strong evidence that she was a Trinitarian. Mr Attorney-General. — There is evidence both ways. The very recommendation of Bowles's Catechism, in which the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught, is some evidence to shew that she was not a Trini- tarian. Lord Lyndhurst. — The evidence of her being a Trinitarian was received without objection. The next question will be, whether the conclusion from the evidence that she was a Trinitarian was correct ; and if it was correct, then, what application that has to the question in issue 1* Mr Attorney-General. — As to Lady Hewley being a Trinitarian, I say there was some evidence to show that she was not a Trinitarian, and that is her preference of Bowles's Catechism : for the Catechism that was chiefly in vogue among Dissenters then, was the Catechism I was first taught, that is, the Shorter Catechism of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, which is certainly a most beautiful compendium of Calvinistic divinity. Lord Brougham. — But Trinitarian. Mr Attorney-General. — Decidedly. There is a question, 'How * The remainder of this quotation, though it does not relate to the point we have been remarking on is given to exemplify the nature of the hearing in the Lords, see p. 324. 327 many persons are there in the Godhead?' I dare say the noble and learned lord is well acquainted with the answer to the question. Bishop of London. — You admit that it is Calvinistic. Mr Attorney-General.— Yes, I think that in Bowles's Catechism, the doctrine of Original Sin is taught, and the doctrine of the Atone- ment but not the Trinity. Bishop of London. — You said Calvinistic. Do not the points usually called Calvinistic imply a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity 1 Mr Attorney-General. — I would not venture to enter for a moment into a discussion of such a point with your lordship. Bishop of London. — It is notorious that it does. The defendants to the information were, if it were only by their own practice of confining the charity to Dissenters, obliged to admit that the godly preachers of the deed of 1 704 were Non- conformists, and this could be shewn only by reference to the usage of the words in Lady Hewley's time, and having done so they could not prevent Equity Judges from holding that the meaning of the remaining part of the same phrase of " Christ's Holy Gospel" should be ascertained in the same manner. They accordingly reserved their objection to the evidence on the latter point until the court of final appeal, giving the Equity Judges no opportunity of overruling it, so that not having the weight of their authority against it, it might go before the Common Law Judges with a fair chance of success, from their strict notions as to the construction of deeds. But even previously to the result it was easy to see that an objection which went to shut out the merits of the case, after those merits had been so fully shewn in the court below, must fail in the House of Lords, and the clever stratagem did not avail. It may be doubted whether it would have been practised, had it not been trusted that the old hatred of Calvinistic and Evangelical opinions would be evoked in the Lords spiritual and temporal, and that they would seize the excuse presented by this objection for saying that the trust was too Vague, and the discretion given to the trustees too unrestricted, to warrant them in departing from so long a usage as was admitted by the relators. It would only be with this view that although the doctrines of the Trinity and Original Sin are the only ones insisted on in the information (and insisted on there because taught in Mr Bowles's Catechism) are held by all evan- gelical Arminians; yet in the defendants' answers and the speeches of their counsel Calvinism is assailed as much as Unita- 328 rianism is defended, aiid the contest is represented as between these systems. They might well trust to the hold which Pela- gianism has on the high places of Church and state in England, though of course we cannot expect any confession of a heresy branded of old. The following dialogue, taken from the report of Mr Rolfe's argument before Lord Lyndhurst, illustrates the subject very well : Mr Rolfe. — Arininianism if I understand it, is a sort of approach to Unitarianism. Mr Baron Alderson. — You cannot raise so difficult a question as that here. Mr Rolfe. — Let me explain what I mean : the extreme on the one side will be Calvinism, and the extreme on the other will be Uni- tarianism. The Lord Chancellor. — They were the ultras. Mr Rolfe. — Yes, my lord. There is Calvinism and Unitarianism. All 1 mean to say of Arminianism is, I do not mean to speak in its praise or dispraise, but it is something that comes between the two. Mr Baron Alderson. — Something in the right. Mr Rolfe. — I have heard divines say, speaking of the thirty-nine articles, that you may see in them the endeavour to reconcile the Arminian party in the church and the Calvinistic party in the church. Mr Knight. — Certainly. Mr Rolfe. — That is what I mean ; it is not an ultra opinion. The Lord Chancellor. — It is still so in the church. Mr Rolfe. — Yes, my lord. — I am not imputing Arminian errors to) the church, but it has been said there existed Arminian principles. The Lord Chancellor. — Propensities rather than principles.* That this attack on Calvinism was wisely done will be apparent when we see how Lord St. Leonards, when Lord Chancellor, refused to give judgment for Calvinistic relators, while he inti- mated that his opinion was in their favour, and all the law lords practised to prevent men of like opinions from taking any great benefit by the affirmation of the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor, which could not be resisted. The counsel for the appellants were the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, and Mr Booth. Those for the respondents, Mr Knight Bruce, Mr Kindersley, and Mr Romiliy. Sir John Campbell had, with his accustomed labour, made * On the other hand the Bishop of London in the House of Lords, as we have seen, testified of Calvinism that its very essence is orthodox in the main point of Christianity. 329 himself thoroughly master of the case and, though a common Lawyer, contended on perfectly equally ground with the counsel from the Court of Chancery, who had, been in the case on previous hearings, and displayed all the care, discretion, and ingenuity which had made him Attorney- General, in spite of a poverty of language and an unpleasant delivery which detracted much from the force of what he said. The son of a dull clergy- man of the Kirk adhering to the moderate party, and whose sermons would therefore be the exact counterparts of those de- livered in Socinian pulpits, he showed great virulence against the relators, (Independents and Evangelicals,) and entered con amore into every latitudinarian argument which he used, though all the while protesting his own orthodoxy.* One passage, at the commencement of his reply, must be quoted to shew the ground which he took : Who are the relators 1 They are five gentlemen, of the lay per- suasion, (sic) belonging to a Christian sect which Lady Hewley viewed with Christian charity, and would have been willing to assist, as she would have been willing to assist every denomination of Protestant Dissenters that the law tolerated ; but the Independents are a sect which, in the early part and in the middle part of the seventeenth cen- tury,t the Presbyterians looked upon with abhorrence. The Indepen- dent system was with them the abhorred thing, and they would as soon have communicated with Papists as with Independents. What would have been the opinion of those divines who met at Westminster in 1643 of the Independents, who say there is no church, that every congregation is a church of itself, who deny any hierarchy or any subordination to church government or cburch discipline 1 Why, my lords, the Presby- terians dislike Popery, they dislike Prelacy, and they dislike the Inde- * With all Sir John's caution he made one very damaging slip in interrupting Mr Knight Bruce when quoting a passage from Mr Baxter containing the expression " apos- tate infidels," (or Socinians). " My learned Mend will have no objection to my reading from the top of the same page respecting Arians '! 'I am against all sects and dividing parties ; if the name of Christian be not enough call me a Catholic Christian.' He speaks in these terms of the dangerous heresy of Arius, (that Christ was a super-angelical perfect spirit by which God made all the rest of the creatures) : ' He that denieth the Deity of Christ denieth his essence, and he that denieth his essence denieth Christ, and is no Christian.' I merely read that to show that he treats Arians in the same manner as Unitarians." Mr Knight Bruce . " I am much obliged to my learned friend the Attorney-General for reading it. I do not know the exact motive, nor is it material. I am very glad your lordships have had the passage laid before you." [See p. 146, the passage is of itself sufficient to destroy every argument from Baxter adduced by the defendants.] t By confining himself to the truth here he deprives his argument of all force, and tacitly admits the point contended for in this volume, that by the end of the century the differences between the denominations no longer existed. 41 330 pendent system as much as Popery or Prelacy ; and if indeed it shall turn out that none are entitled to participate in this charity except those who maintain the same opinions with Lady Hewley, it is quite clear that the Independents can have no portion in her bounty ; and it must come to that if that indeed were to be the construction which your lordships, with the assistance of my lords the Judges, should put upon the deed, and it were to turn out that in the present day there is no sect and no individual perhaps entertaining the opinions exactly of Lady Hewley ; the result would be what was pointed out by a noble and learned lord, when sitting as a judge in this case, that the relators had better be upon their guard, and not grasp at too much, for the result may be that they are entitled to nothing, that the objects of this charity are exhausted, that there must either be an entirely new scheme, or that the property will belong to the Crown. My lords, the Independents are not of the religion of Lady Hewley, it is admitted they are not, and it is strange indeed to find them coming forward as relators, and saying that the defendants ought to be removed as trustees because they are not of the same opinions with Lady Hewley. My lords, I own it seems to me that these relators not only would have shown more Christian charity, but would have shown more prudence and discretion, if they had been content with the very, very large proportion they have hitherto enjoyed of Lady Hewley's bounty, because, by grasping at the whole, the whole may be lost to them. Sir Robert Monsey Rolfe was the counsel of the Socinians throughout this suit, as also upon the second information in the Wolverhampton case. Baron Parke praised his argument before the Lords, and it is said that Lord Brougham was so struck by that addressed to him that it gained Mr Rolfe the solicitor- generalship, and was consequently the foundation of his fortunes. Though descended from three generations of clergymen he is the great grandson of Dr. Monsey, a physician of very free opinions, and receiving his name after three descents, liberality of senti- ment would in some degree be hereditary with him. He was in every com*t a courteous and fair opponent.* * His independent spirit was shewn in the more genial atmosphere of the Court of Chancery, not only by his reference to Arminianism quoted p. 324, but by his repeating Dr. Johnson's opinion of the Assembly's Catechism, "as one of the most sublime works of the human understanding," and his reading all Calamy's account of Mr Bowles even the following. " Among other pliable souls who strangely increased and multiplied upon that sudden change (the act of uniformity) there was one Mr H , who, not long after his having begun to read the prayers was accidentally met by Mr Bowles, who accosted him in this manner : 'Well, brother H , how like you the Common Prayer?' 'Truly,' said Mr H , 'Its but dry stuff.' 'I always thought so,' said Mr Bowles, 'And I suppose that may be the reason why our vicars choral run to the alediouse as soon as they have done reading. ' " 331 t Mr Knight Bruce and Mr Kindersley both showed that the doc- trines they had to discuss had been the subject of previous medita- tion and personal interest, and they proved that the most sacred themes can be discussed before secular tribunals with all solemnity and reverence, and at the same time with all the freedom necessaiy in a court of judicature. The junior counsel on both sides, Mr Romilly and Mr Booth, showed themselves masters of their arts. How well the defendants were advised in the matter of evidence will be seen. Mr Knight Bruce's powers of sarcasm were called forth here and there by points or incidents in the cause, and he most humorously asserted his own representation of the Attorney- General (in opposition to Sir John Campbell, who supported the appeal against the decision in his own favour,) speaking of himself as Attor- ney-General in the spirit, while Sir John was Attorney- General in the flesh ; and on the latter becoming testy, apologising for him to the court as his estimable client who was unaccustomed to judicial proceedings. The only revenge that was open to Sir John was to praise Mr Kindersley's " temperate, mild, and Chris- tian spirit/' except some concluding observations* which he par- doned. The argument of the defendants having been stated (for the second time) in their own words at p. 203, complaint cannot be reasonably made that some passages from Mr Knight's speech are introduced here. Mr Knight Bruce having read the Rev. J. Grundy's examina- tion as to the instruction at Manchester college, the following remarks followed : * " My Lords, if it be the case, as the Attorney-General has said it is, that it is a new decision upon this question, and is determining, or will determine, the decisions in a great number of other charities similarly situated ; if it be the case that in a multitude of charities created by Nonconformists or Presbyterians with the intention of having them devoted to the propagation of Trinitarian worship or doctrines, these have been applied suddenly or imperceptibly and gradually to persons of a totally different way of thinking ; if, I say, that be the case, and this is a general question, and your lordships' decision will affect not ouly this but more cases, so far from thinking that the inference drawn by my learned friend should have any operation in deterring your lord- ships from affirming this decree it will be a reason why your lordships, as far as you can look at or make use of any such motive or feeling, it would be a double reason why your lordships should affirm, and be glad to affirm, this decree. You would be glad if you felt that this decision was not merely to restore to those for whom it was intended this £3000 or £4000 a year, or whatever is the amount of it, but would have the effect of taking from those who have usurped them, in a multitude of instances, funds which were intended by those who created them for persons of Trinitarian sentiments." 332 Lord Brougham. — I sirppose what Mr Grundy must have meanLto say, in his evidence as to the course of College education, when he says that there was no inculcation of any particular doctrines or tenets — Mr Walker having said that the Unitarian doctrine was sedulously inculca- ted ; — -what Mr Grundy meant must have been that, in so far as the fundamental rules of the college are concerned, there is no test required. Mr Knight Bruce. — I certainly should wish so to consider it. Lord Brougham. — They do not say that they subscribe Unitarian articles, but at the same time they do not mean to say that they do not teach Unitarian doctrines. Mr Knight Bruce. — I am anxious so to consider it, both with refer- ence to Mr Grundy and Mr Darbyshire, because really the proposition that there should be a theological tutor who does not inculcate any jjarticular views of theology, has something so inexpressibly absurd in it, at least to my apprehension, that I am really at a loss to know what it means. If lie had been the classical tutor, I could conceive that he might teach the students without inculcating any particular doctrines, to translate the Septuagint, or to translate the New Testament. He might mention various readings ; he might lay the editions of Griesbach, and Schleusner, and others before the student, leaving him to choose which he would ; but then he would be only the classical tutor. Unfortunately, Mr Kenrick is the classical tutor, Mr Hincks is the mathematical tutor, and Mr Wellbeloved is the theological tutor. Translation is not Ins business; it is interpretation as distinguished from translation which is the business of the theological tutor. What the theological tutor has to do there ; what the annual five guineas per student are paid for ; what the £200 a year is paid for — I am at a loss to conjecture. Therefore, I must suppose that Mr Wellbeloved's account of his mode of teaching theology given by him in his answer, must be understood in the mnnner which I was so much gratified to hear suggested by the noble and learned Baron who has just now addressed the House. My Lords, the passage I am now about to read is from one of Mr Wellbeloved's answers : " This defendent says that it (Manchester College) is an establishment " for the purpose, principally, of supplying the churches of that denomination with a succession of ministers, but not for the purpose of instruction in the peculiar doctrines of any sect. And this defendent saith, that no such instruction is given," — this is* the theological tutor, my Lords — "that no such instruction is given, but that the principle upon which the institution is established and conducted is, that every student shall be left to the free and unbiassed exercise of his own private judgment in matters of religious opinion." Bishop of London. — Where is that1? Mr Knight Bruce. — I am reading this from the appellant's appendix. 333 ..Bishop of London. — You ai'e not reading the letter.* Mr Knight Bruce. — No, my Lord, I do not understand how that letter and this answer could have come from the same person ; but then I have only a very ordinary; and limited understanding. [He then quoted a passage from Mr Well beloved's answer, p. 269.] Now my Lords, there is a great deal of very good advice, very well expressed, in what Mr Wellbeloved has hei-e stated; but then, except so much of this advice as relates to morals and mere discipline of the mind, it is just the very course of conduct which a theological tutor ought not to pursue, unless there is some mode of teaching theology which is quite foreign to my apprehension, and which my understanding is unable to embrace. Mr Wellbeloved here aptly describes the duties of a linguist and a critic ; but the duties of a linguist and a critic are one thing, and those of a theological tutor are another. What is theology 1 Unless theology means something beyond the abstract and general be- lief in the existence of a Supreme Being, which one supposes all man- kind, or neai'ly the whole of mankind to hold, it means nothing, unless it inculcates some particular form or mode of religious belief; and there- fore, as I have quite satisfied myself that Mr Wellbeloved meant to state what was not inaccurate, I profess my inability to comprehend what he has said. So much with regard to the evidence of the mode of teaching what is called theology in that college. * * * * As to the phrase 'godly preachers' he said : That which is godly in one sense is ungodly in another. That which is godly to Unitarians is ungodly to Christians. That which is godly to a Turk is ungodly to persons of a totally different persuasion. It is a term that includes an unavoidable and essential reference to the person who uses it, because it is a term that can only relate to his own opinions and to his own modes of thinking, as testified by his habits of acting ; and therefore it is one of those indefinite expressions (to borrow the language of Mr Baron Bayley) as to which there is not only a right to give evidence, but one the construction of which is really impossible without evidence. You are acting in the dark, just as if you had to expound a will in a foreign language without knowing it, until you ar- rive at the meaning which can only be derived from the habits and position of the person who uses it. There is in this case also the further circumstance, that beyond its essential reference to the habits and modes * This letter was a circular of Mr "Wellbeloved's to Sochiian ministers. " Reverend Sir, not doubting that you are convinced of the importance of preserving a succession of regularly educated ministers in our class of dissenters, I take the liberty, in compliance with an order of a general meeting <>f trustees, of requesting that you will recommend the support of the Institution now established at York in a sermon to your congre- gation, and permit a collection to be made for that purpose." 334 of thinking and speaking of the person who uses it, there is also the \ise of the word at a period of time considerably remote from our own, when there may have been, and in many instances undoubtedly was, a mode of speaking and a mode of expression with which we are not now familial*. The fashion in words, as well as in dress and in other matters, changes importantly. Words used in the best societies and by the best educated persons in the reign of Queen Anne are now either totally out of use or applied to subjects and matters essentially diffez*ent. In con- sidering, therefore, an instrument made a great number of years ago, we are not to limit ourselves to the consideration of what is the meaning of the term as at present used, but we are to consider what was the meaning of the term according to the ordinary use of language at the time when it was used. ****** Now, my Lords, T have already taken the liberty of calling your Lordship's attention to the true and accm'ate mode of accounting for all the passages that have been brought under your Lordships' attention from the various writers who have been cited upon the subject of toleration, communion, Christian forbearance and possible or probable communion : I have shown your Lordships, that all, or nearly all, of the variety of writers from whom those passages have been quoted, have agreed that there are some fundamental points upon which toleration is irreconcilable with the duties that Christians owe to their religion. Baxter in so many words divides heresies and differences of opinion into tolerable and intolerable, and in so many words ranks the denial of the Trinity among them which are intolerable. So with regard to varioifs other writers who have been mentioned ; they were desirous to sink minor differences, they were desirous that all disputes among themselves, as to matters of church discipline, matters of interpretation of particular phrases, which were consistent with a belief in Christianity as understood by them ; they were desirous that such matters should not lead to dis- union to a greater extent than that disunion had already existed. But not one phrase will be found in any one of the writings that liave been brought under your Lordships' attention extending that toleration to the denial of the Trinity. There has been passage after passage quoted by my learned friends who successively addressed your Lordships, and a great deal of general declai-ation of Christian charity, the necessity of forbearance, the desire for mutual communion, aiid so on, but not in one passage is there a phrase or an expression which can be tortured, when properly considered, into an approval or toleration of what is called Unitarianism. I cannot but complain of passages having been read by those who perfectly know what a different result and conclusion they were designed to encourage or promote. Passages I have read from the 835 same authors to a great extent, and others, who clearly show this opinion upon the point at issue, and the intolerable nature in their esti- mate of the doctrines of Unitarianism ; which shows that their discus- sions have proceeded on this common basis, that they were all considered and believed to be Christians, but upon points upon which a man could not think in a particular manner without ceasing to be a Christian, they were considered entirely out of the question, and as belonging to those who were common enemies. My Lords, something has been said in the argument of the necessity, or sufficiency I should rather say, (according to what is contended to be supposahle to be Lady Hewley's opinions), of belief in the Scriptures generally, stating the Scripture was believed to be true, was the ground of doctrine, and was the rule of life, and that that was all that Lady Hew- ley desired of those whose ministry she designed to encourage. My Lords, whatever we may think of the alleged mode of instruct- ing youth in religious principles of which Mr Wellbeloved speaks in his answers, and which I have brought under your Lordships' attention, vet such a mode of inculcating religion is obviously inconsistent with the notion of preaching. Did it ever occur to the mind of any man that preaching the gospel was merely reading the words of the sacred text, and advising them to be followed 1 We can understand, that upon points of morals, upon which there is a great difference of opinion as to the extent to which sermons should be treatises on morals, worthy and excellent people differ upon that point, some people thinking that the chief office of a sermon is matter of doctrine and faith, others thinking differently, but no doubt can exist that among the Nonconformists in general, and among those who approach nearest to their opinions upon such subjects, the nature and office of preaching is the expounding of the gospel and setting forth its doctrines and principles as they bear upon faith ; a notion which is utterly inconsistent with the mere reading of the gospel, or desiring it or inculcating it as to be believed, without stating in What manner or in what sense it is to be believed. It involves a palpable absurdity. Lady Hewley did not mean the reading of the Scriptures ; she has used the term ' preaching the gospel ' according to the universal acceptation, as preaching the doctrines of the gospel upon faith and also otherwise, but assuredly upon faith, and stating how that gospel is to be received and to be believed. A common expression, par- ticularly among persons belonging to that class and division of the Christian religion of which we are now discoursing, is that of preaching or not preaching the gospel : and the common sense in which that term is used imports approbation or disapprobation of the particular mode of receiving those tenets and doctrines upon points of faith which the par- ticular preacher does or does not recommend or prescribe. It is a necessity which is involved in the very expression, nor is it possible to conceive, as it seems to me, a greater absurdity than they would involve themselves in, who say that this person preaches the gospel according to Lady Hewley's meaning, who tells his congregation that they are to believe the gospel, but interprets it in any way that suits his own fancy. She was a Nonconformist, a great favourer of the ejected ministers ; she would have shrunk with horror from preaching Popery, and would she have less shrunk with horror from hearing a denial of the Divinity of the Lord and Saviour from the pulpit 1 It is quite plain it would have been in her ears not only a grievous offeuce, but a grievous crime, to which she could not have listened without involving herself in the charge of blasphemy, according to the views of all those in whose opinions she agreed, and upon which both sides agree she believed. To say, as it has been argued, that the mere reception of the Scriptures, without attention to the sense of the Scriptures, is sufficient, involves a clear absurdity. You must consider the preaching of the gospel and receiving the Scriptures in one sense, and it is agreed that that must be the Protestant sense. What ground is there for the reception of it in a Protestant sense, which does not go the length of saying it must be the reception of the Scriptures in the Trinitarian, that is, the Christian sense 1 * -x- -x- * * * # My Lords, I now proceed in the last place to allude to a matter of very minor and very inferior importance, but upon which I ask your Lordships to do justice, the expenses of this appeal. Are you to throw them upon the respondents 1 Are you to throw them upon the charity, or upon those who have prosecuted this appeal, after two decisions against them 1 My Lords, upon the main question there are those among the appellants who could not be ignorant. My Lords, I am not imputing to all these appellants depth of theological learning, or depth of historical or legal research ; but I do impute to some of them, not to Mr Wellbeloved only, but to him in particular, full and accurate knowledge of the history of the Nonconformists, during the latter years of the seventeenth and the earlier years of the eighteenth century. Mr Wellbeloved, an able and instructed and learned person, could not have been ignorant of what their opinions and doctrines were ; he could not have been ignorant what the views and feelings of Lady Hewley were ; he has not, therefore, that apology which an ignorant and uninformed trustee would have. I make the same observation with regard to Mr Heywood, one of the appellants, who appears to be a gentleman of station and consideration, educated, I think, at the University of Cambridge, as he tells us ; and there are others among them to whom perhaps the same observation 337 would apply : they cannot have erred iguorantly ; they may have sup- posed Lady Hewley wrong ; they may have considered Bates, Owen, Baxter, and Colton, the gi'eat men of those days, and entertaining those particular opinions, they may have considered them mistaken ; but they could not have erred as to what their opinions were. They could not have been ignorant of this, that the foundress of this charity must have held TTnitarianism in abhorrence. With that knowledge, for upon that I insist, and I insist mainly and strongly, with that knowledge, with historical information upon the whole subject, with theological informa- tion, no doubt, of the most accurate and extensive kind upon the whole subject, what have those gentlemen for years been doing? They have been applying to purposes wholly at variance with and wholly opposed to those for which they must have known this charity was founded, the property left by Lady Hewley in the manner I have mentioned, and as to which they had received the sacred character of trustees. If they had desired to participate in the profits of this charity, why did they not institute an adverse suit 1 Why did they not exhibit a proper feeling, keeping themselves out of the trust ? That they might have done, and they might have claimed the benefit adversely, fairly, and without impu- tation ; but being, as I say they are fixed with being, men of learning, men of historical knowledge, men of research, they intrude themselves into this charity to get appointed to the sacred and confidential office of guardians of the revenues of this pious lady, for the purpose and with the intent of misapplying them, in using them in a manner which she would have detested and abhorred, and which in my humble judgment is a course of conduct not to be heard of without reprobation. I speak not of the claim, I speak not of the assertion of right, but I speak of the entrance into this trusteeship, not undertaking the sacred and confiden- tial duties that belong to this office, but the predetermined resolution to act in direct contravention of it My Lords, the large income, large with reference to this charity and the amount of the objects of it, the large income which for }Tears the trustees have applied to Unitarian purposes, were the money of poor ministers of another persuasion, were the money of their orphans to be educated for the ministry, and of their widows left in destitution. My Lords, I am willing to believe that those who have knowingly, deliberately and advisedly pursued that course of conduct, have not fully viewed the consequences of what they were doing and the treachery involved in their proceedings ; I am willing to believe that ; but if they have acted with a knowledge of the conse- quences of what they were doing, with a full consideration of the treachery on which they were embarking, being trustees who had under- taken an important trust ; if they have done that, I should say there are none who have ever exposed themselves so fully to the scriptural denun- 42 338 ciation, entering the field of the fatherless and devouring the house of the widow. Six questions were put to the Judges. The first question was "whether the extrinsic evidence adduced in this cause, or what part of it, is admissible for the purpose of determining who are entitled, under the term Godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel, and the other descriptions contained in the deeds of 1704 and 1707, to the benefit of Lady Hewley's bounty." Mr Justice Maulk. — If the most perfect certainty could be obtained with regard to Lady Hewley's belief on the point in question it ought not as it appears to me to influence the construction to be put on language in which she makes no reference to her own opinions or belief. It may perhaps be reasonably conjectured that a person founding a charity may hope and intend that its benefits may be enjoyed by persons of a like faith with the founder ; but if this conjecture be assumed to be well founded it does not follow that the evidence in question should be admitted. An express reference to her own religious belief was probably avoided on account of the great inconvenience and uncertainty to which it would lead ; and the same inconvenience would arise if such a refer- ence should be implied, which it must in effect be if the belief of Lady Hewley be considered as material. If her desire were that persons of like belief with herself should be benefitted, the mode which she adopted to secure or promote that object was probably that of naming trustees whose faith conformed to her own, and providing for a succession of them in a way as little likely as might be to introduce successors of different sentiments ; and though this may have failed, I think it was deliberately preferred by those who prepared the deeds to the other mode of leaving it to the Court of Chancery for the time being to determine whose faith approached nearest to that of Lady Hewley. Being of opinion that the belief of the foundress was immaterial to the purpose mentioned in the qiiestion, it follows that by whatever means of proof the nature of her belief were shewn, the evidence would, in my opinion, be inadmissible. But even if the belief of this lady were the proper subject of evidence, much, if not all, of the evidence adduced ought not to be admitted as not being fit for the purpose of proving it ; for example the extracts from Lady Hewley's will, and from Dr. Cotton's will and from his funeral sermon would not, us it appears to me, be legi- timate means of proving what was Lady Hewley's belief in a cause in which that question was properly raised. The other class of evidence adduced for the purpose mentioned in the first question, is the evidence of the opinions of persons describing themselves as conversant with the history and language of the time when 339 the deeds were executed. It may be admitted that this description of knowledge is viseful to those who have to construe written instruments, whether ancient or modern ; a deed or an act of parliament, or any other written instrument, whether a year old or a hundred or more years old, is more likely to be accurately construed by those who are conversant with the history, language, and manners of the time, than by those who are uninformed in this respect. But it does not follow that evidence such as that in cpiestion ought to be admitted ; on the contrary, the reason of the rule of law that written instruments are to be construed by the court and not by the jury, probably is, that this kind of know- ledge was supposed to be more likely to be found in the court than in the jury. If the evidence in question were admissible it would follow that in a court of Common Law the construction of deeds would be left to the jury When the meaning of the words of a written instrument in the English language is the subject of controversy, histo- rical and other works may with propriety be referred to in the argument addressed by the bar to the court, as is constantly pi-actised, and as was done largely in the present case. In this way the court judging for itself of the weight of the authority cited, is as likely to arrive at a just conclusion as it would be by the assistance of witnesses, though they should respectively depose each of them to his own knowledge of history and theology. The cases in which evidence has been admitted to show the sense in which words are used in a particular trade, or in a particu- lar part of the country, are not inconsistent with this doctrine. It may be reasonable to presume in the court a general acquaintance with the sense of words so far as it is to be gathered from the history of the country and its language, and yet to suppose that evidence is necessary to show in what sense a word is used in a particular trade or a limited district ; as a general acquaintance of the law of the land is presumed in the court, while the bye-laws of corporations and local customs are the subject of averment and evidence. If the evidence now under con- sideration be admissible it must be on a ground on which we ought to admit witnesses to depose to their opinion as to the meaning of any writing whatever, provided they would introduce their testimony by de- posing that they had studied the English language, and were conversant with the construction of written instruments. Mr Justice Erskine. — I take first the words 'preachers of Christ's holy gospel.' The plain and obvious meaning of these words now, would be men who teach and explain the doctrines, facts, and precepts revealed in the Holy Scriptures with reference to man's redemption. This holy gospel, then, as the revelation of an omniscient and unchangeable God, must always have been the same ; and if the Holy Scriptures, like ordinary human writings, were to be subjected to the ordinary rules of 340 construction, it would be for your lordships judicially to declare what were the facts and doctrines that constituted the substance of the gospel, and to declare that those who preach such doctrines, and those only, were to be considered as the objects of this part of Lady Hewley's trust. But as we are taught by the Holy Scriptures themselves that they can- not be properly undei\stood, but through the teaching of the same Spirit by whose inspiration they were revealed, and as much diiference of opinion on many points, and some conflicting judgment upon all, has always been found to exist in the church, we are compelled to look for some legal principle upon which Lady Hewley's meaning in using the words 'Christ's holy gospel' may be ascertained, without violating on the one hand, the ordinary rules of construction by the admission of evidence as to her own religious opinions, or assuming, on the other hand, for the Temporal Courts, the power of deciding questions of religious contro- versy. The true test of the meaning of these words ' Christ's holy gospel' therefore appears to me to be that which I have pointed at in my general remarks ; the sense in which these words were generally used and understood in England at the date of the deed under examina- tion ; and that neither Lady Hewley's own opinions nor the opinions of the sect to which she belonged, can be resorted to, unless it should appear that the words at that time were susceptible of a double construc- tion, either being equally applicable, and yet so inconsistent with each other as to render the adoption of them both impossible or irra- tional I humbly submit that it is for your lordships, by reference to history, to the public writings of known contem- porary authors upon the subject, to ascertain and to decide what doctrines were, at the period in question, generally received and under- stood as the essential and fundamental doctrines of the Gospel of Christ. If indeed the result of that inquiry should leave your lordships' minds in doubt whether, in reference to the questions to be decided in this cause, there did [not] exist at the period in question any general understanding in the Christian Church as to the essential doctrines of the gospel, and your lordships should thus find yourselves at a loss for a clue to the meaning of those words in Lady Hewley's deed ; if your lordships should further find one class of professing Christians propounding certain doc- trines and facts, as forming the foundation and essence of the gospel revealed by the Scriptures, and another class denying that any such doctrines or facts were revealed in the Bible, and that those conflicting opinions were respectively adopted by such equal proportions of the Christian Church as to render it difficult to say that the gospel of Christ even as to essential points had any definite meaning generally acknow- ledged at that time, in such a case indeed inasmuch as it would be im- possible to suppose that Lady Hewley (whose obvious intention it was 341 to promote the spiritual welfare of others by the propagation of that faith by which alone they could be saved), could have been indifferent about the doctrines to be taught, or could have meant that opinions so opposite upon the essential truths to be believed, should equally form the objects of her trust, it would become necessary, and in that case allowable, to inquire to which of these two classes Lady Hewley herself belonged. Mr Justice Coleridge. — In proportion as we are removed from the period in which an author writes, we become less certain of the meaning of the words he uses ; we are not sure that at that period the primary meaning of the words was the same as now, but by the primary is not meant the etymological, but that which the ordinary usage of so- ciety affixes to it. We are also equally uncertain whether at that period the words did not bear a technical or conventional sense ; and whethci they were not so used by the writer When therefore we are called on to construe deeds of the years 1704 and 1707, it seems to me that we are not only at liberty, but are bound, to enquire what at that time was the meaning of the phrases used in them, not taking for granted, because they bear a certain clear meaning now that they did so then, and we are also I conceive bound to enquire whether at that time they bore any technical or scientific sense ; and if so we must judge from the context, whether in the particular instance they were used in that sense. The rules of evidence must expand with the necessities of the case, or the end for which they are established would be sacrificed to the means ; and accordingly it is well known that in what is mat- ter of history, and relates to the public at large, a class of evidence has always been admitted such as histories and chronicles which would not be received in an issue upon a matter of private right Evidence indeed of this description was read in great abundance on the hearing of this appeal by the appellants as well as the respondents, irregularly of course (and it may be taken to have been by consent), as to the time of its introduction, but not objected to, 1 believe, as inadmissible in itself. The struggle, indeed, was made upon the evidence applicable to Lady Hewley herself; and I fully concede that if it were offered for the purpose of introducing words of exclusion, or any words into the deeds not already there, or to raise an inference of intention not expressed, it could not properly have been admitted. But your lordships' question does not suppose any such pur- pose, and merely to prove that Lady Hewley was one of the class by whom the debated words were commonly used in a certain secondary mean- ing, all her acts bearing on that subject matter appear to me properly proveable. Under these I include, or rather they will introduce, the 342 places of worship she frequented, the divines she followed, or with whom she was in habits of friendship, the conditions she imposed expressly on the objects of her bounty ; and these will make evidence indirectly of what discloses the nature of those places of worship, the opinions of those divines, their works, and history. It may be that this opens an inconveniently wide range of inquiry ; but if the fact sought to be proved is strictly conducive to the proof of the fact in issue in the cause, the objection of irrelevancy does not arise, merely because it is not itself the fact in issue. The extent of the inquiry grows out of the nature of the matter to be inquired into. Viewed in the light in which I view this evidence, as well that which more directly applies to Lady Hewley herself, as that which relates to her friends and advisers, the objection as to time does not seem to me properly to arise. It is said for example, how can you ex- pound a deed of the year 1704 by a deed of the same party in 1707 1 How does an intent, expressed ever so clearly, in 1707 conduce to prove an intent existing, but unexpressed, in 1704 ? My answer is (just observing that if the interval of time were very much shorter I should think the objection of equal force, unless I could make the two deeds parts of one identical transaction) that the deed of 1707 is not used to introduce anything into the deed of 1704 not already written there ; but that, in order to understand the language of the deed of 1704, I am seeking to show that Lady Hewley was one of a large class by whom certain words used in that deed were commonly used in a particu- lar sense ; the words by the hypothesis being capable of that meaning. Now in order to show her of that class in 1704 it would be unreasonable to limit my proof to the precise day, month, or year of the execution ; there is a presumption of consistency of opinion on serious, especially reli- gious questions. . . . On the piinciples I have laid down, it seems to me that such particulars in the evidence as the will of Sir John Hewley or the funeral sermon by Dr. Colton were, in strictness, admis- sible, not as declarations by them either of what Lady Hewley was or they were, but as acts done by them showing what they were with whom she lived in most confidence, and her belonging to whose class of reli- gionists may fairly be presumed. ... Of course I must be under- stood as speaking of the evidence in classes, and in its more important details. I do not undertake to say there may not be some unimportant particulars, in the large mass received without objection, that may not fall in with the principles on which I think the general body admissible. I may mention as instances, such sentences as are to be found here and there in the depositions of witnesses speaking merely of belief founded on tradition and report of the Trinitarian opinions of Lady Hewley ; these do not go to the proof of either of the propositions on which this 343 case stands, in my judgment, and are objectionable therefore as irrele- vant, and also as to the foundation on which they stand. Mr Justice Williams.'"' — The very extent to which the words 'pious and godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel,' by the supposed and alleged obvious meaning, may, or 1 ought rather to say, must be carried, raises a doubt in my mind whether that could have been the meaning of Lady Hewley, which meaning' I assume it to be clear it is the object to pursue. The very generality of the language in this case creates the embarrassment and the necessity of limitation. If the words raising the question are to be taken in their ordinary sense, what is there to hinder an ample selection being made then or now from members of the Church of England fulfilling in every particular the prescribed requisites % Why not from amongst priests of the Roman Catholic persuasion 1 Is it to be doubted that from amongst the latter a selection might be made of ' poor and godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel1?' And yet in the judgment of four judges (two of Equity and two of the Common Law), these words have received such an interpretation that in their opinion members of the Church of England are excluded, and in the argument of this case at the bar by the learned counsel (now a member of your Lordships' House) an opinion to the same effect was distinctly expressed. ' The will of the founder is the thing to be ascertained, that I assume throughout to be without dispute ; and in an endeavour to arrive at that, the meaning of particular expressions not generally or in the abstract, but the meaning of those expressions as used in the deed of foundation, is the proper subject of inquiry, in what sense she (the foundress) used them ; and upon this point (ascertaining the meaning of a deed) the circumstances of the party making it at that time (the time of making) are admissible generally ; and in this particular case the reason why I consider the extrinsic evidence admissible at all is that it has a tendency to show the status (if I may be allowed the expression) of Lady Hewley as to religious opinions, and therefrom to lead to some inference (no matter whether more or less, that regards only the effects) as to the sense in which she employed the words which I have already said are in my opinion indefinite and ambiguous. That status (if so it may be called) is in truth a matter of fact to be determined, like any other, by evidence applicable to it, evidence varying of course in each case according to the nature of the fact to be established, but still a matter of evidence. Mr Baron Curnfa\ — Although the term 'godly' is too plain to be misunderstood, for we have only to have recourse to our Bible and our Prayer Book to shew in what sense it is used ; yet the phraseology em- ployed in describing the first and principal object of the founder's bounty * Sir John Williams, celebrated for his Greek epigrams. 344 'poor and godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel' appears to uie not to be at the present time in that general use which enables the reader of the deed to ascertain with precision the sense and meaning of the foun- der (except as it may be collected from the state of the law at that time, which is another consideration.) If the founder was connected with a religious party, by which this phraseology was employed in a certain sense, I think that it is admissible to incpxire what was that party, and in what sense they used this phraseology, and if it can be ascertained in what particular sense the term 'godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel' was used, that may assist in ascertaining the meaning of the term 'godly' in other parts of the deeds. Mr Baron Parke.— Before I answer the first of your lordships' questions I wish to premise that I conceive it to be perfectly clear that in determining who are entitled to the benefit of a charity by virtue of a deed or will, precisely the same rules are to be followed as to the admission of extrinsic evidence as in construing any other deed or will. The intent of the founder is to be ascertained from the meaning of the words in the instrument of foundation alone, with the aid of such extrinsic evidence as the law permits to be used in order to enable a court to discover the meaning of the terms of any written instrument, and to apply them to the facts. Whether the instrument constitutes a trust for charitable purposes, and those either of a religious nature or not, or is executed for some private object of the parties to the deeds, the extrinsic evidence admitted in order to construe it must be subject to the same rules and confined within the same limits. This being assumed as a matter which cannot be controverted, I apprehend that there are two descriptions of evidence (the only two which bear upon the subject of the present inquiry), and which are clearly admissible in every case for the purpose of enabling a court to construe any written instrument, and to apply it practically In the first place there is no doubt that not only where the language of the instrument is such as the court does not understand, it is competent to receive evidence of the proper meaning of that language as when it is written in a foreign language ; but it is also competent where technical words or peculiar terms, or indeed any expressions are used which at the time the instrument was written had acquired an appropriate meaning either generally or by local usage or amongst particular classes. This description of evidence is admissi- ble in order to enable the court to undei'stand the meaning of the words contained in the instrument itself by themselves, and without reference to the extrinsic facts on which the instrument is intended to operate. For the purpose of applying the instrument to the facts, and determining what passes by it, and who take an interest under it, a second description of evidence is admissible, viz., every material fact that 345 will enable the court to identify the person or tiling mentioned in the instrument, and to place the court, whose province it is to declare the meaning of the words of the instrument, as near as may be in the situa- tion of the parties to it Evidence was therefore admissible that amongst Protestant Dissenters, or a peculiar sect of them, or gene- rally amongst all persons at that time, these words, though of a general nature, were applicable prima facie to all poor and godly preachers of ( 'hrist's holy gospel ; and of course, including ministers of the Established Church, had acquired a more limited meaning and were confined to a cer- tain description only of such preachers, and supposing it to have been proved that a particular class had always used and understood these words in a restricted sense, it would have been unquestionably permitted to prove that Lady Hewley belonged to that class. When the appropriate mean- ing of these expressions has been established by competent evidence then the deed is to be read as if the equivalent expressions were substituted, and no further evidence of the peculiar sect or religious opinions, or any other circumstance attending the parties to the deed, is admissible to control or limit their meaning. Such evidence is not in my judgment material to enable the court to construe the deed within the meaning of the second rule. If it had been established by conclusive evidence, or from other legitimate sources that the words, godly preachers, had meant Protes- tant Dissenting ministers, no parole declaration of Lady Hewley that she intended only a particular class or sect, or individuals with particular opinions, would have been admissible ; nor could evidences of her con- duct, character, habits or opinions, have been received to raise an inference of such intention. The deed must speak for itself, no matter what she intended to have done, even though it should be proved from her own mouth ; still less what it may be supposed she would have wished to have dona The sole question is, what is the meaning of the words in the deed 1 and if these of themselves, or with the aid of evidence of a peculiar signification attached by usage, mean all of a certain class ; for instance, all such Protestant Dissenting ministers as the trustees should from time to time select, it matters not that her own religious opinions would make such a disposition unlikely, it is a case of quod volice non dixit. I must own I much doubt whether any of the evidence offered in the case to explain the meaning of the general words used was admissible. The sermon of Dr. Colton and the will of Sir John Hewley were clearly inadmissible to prove the religious opinions of Lady Hewley, and the parole testimony of Dr. Pye Smith, Dr. Bennett, and Mr Walker, to the 17th interrogatory which they founded upon their acquaintance with various publications of that day, I hardly think can range itself within the class of cases in which the opinion of men of science or skill is admitted on a question of 43 346 science or art. But this inquiry would not be very material if from the above-mentioned sources of information, which are equally open to the court as to the witnesses, it appeared that the general terms 'godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel' had acquired a peculiar meaning when used by Protestant Dissenters. I am inclined to think that it does so appear, and that these words used by Dissenters do not comprise mem- bers of the Church of England, and if so, I am of opinion that evidence of Lady Hewley being a Protestant Dissenter was properly admitted, though some of it was not of an admissible character, but not the evi- dence offered for the purpose of shewing that she was a Trinitarian Dissenter. Lord Chief Justice Tindal. — I conceive when a doubt has been once raised as to the meaning of words that is in the present case as to the persons intended by Lady Hewley under the terms 'godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel,' 'godly persons,' and the other expressions, the court by which that doubt is to be decided has a right to inform itself, and is bound, if possible, to learn what was the acknowledged and received sense and meaning which those expressions bore at the time when Lady Hewley lived, and as near as may be at the time of the execution of those deeds ; and for that purpose that all extrinsic evidence calculated to throw light upon the meaning of those words at that time is clearly admissible. Of that description are public records and documents throwing light upon the religious history of the times ; the language of the statute books and every enactment relating to the state and condi- tion of the church, and of the religious sects then known in England ; contemporary history ; contemporaiy treatises and tracts upon the reli- gious tenets held by the different sects ; the works of men of acknow- ledged eminence and weight in their respective persuasions, and pub- lished and circulated at that period ; and the early and contemporaneous application of the funds of the charity itself by the original trustees under the deeds. All extrinsic evidence of this nature which must be considered, both from the arguments of counsel at your lordships' bar, and from the reference made thereto in their judgments by the learned judges in the court below, to have been actually applied in the determi- nation of the case, though not formally tendered, was strictly and pro- perly admissible for the purpose of explaining the sense in which the language contained in the deeds was used at the time, and in whiclrit is now to be construed. But as the evidence which I have just described is evidence which is presumed to be in the mind of the Judge or court, it is evidence which they furnish to themselves by reading, research, and reflection, not that which they receive from the mouths of witnesses ; and on this account I think all the extrinsic evidence which was actually given in the cause for the purpose of determining who were entitled 347 under the term 'godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel' and the other expressions used in the deeds, was inadmissible. Such, lor instance, as the evidence of Dr. Pye Smith and Dr. Bennett, as to the religious opinions of the Presbyterians and of other Protestant Dissenters in the time of Lady Hewley ; their interpretation of the terms used in the deeds, and their evidence of the religious opinions of Lady Hewley herself. The produc- tion also of the will of Sir John Hewley and of Lady Hewley, in proot of the private religious opinions of Lady Hewley, appears to me, botli in respect to the point to which they were produced, and to the character of the evidence itself, not admissible by law. It is unnecessary, how- ever, to specify each particular article of the evidence produced, after having traced out the genei-al nature of the evidence on which alone I think the construction of the deeds ought to depend. The state of the case thus seems to be that Justices Maule and Erskine, Baron Parke and Lord Chief Justice Tindal, were against the reception of any evidence as to Lady Hewley's private opinions, and of evidence from living witnesses as to the opinions of the old Presbyterians. All the judges except Justice Maule thought that the books of Lady Hewley's day might be consulted to show the meaning attached by her party to the expressions which she used in her will. Justices Williams, Coleridge, and Gurney seem to consider all the evidence admissible, but Justice Coleridge hesitated whether any special meaning of the words was made out. The third question was "Whether in putting a construction upon the deed of 1704 any, and which, of the provisions of the deed of 1707 may be referred to." Justices Maule and Erskine, Baron Parke and Chief Justice Tindal thought that the deed of 1707 could not be referred to in determining the meaning of the deed of 1704. Justice Coleridge thought it went to show the class of religionists to which Lady Hewley belonged. Justice Williams seems to have thought the deed of 1707 might be referred to in order to ascertain Lady Hewley's opinions as any other evidence might. Baron Gurney thought the deeds might be considered as one transaction. The second question was, " If such evidence be admissible, what description of ministers, congregations, and poor persons, are proper objects of the trusts of those deeds respectively." Mr Justice Erskine thought that members of the Church of England were included in each description of the objects of Lady Hewley's trusts. All the other judges thought that the preachers 3*8 and the husbands of the widows must be Protestant Dissenters. Justice Coleridge, Mr Justice Williams, Baron Gurney, and Chief Justice Tindal thought Protestant Dissenters only were fit objects of any part of the charity, but Mr Justice Coleridge saw no absolute necessity for that restriction as to the almswomen. Baron Pai-ke thought the charity, except as to the almshouses, was con- fined to Dissenters, but that anyone was admissible as an alms- person who believed the doctrines of the creed and Mr Bowles's Catechism. Mr Justice Maule. — If the Established Church were spoken of or intended to be comprehended, it would have been expressly mentioned, or some word appropriate to the Establishment, such as 'clergymen/ ' priests,' ' students for holy orders,' or the like, which lay in the way of the trainers of the deeds would have been used. It is true that clergy- men of the Church of England may and do preach the gospel, but that is not their sole or most distinguishing function ; and when preachers of the gospel are spoken of as a class the clergy conforming to the Established Church are not, according to the ordinary use of language, comprehended. I do not lay any stress upon the term 'godly' in excluding the Church of England, being of opinion that the word is used in these deeds in the sense which belongs to it in the translation of the Bible, and in which it is used in common discourse now, and has been for centu- ries, a sense in which it is pretty nearly equivalent to the word ' religious.' A.s to certain classes applying the expressions to themselves, and having it applied as a term of reproach by others, it seems to me, not that this word was used in a different sense from what now belongs to it, but that those classes believed or desired it to be thought that they possessed the quality at that time and now signified by this word, and that their enemies used it in derision, by a very common fashion of speech calling those godly, who they meant to say made false pretences to be so. The trust for godly persons in distress being fit objects of Dame Sarah Hewley's and the trustees' and managers' charity seems to me to be intended to give the trustees in the administration of so much of her funds as remained after the special objects had been fulfilled, and which probably was expected to be very small, a discretion to apply it to the relief of all such distressed persons as should appear to them deserving, and to be worshippers of the true God, and not living in wilful neglect or defiance of his laws. I cannot bring myself to think that the terms ' being fit objects of the said Dame Sarah Hewley's and the trustees' and managers' charity' were meant as a restriction referring to the sect to which the godly distressed persons were to belong. It seems to me that it is a charitable and a true construction to understand these words as 319 referring to fitness with respect to the nature, cause, and amount of the distress of the parties. Mr Justice Erskine. — It has been supposed that the word ' godly ' was intended by Lady Hewley to limit the selection of her trustees to preachers dissenting from the Church of England, because it is said that in Lady Hewley's time the word 'godly' had acquired that limited sense. If it could be shown that the word had been generally so used and understood, I should have acquiesced in the conclusion suggested ; but the word is in itself plain and intelligible, and we learn from our translation of the Bible, by the liturgy of the Church of England, by the writings of learned and pious men of every religious persuasion, that it has always borne the same general signification which it now has ; and although it may be true that the words ' godly preachers ' were about the time in which Lady Hewley lived, and with which she was conversant, appropriated by those who dissented from the Church of England to their own ministers, yet even in this peculiar appropriation it was employed in its general and ordinary sense, and was intended to mark the contrast alleged to exist in fact in spiritual life and holy zeal, between those who preached within the church and those who preached without it. But it would in my opinion be contrary to the rules of sound legal interpretation to allow this partial application of a term to a particular class to strip it of the more comprehensive sense in which it was generally employed. In my opinion under the terms ' poor and godly preachers for the time being of Christ's holy gospel' all poor and holy men who at the time of their selection by the trustees, were actually preachers of the gospel as it was generally received and understood by English Protes- tants at the date of the deed, were proper objects of the first trust of that deed, whether they were conformists or non-conformists. I think the trustees were confined to select such preachers from amongst Protes- ttnts, because the language of the deed seems to be generally inapplicable to the clergy of the Roman Church, because the provision for the widows of such preachers points at a class of married clergy, and because there are tenets of the Roman Church incompatible with the doctrines then generally understood and received by Christians in England as constituting the gospel of Christ. I think the trusts were not confined to Nonconformists or Dissenters, because the terms employed were not inapplicable to poor and godly curates of the Church of England, although the term poor might seem to exclude a beneficed clergyman from all participation in the benefit of the trust, and because I do not find that the word 'godly' had then acquired a meaning exclusively applicable to Dissenters or Nonconformists. But I further think that whether evidence of the fact of Lady Hewley being a member of the 350 Presbyterian body and of the religious opinions of that class of Christians be admitted or not, the trustees were restrained by the terms of the deed from selecting any preacher who taught as part of the gospel of Christ any doctrines at variance with the doctrines then generally received and understood as fundamental and essential doctrines of the gospel, or who purposely or systematically suppressed in their preaching any of such fundamental and essential truths. Baron Gurney. — The term preachers is not one which is applied to clergymen of the Church of England. Another provision is for the preaching of Christ's holy gospel in such poor places as the trustees shall think fit. The provisions for the almspeople, who are to be nine poor widows or unmarried pei'sons of a certain age, and a tenth person who is to be a sober, discreet and pious poor person who may be fit to pray daily twice a day with the rest of the poor in the almshouse, if such a man can be conveniently found. There is no direction for any form of prayer, and I think it must be understood to speak of extempore prayers. The almspeople . . are to be such as can repeat . . not the Church Catechism, but the Catechism of Mr Edward Bowles. . . It is in evidence, and it is uncontradicted, that the terms 'godly ministers,' 'godly preachers,' and 'godly persons,' were in common use by Protes- tant Dissenters of that time as applied to their ministers and preachers, and members who were considered to be devoted to religion : there is no evidence that at that time this phraseology was employed to designate any other description of persons ; there is further evidence that Lady Hew- ley was a Protestant Dissenter, and E think that she must be considered as sincerely attached to the party of which she was a member. That she was zealously affected to religion itself is evident. Piety and bene- volence pervade the whole of the disposition of her deeds. Mr Baron Parke. — It appears to me that coupling the evidence which I have before stated to be admissible of Lady Hewley being a Protestant Dissenter and the usage since the time that the deed of 1704 came into operation, by which members of the Church of England have uniformly been excluded, the term godly preachers, &c, used by her, meant a class of persons not of the Church of England, and I infer this partly from the use of the term godly, partly from that of the word poor, which may have been used in the sense of unendowed, principally because the term preachers was not usually applied to the ministers of the Church of England, who had their liturgy and homilies, but rather to those who looked on preaching as the principal and the most effectual means of extending the influence of religion, I have no doubt also that ministers of the Roman Catholic faith were not included in that term. Protestant Dissenters, therefore, alone are the proper objects of the charity. 351 Lord Chief Justice Tindal. — The words indeed if taken separately and singly would undoubtedly in their literal meaning be large enough to comprehend all men of pious and godly habits of life, who preached the true doctrines of the holy gospel of whatever church or persuasion they might be, whether priests of the Church of Rome, or beneficed clergy of the Established Church in England, or dissenters from that church of every denomination, provided only they possessed the two requisites or conditions, viz., that they were men of godly habits of life, and preached the true gospel of Christ ; and the words themselves taken singly and separate- ly do not appear to have varied in any degree from their original meaning. But . . . the phrases above referred to had obtained generally in England, long before the date of the foundation deeds, a less extensive signification. The term godly had been originally applied by the Puritans to the preachers approved by them, and at the time of Lady Hewley had descended to those who at that time formed the body of nonconformist dissenters from the Established Church. Preachers again was a term which in Lady Hewley's time was affected by dissenters from the Esta- blished Church, who considered themselves rather as persons whose mission was to preach the gospel than to minister the ordinances and lead the devotion of the people, and indeed in the Act of Toleration these very persons are described as preachers and teachers. And lastly the word ' poor ' did in a most especial manner point at those for whom no public provision was made by the State, but who subsisted on the voluntary contributions of their respective flocks. I consider therefore at the time of the execution of these deeds, the phrase ' godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel' had acquired the new and particular sense of preachers of the different classes of Protestant dissenters from the Es- tablished Church, who professed and preached what were generally acknowledged at that time to be the doctrines of the Holy Gospel of Christ ; and who were then tolerated by the law of the land ; and which classes it is well known were at that time divided amongst themselves into the Presbyterians, the Independents or Congregationalists, and the Baptists, all of whom were believers in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The fourth question was, "whether upon the true construction of the deed of 1 704 ministers or preachers of what is commonly called Unitarian belief and doctrine, and their widows, and mem- bers of their congregations, and persons of what are commonly called Unitarian belief and doctrine, are excluded from being: objects of the charities of that deed/' The fifth question was the same as to the deed of 1707. Mr Justice Maule held that Unitarians came within the language 352 of the deed : all the other Judges held them not fit recipients of the charity. Mr Justice Maule. — It appears to me that if such exclusion, (of Unitarians), were intended, it would have been expressed, as it is in the Toleration Act, and that the reasons which have been suggested for implying it wholly fail. These reasons are principally that the terms ' godly ' and ' gospel ' were not applied to persons of the sentiments in question ; that at the time of the deeds it was unlawful, and liable to penalty, to preach such doctrines ; and chiefly that Unitarian doctrines are repugnant to the essence of Christianity, and consequently that those who hold them could not be comprehended within any charity for Christian purposes. But it seems to me that, without considering ex- treme cases which may be supposed, and speaking with respect to such sects and doctrines as usually occur in practice, all those may be said, and according to the common use of language are said, to preach the gospel who profess the name of Christ and preach a religion avowedly founded on the Scripture ; that ' godly ' is to be considered as having the sense mentioned in the answer to the second question. The circumstance of the preaching of these doctrines being unlawful at the time of the deed is I think in itself quite immaterial, unless it can be supposed that those who framed the deeds intended that the trustees should be regulated not by the law for the time being, but by that in force at the time the deeds were executed ; a supposition contrary as it seems to me, to every probability arising from the language of the deeds, and the history of the law. With regard to the amount of error of the Unitarian doctrines excluding those who preach and profess them, I cannot think that tempo- ral courts can conveniently entertain the question of more or less of theological error. I think that those who framed the deeds endeavoured, and on a true construction successfully endeavoured, to exclude such an enquiry ; my opinion being first, that according to the use of the words under consideration in the deeds in question, they are not exclusive of any class of Christian Protestant nonconformists, and that Unitarians are commonly, and always have been considered, as forming a part of the Christian community. Mr Justice Erskine. — I collect from the history of the times imme- diately precediug the execution of the deed of 1704, in England the body of professing Christians was divided into six classes, namely, members of the Church of England, members of the Church of Rome, Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and Unitarians, for most of the Nonconformists, if not all, had at that time joined one or other of the latter classes ; and as I find from the articles and creeds of the church of England, from the Catechisms of the Presbyterians, from the public writings of the historians, and the different controversial authors of that day, including 353 Baxter and others, whose works have been cited as manifesting a more tolerant spirit than unhappily was common in those times, that all those classes of Christians except the Unitarians considered the doctrine of the Trinity as one of the great fundamental and essential doc- trines of the gospel ; and when I find the same fact admitted by two of the defendants in sermons produced as evidence in the cause ; and when 1 find on the other hand that the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity arid of the Atonement formed the distinguishing feature of the Unitarians' faith, and that those who at that time professed it were but few ; that they rejected as imscriptural doctrines which all other Chris- tians then held to be essential articles of the Christian faith ; and that the name of Unitarian had been assumed to distinguish them from the rest of the Christian world as paying supreme worship to God the Father only ; and when I find that at the date of Lady Hewley's deed those who denied the Trinity were by the legislature denounced as guilty of blasphemy; I cannot come to any other conclusion than that Lady Hewley did not intend to include them under the description of ' godly preachers' of Christ's Holy Gospel, and consequently not under the other descriptions in the deeds either of 1704 or 1707, but that the phrase ' preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel ' was selected for the purpose of excluding all who preached such doctrines. ... I have merely used the state of the law at the time, as assisting to show what was the general understanding at that time of the essential doctrines of the gospel, and in what sense therefore Lady Hewley used the words in question. But as it was argued on behalf of the defendants that one phrase used by Lady Hewley in the description of the preachei's and their widows had reference to those statutes, and their subsequent repeal, I think it right to remind your lordships of the manner in which those words are introduced ; the words I allude to are ' for the time being ;' and it was supposed that they had been introduced by Lady Hewley for the pm-pose of enabling her trustees to extend the field of her bounty as the statutory prohibition might be withdrawn, and ' as if she had said all preachers tolerated by law.' If the words had been 'to all godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel for the time being,' there would have been more plausibility in the argument ; but the words are, 1 preachers for the time being,' ' widows for the time being,' that is, as I understand them, as I have already said, preachers at the time of their selection as objects of the trust ; not men who have been preachers, or who may intend to be preachers, but men at that time preachers, and women still continuing widows of such preachers. As I do not therefore consider that Unitarians were excluded merely by their incapa- city at the time to take the benefit of Lady Hewley's trust, so I do not 44 354 consider that the removal of their incapacities will bring them within the purview of the deed. Mr Justice Coleridge. — The claim of those who are commonly called Unitarians now remains to be considered : for I take it that no one contests the claim of Protestant Trinitarian Dissenters. Now with regard to these I might perhaps content myself with stating that I concur in the opinions which have been now already expressed by one of my learned brothers, that they are not entitled. But as I may arrive at my conclusion by a different course of reasoning it is tit that I should state it shortly. I am by no means prepared to say, that even in a court of law it would not be a just mode of argument to arrive at that conclusion by a theological examination of the words ' godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel ;' and if it could be shown, as I have no doubt it coidd, that the ministers of that persuasion do not in very truth fall within that description, the Judge to whose mind conviction was brought home by that reasoning would be bound to act upon it. But I feel at once the unnecessary painfulness of relying on such an argument, and my own incompetence to conduct such an inquiry with perfect certainty to myself or conviction to others, that every step I took in it was free from error. I resort, therefore, to the safer course of examining in what sense Lady Hewley, as one of a certain class of reli- gionists, must be taken to have used the words in question ; what was the meaning of those words in her mouth and the mouths of those of whom she was one. Most ingenious arguments were used to show that they meant those Christians, of whatever faith as to peculiar doctrines, who agreed in rejecting creeds and articles. I look in vain in the evidence in the cause for the slightest support to those arguments. On the contrary, if the evidence of her own acts be looked to, if the acts of her own friends and class be regarded, if history be resorted to, all concur unequivocally in shewing that she and they, so far from being indifferent to the holding to the fundamental articles of our faith, were zealously attached to them, and deemed them as much all-important as the divines of the Established Church. Again if I look to the words of the deeds, and consider them with reference to the history of the times as to the then state of what is commonly called Unitarianism, I see in the former clear indications of an intention to provide for poor and godly members of a body, preachers to congregations, a succession contempla- ted in a ministry then in being and known, education provided for those who were to come into it; but history discloses that none of these circum- stances were then applicable to this sect. I do not think it has been shewn that in her day there was a single avowed minister or congrega- tion of that persuasion ; in truth those who held the opinions were not only not tolerated, but as a sect had scarcely attracted sufficient notice 355 by their numbers to have become as it were objects of special legislative toleration. Mr Justice Williams. — I beg leave to answer that, understanding as I do the language of the foundation deed, and the belief and doctrine which I collect to be attributed to the Unitarians (though upon this, not being in any degree a legal question, I speak with great uncertainty) I think they are excluded from being objects of the charities of that deed. Mr Baron Gurney. — We learn equally from the evidence and from history that at that time there did exist as there do now three denominations of Protestant Dissenters, Presbyterian, Inde- pendent (or Congregational), and Baptist, that at that time all the three were partakers of one common faith on those great points of doctrine, which theologians have generally considered as funda- mental (for the only difference which existed was that of infant baptism) and that those doctrines which were so generally received were irrecon- cileable with the faith of those now commonly denominated Unitarians. There is no trace in the evidence, neither is there any in history or biography, of any minister or preacher of any congregation of Protestant Dissenters in England who professed a belief in the doctrine of Uni- tarianism until nearly, if not quite, half a century after the execution of these deeds. In the argument at your lordships' bar the learned counsel took a wide range of theological and historical discussion. It was con- tended that Lady Hewley, being of the denomination called Presby- terian, she must be considered as averse from subscription to a test because that was the prevalent opinion among Presbyterians at that period. If that was so respecting the denomination of Presbyterians, it is remarkable that it is the only point in which Lady Hewley appeal's to have differed from them, for by prescribing the use of Bowles's Cate- chism she manifested her opinion of the propriety of subscription to a test, for it is trifling to imagine that she presented the use of it as an exercise of memory and not a declaration of faith. It was further contended that she never could have intended to have benefitted the members of the sect of Independents by her bounty, because between the Independents and the Presbyterians there had been fierce conten- tions upon the subject of church government, the Presbyterians having held with government by a presbytery, and the Independents the inde- pendence of every separate congregation of which their body was com- posed. The learned counsel who used the argument did not, I think, advert very correctly to the history of the times. Between the time of those differences and the execution of these deeds half a century had elapsed, which teemed with important events. The contentions upon the subject of church government, which divided the Presbyterians and 356 Independents, and inflamed them against each other, existed during the latter part of the reign of Charles the First ; and during the time of the Commonwealth, each was then struggling for ascendancy. After the passing of the Act of Uniformity, when the Presbyterians had failed in obtaining a comprehension with the Church of England, and when all Protestant Dissenters had failed in obtaining toleration, they were all made subject to the same severe laws ; they became all sufferers in the same cause, many of them were fellow prisoners in the same gaol, they learned to know each other better, and to love each other more ; they learned to think less of the points of difference, and more of the points of agree- ment. When the revolution had been accomplished, and the Toleration Act passed, they received one and the same protection on condition of subscribing the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England, with the exception of those which related to church discipline and infant baptism; and from that time there is not a trace of those differences upon church government which had divided them so widely in the times to which 1 have adverted. The Presbyterians indeed, though they retained the name of Presbyterians, became substantially Independents. They did not subject themselves to the rule of any presbytery (as the Presbyterians of Scotland, with whom they had at one time united themselves, still do) ; their congregations became, and were, and remain each independent of every other ; and to this day this is the case with all congregations of Protestant Dissenters. At the time of the execution of these deeds the three denominations of Protestant Dissenters were united, as I have said before, in one common faith ; and this was, so far as the doctrines in question were concerned, the same as the Church of England. I am of opinion that Unitarians are excluded (not on account of any opinion of my own respecting the soundness or unsoundness of their belief and doctrine, for I utterly disclaim founding my judg- ment on any such basis), but on account of the state of the law at the time this charity was founded. [He then referred to the Tolera- tion Act and the Blasphemy Act]. There is nothing in the deeds which gives the least countenance to the supposition that Lady Hewley intended to give to persons who could not legally receive. Preachers of Unitarian belief and doctrine, if there had been any such at the time, (which there were not) would not have been tolerated, and could not in my opinion have been the objects of Lady Hewley's bounty. -The objects of her bounty I conceive to be such Protestant Dissenting preachers as were at that time within the protection of the Toleration Act. It would be most extravagant to suppose that Lady Hewley, by her description of 'godly pi-eachers of Christ's holy gospel,' meant to describe persons who were considered by the law at that time as guilty of blasphemy. The rules and regulations established by Lady Hewley 357 require that the almspeople shall be able to repeat by heart (which I understand to mean repeat believiugly) the Lord's Prayer, the Com- mandments, the Creed, and Bowles's Catechism. Bowles's Catechism is inconsistent with the belief and doctrine of the Unitarians. Mr Baron Pakke. — Is the charity to be confined to those persons who should from time to time belong to the class who in 1704 answered the description of poor and godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel, or is it to be extended to all such then or at any future time answering the description of godly preachers of. the gospel; and if the former be the true construction, who are the Protestant dissenters that in 1704 were designated by the deed as godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel ] Did that description comprise all not within the pale of the church, who being Protestants, and pious and poor, preached the gospel of Jesus Christ as containing the revealed will of God, and the rule of doctrine and practice, expounding it according to their own opinions ; or is it to be confined to one class only of those, or extended to all, with the exception of a particular class 1 It is in this part of the case I have felt and still feel much doubt ; but I incline to think that the former is the true construction, and that it is more reasonable to hold that the founder had the then state of religious opinions in her view, and did not con- template any change, and meant therefore to bestow her bounty on all that should from time to time belong to the class which was then desig- nated as ' godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel,' or such as should be from time to time poor and godly preachers of what was then understood by the term of ' Christ's holy gospel.' And if we so read the words of the instrument, I can have very little difficulty in saying that those who impugned the doctrine of the Holy Trinity did not at the date of the deed answer this description, as it was then generally understood in the Christian world ; and I need no better evidence of that fact than the recital in the statute 9 and 10, Wm, 3, c. 32, passed in the year 1698, which states such opinions to be blasphemous, and impious, and contrary to the doctrines and principles of the Christian religion, and greatly tending to the dishonour of Almighty God. Proceeding then on this ground, that the words of the deed, as we may presume they were then generally understood, did not comprise those who impugned the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, not because they were not then tolerated by the law, I concur in the opinion already expressed on this question by the majority of my brethren, and think that the charity is to be confined to Protestant Trinitarian dissenters. If the words of the deed had been those (to which it was contended in the arguments, used at your lord- ships' bar, that they were equivalent) namely such Protestant dissenting ministers as from time to time the trustees should select, then I should have had little doubt but that the trustees might have selected any of 358 that persuasion whom the law tolerated ; the only obstacle to the power of selection from the whole body of such ministers having been at the date of the deed the prohibition of the law, and as the obstacle was from time to time removed, the power of the trustees would have been extended ; and on that supposition ministers of Unitarian principles would now have been eligible, since the act of the 53 Geo. 3 has repealed all penalties against them ; and I think that the mere preaching of Unitarian doctrines was not prohibited by the common law ; but I do not, for the reasons I have before given, interpret the expression ' poor and godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel ' to mean simply Protestant dissenting ministers. Lord Chief Justice Tixdal. — First taking the deed of 1704 by itself, I think the objects of it are limited to the ministers aud others of the several bodies of Protestant Dissenters from the Established Church, which were generally known, established, and tolerated at the time the deed took effect ; and I am unable to find any proof from any authentic source, that the Unitarians did form in fact at that time a body or class of Protestant Dissenters known and established in the kingdom. On the contrary, so far as can be inferx'ed from the evidence produced, or any other evidence of an historical nature, the Unitarians as a body of persons of known religious tenets in England were unknown until a period much later than the execution of either of the deeds in question • but further, so far were the persons who preached Unitarian doctrines from forming a religious body then known and acknowledged in the kingdom, that at the time of the execution "of these very deeds, such persons could not avail themselves of the benefit of the Toleration Act : W. & M. c. 18, on the ground of their being persons who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and under thejstatute 9 and 10, William 3, c. 32, were at that time liable to certain penalties and disabilities if, by waiting or teaching, they denied the doctrine of the Trinity. When, therefore, in the deed of 1704, provision is made for the godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel, I think the answer to your lordships' fourth question must be in the affirmative; first, because there were existing at the time certain bodies of Protestant Dissenters well known and ascertained who preached doc- trines which had been generally understood and believed in all ages of the church, and were also generally acknowledged at the time of the execution of the deed of 1704, to be the holy gospel of Christ, of which bodies the Unitarians did not at that time constitute one ; and as the deed was so framed that the trusts were to take immediate effect and operation, it must be held to apply to the preachers and others of such bodies only which did then actually exist and at that time answer the description in the deed. And secondly, because the deed describes the persons who are to take to be the preachers of the holy gospel of 359 Christ, and it is undeniable that at the time of the execution of this deed both the Church of England as by law established, and all the known classes or bodies into which Protestant Dissenters were divided held the doctrine of the Trinity to be a fundamental part of their faith, that is, of the holy Gospel of Christ ; and that at the time of the execution of that deed the legislature also considered the belief in the doctrine of the Trinity as essential to the description of a preacher of Christ's holy gospel, punishing those who preached doctrines which denied it. If the persons who believe and preach Unitarian doctrines are excluded from the benefit of the deed of 1704, I think they are more clearly and unequivocally excluded by the deed of 1707 ; for by the rules and orders given by Lady Hewley for the regulation of the poor persons to be placed in the almshouse, (which rules being made by Lady Hewley under a power reserved by her in the deed itself and therein expressly referred to, may, beyond doubt, be called in aid in the interpretation of the meaning of that deed,) it is directed that every almsbody is recpiire to be one who can repeat by heart the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and Ten Commandments, and Mr Edward Bowles's Catechism: which regu- lations appear to my mind to prove beyond any doubt that the foundress intended the inmates of the hospital, and the other objects of her charity under that deed, to be persons who believed in the doctrine of the holy Trinity. And referring myself to the evidence given in this cause of the Unitarian belief and doctrine as to the divinity of Christ, I cannot understand that any person professing those doctrines could honestly or conscientiously repeat by heart, that is, express his belief, in the doc- trines contained in the Catechism of Mr Edward Bowles. And if it had been necessary to determine the intentions of Lady Hewley as to the doctrinal belief of the inmates of her hospital without reference to the Catechism of Bowles, it must not be forgotten that upon the autho- rity of two eminent persons well known at the time in epiestion, 1 mean Dr. Barrow and Mr Baxter, the doctrine of the divinity of Christ was held to be sufficiently acknowledged as a matter of belief by those who received the Apostles' Creed alone. See Barrow's Treatise on the Creed under the clause ' His only Sou,' and Baxter in his Treatise, Directions for Weak Christians, part ii, section 53, 1. And the weight of the observation for the present purpose consists, not so much in the consideration of the truth of the conclusion at which Barrow and Baxter have arrived, as in the proof it affords of the fact, that by all bodies of Christians by whom the apostles' creed was received, that is, in England by the members of the Established Church and of oil the Dissenting communities then known, the doctrine of the holy Trinity was also received and believed, aud it is by the current acknowledged use of 3C0 language at that day that this deed is to be construed. In the latter deed, therefore, I think Lady Hewley expresses her clear and undoubted intention that no Protestant Dissenter who denies the divinity of Christ, that is, no Unitarian, should partake of her bounty. The sixth question was, ' ' Whether such ministers, preachers, widows, and persons, are, in the present state of the law, inca- pable of partaking of such charities, or any and which of them." The meaning of this question was, whether Lord Eldon's no- tion that it was an offence at common law to preach, however devoutly and honestly, against the doctrine of the Trinity, was correct or not ; and all the Judges held that there was not any authority for it. Justice Coleridge. — It would be difficult to draw a line in such matters according to perfect orthodoxy, or to define how far we might depart from it in believing or teaching without offending the law. The only safe, and as it seems to me practical rule, is that which I have pointed at, and which depends on the sobriety and reverence and serious- ness with which the teaching or believing, however erroneous, are maintained. Judgment was given on the 5th August, 1842, by which time Lord Lyndhurst was for the last time Chancellor. Lord Wyn- ford seems to have become incapacitated from attending the House, and Lord Campbell had compelled the grant of his peer- age. Lord Lyndhurst, as it was his decree that was appealed from, and he had not presided during the hearing, gave no further opinion than that, on proposing the adjournment to afford time for the consideration of the Judges' answers, he styled them ' l very elaborate arguments." Lord Cottenham moved the judg- ment in the following words : My lords, the opinions which have been delivered by the learned judges have so far exhausted the case in all the most material parts of it that I do not deem it necessary to enter at large into the very interest- ing and important matters which were discussed at the bar. The principal object of the suit was to have it declared that minis- ters or preachers of what is commonly called Unitarian belief and doctrine, and their widows and members of their congregations, or per- sons of what is commonly called Unitarian belief and doctrine, ai'e not fit objects of the charity. The decree appealed from established the affirmative of that proposition, and of the seven judges who attended the hearing at the bar of this house, six concurred in it. I cannot suppose that your lordships will think that there is ground for differing from this 361 opinion; and if that should be your lordships' feeling upon it, the result will necessarily be an affirmance of the decree. I cannot however omit to make some observations as to the media through which this conclusion has been arrived at by the different authorities by whom the subject has been considered. Your lordships will have observed that in the discussion in the Court of Chancery a very lai*ge range of evidence was admitted, with a view of coming to a decision as to what was the intention of Lady Hewley, which could after all only be judged of by the language and terms used in the deeds. In what respect and for what purposes this evidence was properly received was the subject of one of the questions put to the learned judges, and has been the subject of some difference in their opinions. It does not appear to me necessary to consider mi- nutely those differences, because I conceive that keeping strictly within those rules which all the opinions recognised, there is sufficient upon the view taken by the great majority of the judges, to support the conclu- sion to which they have come upon the inain point in the case. It was very clearly and shortly laid down by Mr Baron Curney, that that part of the evidence which goes to shew the existence of a reli- gious party by which the phraseology found in the deeds was used, and the manner in which it was used, and that Lady Hewley was a member of that party, is admissible ; that being in effect no more than receiving evidence of the circumstances by which the author of the instrument was surrounded at that time. Much evidence, indeed, appears to have been received which, if of a nature to be received, might fall under the same rule, but which was objectionable upon other grounds, such as the opinions of living witnesses. But rejecting all such evidence, enough appears to me to remain unobjectionable in itself and properly received for the above purpose, to support the conclusion to which a great majority of the learned judges have come. I have thought it right to make these observations upon this matter of evidence, as otherwise the affirmance of the decree might seem to sanction the receiving all the evidence received below, which might tend to introduce much doubt and confusion in other cases. It may be thought that this opportunity should be taken of specify- ing what description of persons are hereafter to be considered as proper objects of the charity. I think that any attempt to do this would be dangerous, and would be more likely to promote than to prevent further litigation, as it is impossible a priori to foresee the consequences of anv such declaration, or to have sufficient information as to the various interests upon which it may operate and which are not represented in this suit, what has passed in this cause, and the valuable opinions which 45 362 the judges have delivered will, it may be hoped, afford such light to the trustees as to enable them satisfactorily to administer the funds for the future. It was made part of the complaint on this appeal that some of the trustees had been removed as to whom it had not been proved that they entertained opinions inconsistent with the declared purposes of the trust. I do not consider the removal of any of the trustees as implying any reflection upon their moral conduct. But as by the decision of the court it was found that the application of the funds for the time past had not been consistent with what appeared to the court to be the real object of the charity, and as a larger discretion must necessarily be left to the trustees for the future, I think that as a matter of discretion it was right to select others for the future management of the funds, and if that was right in 1833 it certainly would be indiscreet to adopt a different course in 1842. I cannot therefore think that it will be right to alter this part of the decree. I propose, therefore, to your lordships to dismiss this appeal, and I see no ground for departing from the usual course of giving to the respondents the costs. Lord Brougham. — I agree with my noble and leai-ned friend that your lordships ought to dismiss this appeal, and as usual, unless under very special circumstances, none of which exist in this case, with costs. [The sentence quoted at p. 302 then followed.] The opinions of the judges undoubtedly have been of very great use to your lordships in the examination of this somewhat difficult question, and I agree with my noble and learned friend that it is advisable for your lordships to come to the decision to which the opinion of a great majority, six out of seven, of these learned persons would naturally lead. I am also of opinion that it must be considered that in giving this affirmance to the decree, your lordships do it tinder the qualification which has been stated by my noble and learned friend, with respect to the reception of evidence. Lord Campbell having argued the case at the bar of tha Lords abstained from taking part in the judgment. Mr Gurney's notes of the argument were published by the defendants' party in a separate volume shortly after it took place. The judgments in the courts below, and a condensed statement of the hearing in the House of Lords, will be found in the ninth volume of Messrs. Clark and Finelly's Reports. Extracts only are given above from the Judges' answers, for they occupy seventy-nine pages. As the opinions of the Judges were referred to as guiding the judgment, and those opinions were in many respects contradic- tory, it would have been much more satisfactory if the law lords 363 had stated their own views of each class of evidence. Lord Eldon, tliouo-h he might in the end have come to a conclusion not more specific, would have scorned to let the case come before him with- out dealing himself with every portion of it. It must however be remembered that each of the three who spoke in judgment on it, (Chancellor and Ex- Chancellors) , had, in the one or other case al- ready stated, allowed evidence included in the objection to be re- ferred to and commented upon before him in the Court of Chancery, and there would have been some awkwardness in their deferring to the views of puisne Judges ; besides the diversity of opinions behind the Woolsack might have been reproduced at the table, which would not have been edifying. The lords, however, since their house has assumed the power of hearing appeals from Courts of Equity, should decide every question arising before them and calling for decision, and not give it the importance of a matter which they have avoided grappling with. A reader, knowing the part afterwards taken by the Lords who gave the decision now the subject of comment, can scarcely avoid surmising that they purposely left future relators in doubt as to the evidence with which to support their claims. The judgment seems to be to the effect that the opinions to be supported by a chai'ity, settled by an instrument containing a gene- ral trust for religion, must be those of the founder's denomination ; and that therefore Trinitarians only were entitled to such religious charities of the English Presbyterians. It was not attempted by any of the Judges at all to impugn the rule that the founder's ex- pressed intention must direct the application of a charitable fund. An English court of justice could not decree the application of such property to any purpose confessedly opposed to the language of the grant. Such a diversion of it is in England effected by our legislators only, and is by them attempted only in revolutionary times, or when the parties to be affected are known to be supine and without organization. But it was decided that a founder's intention is to be ascertained solely by a judicial interpretation of his language in the instrument of foundation ; and that evidence can be admitted only to shew the sense in which the expressions found there were used by persons of his communion at the time. It may seem superfluous to say that his meaning would be best ascertained from his writings or his actions bearing on the subject in queston, if any of the former were in exis- tence, or any of the latter were capable of proof. His spoken 364 words would not bo received in evidence, for even if they were uttered with sufficient care and consideration, they might be misunderstood, or iutentionally or unintentionally misreportedj and it would be easy to invent expressions for him, and very difficult to disprove their authenticity. No such risk attends writings, or evidence of acts. It is true, acts are proved by parol evidence, but so are almost all other facts. The only objection that could be raised against receiving such proofs would be the possibility of a subsequent change of opinion, but a founder's notions on religion may well be considered settled and abiding if no variation in them has been recorded either by himself, by any one gratified by it, or by any one offended by it. A will expressing any religious sentiment may well be taken, to indicate the views and feelings with which a testator went down to his grave, unless it is evidently only made in the com- mon form with which the lawyer of a by-gone age who pre- pared it thought it seemly to commence a man's last dealing with worldly matters. A founder's actions, which were declared admissible in evi- dence, show his opinions inferentially only. His written ex- pression of them must be the best comment on the language of his gift, if it needs any. The reason of the Judges for exclud- ing such an aid to its interpretation was that it is a settled rule that documents by which the ownerships of individuals are created are always construed without reference to external evidence, except in two or three cases avowedly exceptional. This is found neces- sary in order that a man may have a reasonable certainty that he has a good title to the land which he has purchased, and that his own dispositions of it will be carried into effect ; be- cause if deeds or wills could be affected by evidence of the grantor's or testator's intention, they would not have any mean- ing which could be relied on, and the business of society and the peace of families would never be safe. This is no reason for extending the rule to deeds creating charities, where there is not the same inducement to fraud, because there is no bene- ficial property, and where there is no change of ownership requir- ing a deduction of title. The Judges assumed that the rule applies to charitable settlements, but they did not refer to any case where it was so held. In fact such questions could not arise in their courts, and they might have declined to answer several of the questions propounded to ther.i, as was indeed hinted by 3G5 one of them. It would never have been attempted ..to ask them on an appeal under the second information, of which an account will be found in a subsequent page, whether the Kirkmen, the Seceders, or the Independents were all, or any of them, entitled to the benefit of the charity, for it would have been seen that they would have declined to answer on the ground that such questions were decided only by the doctrines of Equity. According to the opinions of the majority of the Judges, Lady Hewley's deed of 1707, in which she requires in the almswomen the knowledge of Mr Bowles's Catechism and the " Apostles' Creed/' (that is, the profession of Trinitarian principles) , could not be referred to in construing the indefinite trust in the deed of 1 704, though the later deed recited the earlier one, and was supple- mentary to it. Had Lady Hewley published a religious book according to the same opinions, it could not have been consulted as a means of ascertaining her sentiments. This surely is a reductio ad absurdum. According to Justices Erskine and Maule a charitable settlement by a member of a body appropriating com- mon words as party names, (as "Catholic" by the Latin Church, "Orthodox" by the Greek Church, "Friends" by Quakers,) must not be interpreted in their sense. So that a person of those opinions cannot create a valid disposition of property for the support of his views, in the language of his body. It is one of the leading defects of English law to make its rules apply to cases to which the reason of them does not extend, and thus to make the means of more importance than the end to be obtained by them, and to sacrifice justice to the technicalities invented to secure it. It is not calculated to give unlearned persons confidence in the rules by which English law decides on the construction of charit- able foundations, that Lady Hewley' s reference in her will to the atonement made by Christ was not received to show that her views of Christ's gospel accorded with those of Christendom generally, and to save her property from being applied in supporting the notion there are no essential and distinctive truths in Christianity. It is to be observed however that Lords Brougham and Lynd- nurst and the four most able judges who assisted them, allowed it (as well as the commencements of the wills both of Sir John Hewley and Dr. Colton) to be urged upon their consideration. Lord Lyndhurst and Mr Baron Alderson both expressly refer to it, and the latter, it should be remembered, had great experience as an equity judge, as he bad for many years immediately previous 366 undertaken all the business of that side of the Exchequer. Equity judges only could deal with the question, and they know- how" often they must exercise a large discretion in carrying out a founder's intention, cy pres, as the phrase is, that is as near as circumstances permit, and that a trustworthy evidence of his opinions would be a great help and comfort to them in such a case. Since a founder's intention, even when it is only to be guessed, is recognised as governing the gift, it would be a re- proach to English law if a written statement by himself of his views should be disregarded in the interpretation of an inde- finite trust ; seeing an enquiry is permitted into the views of his denomination, which do not bear upon the point except as they were held by him. It seems hypocritical to profess anxiety to carry out his wishes, and admit evidence respecting them, yet purposely to reject the only means of obtaining certainty on the subject. Besides, the common sense and morality of the com- munity are shocked when a religious endowment is perverted to the support of doctrines opposite to those of the founder; and there should be no rules of our courts setting them at defiance. The Popish endowments of old time are not in point, they were mere purchases of heaven, and did not shew the deliberate pre- ference of one system for another. The practical effect however of this exclusion of evidence as to founders' intentions is perhaps not important in common cases, for it may be taken that a man's opinions agree with his party, when he does not think it necessary to specify the doctrines which he designs his property to support. And the decision may be- advantageous, since it is easier to ascertain in all points the faith of a denomination than that of any particular man ; and also since no denomination is so strict as not to allow a greater latitude that would be in exact harmony with the personal opinions of any one member of it, however latitudinarian his principles. The result, apart from the means by which it was arrived at, may even be satisfactory to many if not most people, as very few like to see any peculiar views, except their own, perpetuated by endowments. The decision, whatever remarks it may be open to, settled the general question, for it was conclusive as to all Presbyterian foundations, up to 1707, by which time, as we have seen, the majority of the old meeting-houses had been built ; and with our knowledge of the haste of the law lords to stop its operation, it 367 may safely be said that there can be no doubt of its being war- ranted by law. Before passing from this great case, all the eminent men who took part in it, as judges or counsel, should be recounted, if only for the pleasure of dwelling on eminent names. The counsel for the relators were, before Sir Lancelot Shad- well Sir E. B. Sugden, afterwards Lord Chancellor and Lord St. Leonards, Mr Knight now Lord Justice Kuight Bruce, and Mr Cuthbert Rornilly, who soon afterwards died; before Lord Brougham, Sir E. B. Sugden, Mr Knight, Mr Kindersley now Vice- Chancellor, and Mr John Romilly now Lord Romilly* and Master of the Rolls : before Lord Lyndhurst the same as in the House of Lords. The counsel for the defendants were, before the Vice-Chan- cellor, For the Grand Trustees, Mr Pepys, afterwards Master of the Rolls, Lord Chancellor, and Earl of Cottenham, Mr Rolfe, now Lord Cranworth, and for the second time Lord Chancellor, after being Baron of the Exchequer, Vice- Chancellor, and Lord Justice of Appeal, and Mr James Booth, who is stated to have obtained office successively in the House of Lords and under the Board of Trade, and if so has retired while this volume is passing through the press; Eor the sub-trustees, Sir Charles Wetherell, formerly Attorney-General, and Mr Duckworth, after- wards Master in Chancery : Before Lord Brougham the same, with the addition of Mr C. P. Cooper : And before Lord Lynd- hurst the same as before the Vice-Chancellor. Sir John Camp- bell was brought into the case in the House of Lords. In 1843, on petitions in this suit as to the appointment of trustees the counsel were, For the relators, Mr Bethell since Lord Westbury, Mr Anderdon, and Mr Romilly ; for the Attorney- General, who separated himself from the relators, Mr Twiss and Mr Wray ; For the kirkmen, Mr Swanston and Mr Malins ; For the seceders, Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr Lloyd. All these gentlemen were^ then or afterwards Queen's counsel. The lists of Judges, and of counsel connected with this case most strikingly illustrate the rapid succession of the English bar to distinction and place, by merit, accident, and favour. " The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong . . . nor yet favour * All those who recollect the veneration felt for Sir Samuel Romilly will rejoice that the name is now found in the English peerage. He was the real reformer of th$ law, and his presence was a check alike upon courts and parliament. 368 to men of skill, but time and chance happen eth to them all/' also eace sake only, and to avoid impugning the old standard ; but the Court of Session insisted unanswerably that their preamble had substantially the same meaning as the Synod's, and therefore the appellants were not to be heard when they insisted that the respondents had forfeited the chapel by adhering to the one, when they them- selves had been the authors of the other. The appellants struggled in vain to get rid of the effects of this one false step, the courts held them to it rightly ; it no doubt occasioned the passing of the Synod's preamble, otherwise they might have urged that an offer made in mistake, and rejected, should not prevent the charity property bein«- brought back to its proper use, at their instance. The Judges of the Court of Session seem, from a print of the Lord Justice Clerk's remarks, to have resented the appellants' opposition to the vote of the Burgher Synod, as treason against Presby- terianism, and as setting up Independency, which his Lordship carefully observed the men of the Westminster Confession condemned equally with prelacy or popery. The reporter's marginal note, given at p. 423, showed that he considered the judgment of the court below as affirmed in this respect, though Lord Eldon's observations do not touch on the matter. If they had, they would have borne upon the Clough and Killinchy cases. The record which came to England did not give Lord Eldon the information which the Court of Session had, and so he could not understand how the respondents could be held wrong on the showing of the appellants ; but as he recognized the substantial agree- ment of the two preambles, so he certainly must have seen that both of them were simple down-right contradictions of the sentences in the confession to which they related, and it is to be wished that he had given his opinion on the question, whether the for- feiture of the right to the chapel must have followed a wrong opinion on a point so utterly immaterial in the Burghers' creed as the power of the state in matters of religion. They became entangled in the difficulty only by blindly taking up the old national stan- dards, without making conscience of the points here remarked upon, as the Reformed Presbyterian Synod and the Free Church of Scotland are, by their history, compelled to do. The principles of the Secession would seem not such as to require a separate body to uphold them in their purity; but the Synod of United Original Seceders do not think so. The contest between the parties at Perth is relieved from the air of absurdity which the reports of the hearings in England had cast over it, when we know the circumstances connected with the rejected preamble, and we could wish that poor Lord Eldon had been saved the labour with which he read and re-read both preambles, in natural amaze- ment how any person agreeing with either of them could apply to a court to dispossess of a chapel those who adhered to the other. 407 The law stood thus when Sir Robert Peel's List administration, in the midst of its career, before the Irish famine, and while it was still supported in both Houses by overwhelming majorities, came forward to prolong the existence of the Unitarians as a separate denomination. With regard to most of their chapels in . England, when the stipends of the ministers and the size of the congregations are considered, it may be considered that, with some twenty exceptions, they would not have had both the will and the ability to pay the value of the old meeting-houses in their possession, even after all due allowances for monies spent upon them by Socinians. The contrary supposition would have destroyed the only excuse for themselves in seeking the act, and for the administration, affecting to be the sole friends of religion, and the parliament, calling itself Conservative, which granted it. In Ireland, all their chapels, it is believed without an exception, had been built by Trinitarians, or in replacement of previous chapels built by them. 7th March, 1844. The bill was brought in by Lord Chan- cellor Lyndhurst, and read a first time. It recited that meeting-houses for the worship of God, and schools, and other charitable foundations, had been founded in England for pur- poses beneficial to Dissenters, which were unlawful before the passing of the acts of 1 William and Mary, for toleration; 19 George III., for abolishing subscription ; and 53 George III., for relief of non-Trini- tarians. It enacted, That the recited acts should be construed as if in force at the time of the foundation of the meeting-houses, ifec. That in all cases in which no particular doctrines should, by express words contained in the trust deed of any such meeting-house, be required to be taught therein, the usage of the congregation for years before suit should be conclusive evidence of the doctrines intended to be pro- moted by the founders. That the act should not affect any decree already pronounced, or any property in suit on 1st March, 1844. 8th March. Lord Brougham presented petitions from the Remonstrant Synod and the Presbyteiy of Antrim, praying that Ireland might be included in the bill. 12th March. Lord Cottenham presented similar petitions from the Strand Street and Eustace Street chapels. The Chancellor said he had brought the bill in for England because he knew the case as to the chapels there, while he had only a general knuw- 62 498 ledge of it as to Ireland,, but that he should have no objection to the appointment of a committee to inquire into the matter as regarded that country. Lord Cottenham engaged to nominate the committee in two days. 14th March. A committee of eighteen was named. It con- sisted of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of London and Exeter, seven law lords, (being all in the house except Lord Wynford who alone of them opposed the bill,) and eight others. Of these last the Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Ripon, and Lord Wharncliffe represented the ministerial side of the house : all eight voted for the bill except Lord Glenelg; and Lords Normanby, Fortescue, Lansdowne and Monteagle, at one time or other, spoke for it. 15th March. The committee met, determined unanimously that it was not necessary to hear evidence on the matter, and agreed to report that any measure passed for England ought to be extended to Ireland. They reported the same day. The bill, as brought in, did not extend to Ireland, although (see p. 484) we have Sir Robert Peel's statement that it was kept back a year purposely for consideration of the Irish cases, and the government had, during that year, explicitly pledged them- selves to the Unitarian committee to introduce it. The petitions from Ireland, presented on the day after the bill was- brought in, prove that the heterodox party knew beforehand that it would not apply to Ireland ; so that the whole plan was arranged between them and the government. On the presentation of the second petition the Chancellor suggested a special committee : and an opposition peer undertook to name it at the next sitting of the house, he did so ; and they reported next day without hearing evidence. The Chancellor when he consented to the committee, according to his own account, had only a general acquaintance with the subject ; and in order that letters might be exchanged be- tween London and Dublin respecting it, it was necessary that the post should not be lost on the night the committee was first talked of. The government might, perhaps, obtain the information, but it is certain that there was not time to forward from Belfast a petition for the Synod of Ulster to be heard before the committee. Even if the Bishop of London was in the house when the committee was named it would be most unlikely that he could attend the next day; it does not appear that he did so, and then there was no lord on the committee to insist on the House being put in posses- 499 sion of all the facts of the case, in opposition to the law- lords who had arranged their plot beforehand. True, the committee might see without evidence that what was proper for England was proper for Ireland, but the idea, if self-evident, must also have occurred to the government ; and their conduct in omitting Ireland from its provisions could not have been occasioned by any honest purpose. If a proper committee had been appointed, and due notice of their sitting had been given, the Irish Presbyterians would have been heard by coun- sel against the bill, and the whole case as to England and Ireland would have been disclosed to both Houses of Parliament. As it was the committee was an impudent farce, as far as any enquiries by it went ; but it was a select committee reporting in favour of the bill, and rendered it almost impossible to obtain another special committee respecting it. This step once gained in the Lords, the bill being a government measure, might well be considered safe. It was opposition from the Irish Presbyterians at that particular stage which the administration feared, know- ing the English Dissenters too well to trouble themselves about their opposition. Therefore Ireland was omitted at first, and afterwards smuggled in. 22nd March. Lord Campbell presented the first petition against the bill ; it was from the Presbyterians of Stafford. One of the old meeting-houses was in that towu, and after it had been sometime shut up, a Scotch minister, about forty years ago, persuaded the persons in charge of it to give it up to him as a Pres- byterian. Peculiar circumstances had from time to time pre- vented the Independent chapel there from having had a chance of succeeding, so the Scotchman found a county town in England, in which Independents had not taken root, and which furnished him with a chapel gratis. His friends rebuilt it, and they have done very well there. This petition in opposition to the bill was no doubt entrusted to Lord Campbell, as being the son of a Presbyterian minister, as well as having being long connected with the local and general politics of Stafford, but he made use of it (in a man- ner the most adverse to those who entrusted him with it) only to say that there was great anxiety about the bill, and he hoped it would not be delayed. Lord Lyndhurst could not help noticing how rare a thing it was for Lord Campbell to agree with the ministry, and promised the bill should be read a second time immediately after Easter. If the second reading had been before 500 Easter, it would have been talked about during the recess, and so put in greater dauger. 18th April. Lord Normanby, who as yet retained in some degree his prestige in Ireland, on presenting petitions, some in favour of the bill and others against it, announced that his pre- sent opinion was in favour of the bill, but that he should be guided by the Chancellor's speech when the time came for it. He could hardly have served the bill better. 26th April. The Marquis of Lansdowne, the leader of the opposition, on the day of the second reading, presented petitions in favour of the bill from members of the establishment, and from orthodox dissenters. Dr. Priestley was for seven years " librarian and philosophic companion" of his lordship's father. The bill was read a second time without any debate, and committed for that day week. It was matter of arrangement between the lords who took the chief parts in supporting and opposing the bill that the debate should be taken on the House going into committee, but the fact that a bill affecting, in such a manner, property belonging to reli- gious charities, in so many parts of England and Ireland, was read the second time without hostile remark, shows in some degree the power of the administration. After times will however be able to form only a very feeble estimate of the power which this administration of Sir Robert Peel exercised over the House of Lords, through the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst ; no measure of theirs would have been even delayed in its progress through the Upper House by any debate, however damaging ; and when, as in this case, the opposition peers were also in favour of one of their measures, (only six Whig Lords voted in one minority of forty-one, and one in another of nine,) its passing was a matter of course, indeed a matter of form. The first clause of the bill in question, being a substantial act of justice, and the Bishop of Exeter standing alone in his opposition to it, might well, of itself, prevent a division on the second reading. No doubt also there was hope of the many objections to the whole scheme, and the difficulties of various parts of it, becoming manifest in committee, and it was thought best to defer a division until all the circumstances of the matter legislated upon had been elicited. May 3rd. Many petitions were daily presented for or against the bill, and among them one by Lord Brougham from twelve Socinian ministers who were respectively of 62, 57, 55, 54, (3) 5o, )01 52, 44, 42, and (2) 40 years' standing. They stated that they had been for a long series of years ministers of Anti-Trinitarian con- gregations, and that all had been led to understand that their meeting-houses " were fully secured to them as their rightful pos- sessions under the sanction of the law/' that large sums of money had been expended on them on that understanding, and they " attested that until a comparatively recent period no question as to their right of such occupancy had ever been raised by any of the differing classes of Dissenters." They spoke of their body of Dissenters as non-subscribing, as if that epithet were distinctive of them, forgetting that the Independent's and Baptists were just as much non-subscribers as they were ; and they did not show any moral right to the property claimed. After the presentation of these petitions the Lords went into committee, and the Chancellor stated the nature of the bill, which he called "a moderate and scanty measure of justice, which had met with a clamorous opposition." The following sentences on the left half of each page contain the pith of his speech in his own words, and remarks in answer are added on the right hand half. This method has been adopted, not only for economy of space, but for easy reference. Now iny lords, with regard to that which is the material point to which the opposition to this bill is directed, I must state to your lordships what the nature of the provision is. Nothing can be more simple. A place of worship is established by a deed, or by the will of some benevo- lent person, that place of worship has been established for a period perhaps of a hun- dred and fifty or two hundred years. For a long period of time, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years, the congregation meeting at that place of worship have entertained the same religious opinions and doctrines. No change whatever has taken phice during that period. It is a mutter of speculation what was the reli- gious opinion of the founder. He has not in his deed of trust, or in his will, declared what the doctrines and opinions were which he was desirous of having preached and inculcated in that place of worship. Why are we not to take the uses that have prevailed for so long a period of time as evidence of what liis original intention was? All except a few which were situate in villages and are now for the most part ex- tinct, were built by congregations, and not by individual persons ; this was stated by some of the speakers, and great stress is laid upon the fact by the Socinian editor of the debates. If the opinions of an indivi- dual founder could not be proved, though there could not be any rational doubt as to them, the opinions of the body were well known. Allowing that Socinian notions had been prevalent for sixty years, and that these had been preceded by forty years of Arianism, there were left fifty or a hundred years (in the cases alleged) of clear undoubted orthodoxy which, according to law and fairness, should determine the opinions to the maintenance of which the chapel was dedi- cated. There was no need of this being done ; all Dissenters, except a few General Bap- tists, were Calvinists and Trinitarians, and understood in that sense the Anglican Articles, which their ministers subscribed. 502 If in a deed he has declared his will and intention for a particular doctrine to be preached and inculcated in that place of worship, to that state of things this clause does not apply ; but it does apply to a state of things such as I have mentioned, where he has not laid down in terms what were the particular doctrines that he wished to be preached in that particular chapel, or what was the precise object of its foundation. If parties have uniformly from time to time during a long period continued the same uniform and consistent usage with respect to religious worship, and with respect to the doctrines preached in that place, I ask your Lordships whether it is not reasonable to take that usage as evi- dence of what the intention of the founder was, and not to allow the title of the occupants of the chapel, under such cir- cumstances, to be impeached in a court of justice. My noble and learned friend who sits near me, [qy. Lord Brougham] on a former day stated the principles upon which this bill is founded. It is a principle known to our law, which is, that uniform possession during a long series of years establishes a title. That is a great principle in our law, and in the law of every civilized country, a prin- ciple which we have drawn from the wise jurisprudence of ancient Rome. That principle we apply to our estates and our civil rites ; why should we not apply it to a case of this description ? Parties value their rights in property of this nature perhaps more highly than property of any other description. The place with respect to which the question arises, may have been the place of religious worship frequented by their forefathers for a long series of years. The burial ground attached to it may contain the ashes of their dearest relatives and most valued friends. Is it not, therefore, most material and important that that principle which we apply to civil rights should be applied also to this mixed de- scription of property. The law (we are dealing with matters after the Revolution) secured his presumed intention without his declaring it. Lord Somers or Lord Cowper would have said so, if Dissenting chapels had been so long known as to have become perverted in their time. We have here the admission that the law respected founders' declared intention, and no Chancellor would have said it did not respect his presumed inten- tion. The founder's intention is shown by the doctrines preached in the chapel in the period following its creation. These, in many instances, were known from the writings of the first ministers, or notices of them by their contemporaries ; or the circumstance that nothing is recorded of them beyond their names is proof, at that time of general orthodoxy, that they were orthodox. There is therefore no reason, if the founder's intention is to govern, to resort to a later period, the usage of which could not raise the slightest presumption in opposition to the considerations here stated. The title of the occupants must be bad if not supported by the primeval usage. It is amusing to find another lord anticipating the Chancellor in his exposi- tion of his measure. If Lord Brougham were the expounder, his speech shews that he misconceived what was being done. In the case of charity lands there are two titles ; that of the trustees liable, like any other, to be barred under the statute of limitations by adverse posses- sion ; and that of the beneficiaries which, while the trustees' title continues, is un- affected by fraud, mistake, or lapse of time, and can be revived at any time by a court of equity. They do, and that was a reason for not changing the law on the subject. The phrase "mixed description of pro- perty" refers to that which really is no property at all. 50: I ask your lordships if, with respect to all our civil rights, if with respect to the property of the Crown, and if with respect to the property and rights of the church, this rule is to he applied, why should it not be applied in the particular case which is now the subject of your lordships' con- sideration? If persons have been in pos- session for a long series of years of property devoted to the worship of the Supreme Being, and that worship has been carried on in a particular form, inculcating parti- cular doctrines, why should not that establish a right as indefeasible as the right which is established in the particular cases to which I have referred? My lords, this is the principle of the bill, this is the principle upon which it was founded, as was shortly announced by my noble and learned friend on a former night ; and this is the short principle upon which I now rest the bill. Now, what is its practical operation and effect ? The clause does not apply to a case where the foundation has in it terms of express trust, stating the particular doctrine which is to be preached and inculcated in that place ; and why ? Because in that case a depar- ture from those doctrines and opinions must be a wilful departure from the opinions and doctrines that were intended to be inculcated by the founder. But where no such limitation has been imposed, where nothing of that kind is to be found in the body of the deed, where you are to be left to conjecture from the particular opinions of the founder, and from various collateral circumstances, what his intention was ; it is for the purpose of obviating the necessity for such inquiries, for the purpose of preventing litigation of the most expensive and difficult kind, and for the same legitimate purpose for which statutes of limitation have been imposed, that this particular clause has been intro- duced into the bill. Now mark, my lords, out of what this bill originates. The circumstances I am about to detail with respect to a very im- portant case, not coming within the opera- tion of this bill, but throwing light on the species of inquiry which would be neces- sary, if your lordships should not think proper to pass this bill, will satisfy you to demonstration as to the necessity for This mention of the Crown and of the Church suggested the natural enquiry, Why Dissenters should have this great advan- tage, which the nation at large (the Crown), and the very church itself have been de- prived of ; and was calculated to enlist the feelings of every lord in favour of a bill which would deprive Dissenters, (who had scarcely a friend in the House, ) of such an advantage over the establishment. The Chancellor should have explained the dif- ference of legal and equitable titles, and the different estates of the beneficiary of a charity and an equitable owner, and he should have shown the different natures of suits for recovery of land, and of those for correcting the administration of a charity es;tate. This is an admission that justice for- bids the limitation of the time within which a trust for the promotion of speci- fied doctrines should be judicially con- strued and enforced. But a trustee's con- science ought to be equally bound by the founders' practice where power of change is not expressly given him. Common honesty would tell him, when the founder has said nothing, to ask what he did. It is a most astonishing thing that Lord Lyndhurst should have forgotten that the decision in the Hewley case was that the particular opinions of the foun- der, if unexpressed, were not to be re- garded. There can be no difficulty in ascer^ taining the opinions of a numerous reli- gious denomination, and as to the Presby- terians that had been done both for England and Ireland. His lordship admits that such a case as Lady Hewley's case would not come within his bill when passed; why then did he mention that others of the same nature were pending, since they also would not have been affected by it? The only one like it was the Attorney-General v. Drummond, which was heard on an appeal in the House of Lords five years after- 504 this measure. I mean the case of Lady Hewley's charity. Give me leave to say, my lords, that that is not a case standing by itself. There are several other cases of the same nature now pending, many more are threatened, whereby much litiga- tion and extravagance of expense will be incurred. I call all these circumstances to your lordships' attention and recollec- tion, in order that you may see the conse- quences of rejecting this part of the bill to which I am now adverting. Now, my lords, what wr.s the nature of that case? In the deed by which the charity was founded, there was no express declaration of the doc- trines which she (the foundress) intended to be inculcated in that establishment. There were vague and general terms, I admit, and what was the consequence? An information was filed in the Court of Chancery. It was necessary to enter into evidence of the most complicated, refined, and difficult description, first to ascertain what the religious opinions of the foun- dress were. The evidence went to show that she was a Presbyterian. A vast body of evidence was necessary for that pur- pose. Then there was another body of evidence for the purpose of showing what were the particular religious opinions of the Presbyterians of that day, a vast body of refined evidence, conflicting evidence, historical evidence, the testimony of one set of men opposed to the testimony of others. wards. Lady Hewley's trust was vague, not being confined to Dissenters, and hence the difficulty respecting it, but the effect of the case is the very contrary of what his lordship affected to prove by it ; it is clear that the expense incurred in that case needed not to be incurred again. The broad decision was that, down to 1707 at any rate, the English Presbyterians were Trinitarians ; and the proof of that fact given in the case was brought down to 1720 as much as it was to 1707. That case would have had another effect. Trus- tees defending a suit in defiance of it would not have had their costs allowed them, and after another case or two would have paid the costs of the other side, see p. 456. Judges as yet encouraged the defence of such suits, but they would very soon have turned round on this point ; and they would also have made the defen- dants answer fully and honestly. Liti- gation, in a short time, would have been unnecessary, or cheap to the chari- ties. The Attorney-General said there were no English, but only Irish, suits going on. The only proof of threatened proceedings as to English chapels is a note in 11 Simons, p. 616. There might be public threats, but no instance is given of their being used in reference to any parti- cular chapel. The Judges had no difficulty in arriv- ing at the conclusion that Lady Hewley ■was one of the English Presbyterians, and that they were all Trinitarians ; and the reader can judge of the evidence from the quotations from the Proofs and Illustra- tions, and the answers given to them here. The decision was that, the matters in dispute being historical, Judges were supposed to be acquainted with them, and counsel need- ed only to quote from books in support of their arguments ; as the defendants in all the cases which we have been consider- ing did. The case was brought before this house. It was argued, I believe, for fif- teen days at your lordships' bar. Argu- ments of the most refined and difficult description were brought forward. Your lordships confirmed the judgment pro- nounced in the courts below. My lords, what has been the result ? . . that the question arose, Who were the parties that were entitled ? What were the religious opinions of Lady Hewley, and what the religious opinions which she thought ought CO be taught in that chapel? Many candidates came forward. The Presbyterians said, It applies to us. The Independents said, It applies to us. . . . . The cause is not yet determined. . . . I have taken pains to inquire into that which is a very important part of the concern, the costs come out of the charity. . . . The costs up to this time amount to very nearly £30,000. But, my lords, there is another class of cases where it is still harder. We all know that about seventy years ago, and down to the present time, chapels for religious worship have been established by mutual subscriptions, and trustees were appointed to continue the title. Who are the persons at present in the enjoyment of those chapels ? The descendants of the original subscribers ; and they are to be ousted because in the lapse of time (there being no direction in the trust deed) they have departed from some of the principles and doctrines held by the original sub- scribers, there being no test by winch to know, with accuracy, what their particular opinions were, although the persons now in possession have for a great number of years, acted uniformly and consistently with respect to their own religious belief, and with respect to their form of religious worship. "What can be a harder ease than that? The subscribers have met in the chapel that was built at the expense of their fathers. The relatives and connec- tions and friends are buried in the ground attached to the chapel. Are they to be His lordship magnifies the time, the argument occupied six days. It is surpris- ing that his lordship had so far forgotten the nature of the case as to suppose it also related to a chapel. His lordship here exaggerates again. The costs up to the time he spoke were not £10,500, including more than £4,000 of costs incurred in the contest with the Scotchmen. £2,200 of costs connected with receivership are not all to be put down to the litigation, as there would have been expenses attending the management of the estate by the trustees, and many matters were, without doubt, authorized by the court, which the trustees could not properly have done without its sanction. This statement of the last- seventy years as the period within which the chapels were built, is singular, as the com- mencement of that period is very near the time at which any of the congregations first became Sociuian. The change of doctrine being admitted, the misappropriation of the chapel is ad- mitted also. The deeds relating to the Wolver- hampton chapel alluded to the Toleration Act, and to the doctrines it sanctioned, so that it excluded Soeinians ; but that rase was defended as bitterly as any other. Many Presbyterian deeds will be found to make similar references. See p. 405. The opinions of a particular congre- gation did not need inquiry if the trust- deed denominated them as Presbyterians, for the Attorney-General v. Shore had 63 508 well expressed in the Bishop of Exeter's protest in the appendix. Lord Brougham, until set right by the Bishop of London, contended that the "bill did not propose to enact that the doctrines which have been promulgated during the last thirty years shall be deemed conclusively to be the doctrines which were entertained by the original founder" : admitting that the usage of the first thirty years was the true test. He also said that he could have wished that the bill " had put a stop to litigation in other cases where actual possession for thirty, forty, or sixty years could be proved, even though there had been a will of the founder, and though, the principles upon which the founder desired his charity to be administered could be proved in evidence before the court." That Lord Lyndhurst wished to do this is shewn by his calling the bill a very moderate and scanty measure of justice. Lord Cottenham seems to have explained the rales limiting the time within which equitable interests could be claimed, but not to have pointed out the peculiar natures of the respective interests of trustees and beneficiaries of charity estates ; but what he said is evidently badly reported; and he admitted "that against the Attor- ney-General no time will run, for he represents the trust." His explanation of the trusts in chapel deeds for "Presbyterians" or for "Protestant Dissenters" was: " When therefore we find no trace of any particular doctrine we must be guided by common sense, and believe that they did not put forward what their doctrines were, to avoid the penalties of the law; or else that it arose from their being members of a body of persons who thought the best course was not to have any particular creed, but to leave each member of the congregation to form and entertain such opinions as he thought right." These surmises will be disposed of in remarks on Sir Robert Peer's speech. His lordship also said that trus- tees of 'a chapel could not give it up to Trinitarians without a suit for it, which would cost more, in most cases, than the chapel was worth; he should have seen that, as suggested in the Com- mons, a cheaper procedure should have been devised for adjudi- cating upon such small charity estates, and that trustees litigating a clear case should pay the costs. The necessity which all the Judges, in one suit after another, considered themselves to be under of giving trustees their costs, even to the annihilation of the charity, instead of making the defendants in the later suits pay the costs of both sides, gives an unfavourable notion of our 509 jurisprudence. The ground on which the suit as to the Wolver- hampton chapel was decided should have saved it from being sold ; yet if the proceeds had been sufficient, the trustees would have been relieved of part of their expenses. He certainly was wrong in saying that many chapels in Ireland would be affected by the bill, as the number of them very little exceeded thirty. He stated that no one was injured by the prevention of such suits, as if the perver- sion of Trinitarian endowments to propagate Socinianism was no evil ; as. if justice to founders did not require the fulfilment of their intentions ; and as if it were no wrong that men of their opinions were driven to build another chapel, or the denomination to allow itself to become extinct in the place. He also complained of the Attorney- General being put in motion by persons not belonging to the congregation, as if the denomination were not interested in the matter, and as if the state and the public should renounce all right of interference with religious endowments. Sir Edward Sugden did not entertain this objection, see p. 465. Lord Campbell said that he had been one of the real property commissioners, at whose suggestion the statute of William IV. for the limitation of actions was passed, and that the bill pro- vided, in full accordance with the principles of that act, for a case omitted in it. Nothing however that he said at all relieved the bill of its anomalous character. He quoted the sentence at p. 465, beginning ' ' whether it is advisable/' and stated that the Irish Chancellor was keeping back several cases, that they might come under the operation of the bill. There was no division at this stage. 9th May. The bill was read a third time, and on that occasion there was a division of 41 to 9, after a short debate, (between the Chancellor, Lord Mounteagle, and the Earls Fit- william and Minto on one side, and the Bishop of Exeter, the Earls of Winchelsea and Mountcashel, and Lords Kenyon and Teynham on the other;) and Lord Cottenham* then carried, * Lord Cottenliam never had a notion in this case beyond what he found in the brief which he held as leader for the defendants in the Attorney-General v. Shore, before the Vice-Chancellor and Lord Brougham, although he found himself compelled to follow the opinions of the Judges, and to move the dismissal of the appeal. He showed his zeal by sitting as a judge, although he had been engaged in the cause, in all the courts below, though not in the re-hearing in the last court. He took his revenge for his failure as an advocate, (his expressions stated in the last page show his opinion), and for his having, notwithstanding that opinion, Balaamlike to speak in favour of the relators, by playing in the debates the part of ame dainnc'e to the magicians whose enchantments prevailed. He moved the appointment of the special committee 510 without a division, an amendment giving the Courts power to stop all suits within the scope of the act which were then pending. Lord Cottenham, and a petition from the Dublin chapels which were the subject of the informations, suggested between them, as precedents for the clause, the acts staying actions for penalties under the clergy residence acts and the horse-racing acts. It was with such an excuse that cases in which proceed- ings had been instituted were brought within the mischief of the bill, without any previous intimation to the parties con- nected with them. No four Jew attorneys could have played a smarter trick. The bill as it left the Lords enacted that the doctrines which the founders of a chapel intended to promote should be deter- mined by the usage of the twenty-five years preceding a suit instituted to determine the question. Lord Brougham might well, when reasoning on the matter, disbelieve that such could be the method which this junta of Chancellors had devised. He saw, for the moment, that it was mere perfidious hypocrisy to recognize the authority of founders, and by so inept and unlawyer- like a device to get rid of it. Yet four men who were, or had been, Chancellors were eager thus to palter with the law governing trusts, those trusts relating to charities, tbose charities being connected with religion, and the points of religion thus surren- dered to attack, in the places of worship consecrated to their support, being recognized, as the cardinal and distinctive doc- trines of Christianity, by all creeds and confessions alike, Greek, Latin, Protestant and Reformed. 10th May. The bill was sent down to the Lower House, and having been read a first time on the motion of the Secretary to the Treasury, Sir Robert Peel himself immediately set it down managed its proceedings, and after the third reading added the proviso bringing the Dublin chapels within the act. These were among his greatest feats in debate ; incom- parable as he was as a Judge, his deficiencies on the Woolsack were foreseen, and it was intended to supply them by appointing Mr Bickersteth as his successor at the Rolls, and giving him a peerage, but he, proving the worse of the two, was accused of having swindled the ministry. Lord Cottenham had the distinction of being the only English lawyer of modern times who, without rendering political services, raised himself to an earldom. Lord Brougham had the credit of a pamphlet which protested that he was overpaid, although he was wont to attribute to himself the merit of having suggested his appointment as Master of the Bolls. Lord Cottenham, with regard to the bill with which we have to do, supported his character, that whenever he did go wrong, no man went so wrong. Lord Lyndhurst must have chuckled to see his phlegmatic and cautious opponent volunteering to do so much dirty work, in support of a measure not introduced by his own party. We shall see other shrewd turns which Lord Cottenham did the Independents when he had the power. 511 for the second reading on that day week, notwithstanding Mr Hindley's objection to the earliness of the day. 14th May. Sir Robert Inglis remarked that the members had not received the print of the bill twenty-four hours, and applied for a longer time for the second reading, but all Sir Robert Peel would do to meet his views was to undertake that it should not come on after ten o' clock. 16th May. Sir Thomas Wilde pressed for postponement till after the Whitsuntide holidays, and Sir Robert Peel attempted to arrange that the bill should be read a second time without oppo- sition, and the discussion taken at a further stage. Lord Jocelyn met this by the remark that many Irish Presbyterians were waiting in town for the debate. Dr. Bowring in turn reminded Sir Robert that many also were anxious for the passing of the bill. 1 7th May. The exposition of the principles of the bill was committed to Sir William Follett, the Attorney- General, who, in addition to being the leading advocate of his time, was unrivalled among lawyers as a favourite with the house. This was the last year of his life, and he did little after the session ; he was present at only two out of four divisions, and left the support of the bill in committee chiefly to the Solicitor-General. Sir William was of an Arianized Presbyterian family, so numerous sixty years ao-o at Topsham, near Exeter, that it was then said that if a Follet died half the town went into mourning. He showed his acquain- tance with Socinian views and practices. Any person who knows the history of This is true of the Independents only, dissent in tins country knows that large p. 30, not of the English Presbyterians bodies of Dissenters have at all times repu- previous to 1717, see pp. 31, 106, 189. diated subscription to particular articles of faith and the profession of particular creeds : the refusal to subscribe, or to be The bond of union must be some doc- bound by any particular profession of trine jointly believed, whether embodied faith, has been the very bond of union in a formula, or left to a man's own ex- between them ; and these persons would pression of it. See Sir Edward Sudden's have shrunk from imposing any such bur- remarks, pp. 442, 443, 475, see also p. 51. then on their successors, but would have allowed to them the same liberty they claimed for themselves, and to appeal for No trace of latitudinarian notions at their faith to the Bible alone ; and if, all consistent with such an intention is to therefore, you do not find upon the face be found before 1717 among English Pres- of the deed itself a statement that the byterians. See how Sir E. Sugden con- charity is intended permanently for the strued deeds not referring to doctrines, pp. benefit of the doctrines of a particular 448, 475, considering that construction sect, it is a gratuitous assumption to say dictated by the nature of things and that the intention of the founder was that common sense, its benefits should be confined to those who followed the faith which lie professed. 512 But, again, where you find a congregation making a purchase of land for the purpose of building a chapel, and it sufficiently appears upon the face of the deed that they intend that chapel to be used for the purpose of promoting the doctrines of a particular sect, with such a chapel this bill will not interfere. This bill will not interfere in any case where it appears upon the deeds creating the trust that the trust was intended for the furtherance of the doctrines of a particular sect. Unitarian chapels are not founded (I speak now generally) by an act of benevo- lence, or by parties wishing to establish a particular faith. These chapels originate, generally speaking, I believe I may say universally, in this way. A congregation dissenting from the Church of England wish to establish a place of meeting, or a chapel, for their worship. They form together a voluntary association, they sub- scribe funds, and with those funds they purchase land and build a chapel. . . . Who is it, let me ask, that appoints the ministers of those congregations? be- cause one of the breaches of trust alleged is, that the trustees have taken this proper- A trust for a denomination is a trust for the doctrines of that denomination, and the statement which Sir William here makes seems an admission that the bill was wrong in principle as regarded chapels de- dicated to Presbyterians by name, p. 442. As to those dedicated generally to "Pro- testant Dissenters," (seep. 452), they were held in trust for the body formed by the Associated Presbyterians and Indepen- dents, whose doctrines and form of worship were alike, and who received indifferently ministers of either name as pastors, (see p. 59) ; the only difference between them being that the power in one body was with the communicants, and in the other with the seatholders, who were communi- cants almost as of course, a distinction which, to any but congregationalists, will appear immaterial. The phrase "Presbyterian" or "Protes- tant Dissenter" at that time defined doc- trine just as much as a reference to the Church of England would now. If that enjoined its faith in its prayer book, much more clearly and powerfully did the other body testify to theirs by their hymn books, p. 36, and the use of the Assembly's Cate- chism, p. 34. Further, Irish Presbyte- rians, in the north at least, betokened connection with the Synod, which evi- denced its doctrines by its acts to lie found pp. 372-383, or with the Presby- tery of Antrim which, at its formation was orthodox, pp. 377-425. Yet in all the speeches in support of the bill this argu- ment, which was wanting in the English cases, was forgotten, and the Irish chapels were scarcely referred to except, when it suited the purpose to tell a tale as to the Strand Street Widows' Fund, and Mrs. Armstrong. It is amusing to read that Sir William Follett, after all he could make of the matter, came to the conclusion that all Unitarian chapels were built by men of other opinions. His meaning seems to be that they were built by congrega- tions to accommodate themselves and follow their own fancies. On the contrary they, if any churches anywhere, were built for the glory of God and the good of men. The Act of Uniformity was directed as much against evangelical religion as dissent, and the main design in erecting the chapels was to perpetuate the religion of the Reformers and the Puritans, in oppo- sition to Popish and Arminian errors. 513 ty in trust to appoint ministers who should profess a particular faith, and that they have handed it over to ministers of a different religion, and that thus the con- gregations have come to profess a different faith from that which it was the intention of the founders to pi-omulgate. Who appoints the minister ? Not the trustees, but the congregation. Who provides his stipend? Who removes him? Not the trustees, but the congregation, The trus- tees have no more power over the doctrines to be preached in Dissenting chapels than the most perfect stranger. If, therefore, there be any breach of trust, it is not by the trustees, but by the congi'egation for whose benefit the chapel was founded. Now a right reverend prelate [the Bishop of London], has stated the mode in which lie conceives these congregations came to be Unitarian. Whether that right rever- end prelate is correct or not in his suppo- sition, I do not profess to know ; but he supposes that the congregations purchasing ground and afterwards building a chapel, by degrees relax into Arianism, and ulti- mately become Socinians. Now let me just suppose for a moment that that is a correct statement of the fact, to what does it amount ? A certain number of persons purchase land and build a chapel. They appoint a preacher. Father and son attend that preacher. Generation after genera- tion go on attending that chapel and subs- cribing to pay the minister. They are all in unison. There is no dissent among them, but on the death or retirement of one minister, they appoint another, who preaches a doctrine different from that preached by his predecessor, no one of the congregation objecting to the substitution of the one doctrine for the other. Suppose generation after generation continued to maintain the chapel, to repair it, to buy burial-ground, and to pay the ministers, and suppose it to be admitted that all this has been done by an Unitarian congrega- tion, would it, I ask, be consistent with justice to dispossess them, because it could be proved that a hundred and fifty years ago the original founders of the chapel professed Trinitarian doctrines, although for the last century the doctrines openly preached in that chapel were Unitarian, and although money lias been subscribed and benefactions made to support it as an The trustees have power, and indeed it is their duty, to lock the doors against the minister chosen by the congregation if he is not of the opinions of the founder, as Sir William Follett would have seen if he had thought of the matter. If any number of men join in building a chapel, and conveying it to trustees in trust for a particular denomination, they cease to have any rights over it, except as pai-t of the public ; it is in contemplation of law dedicated to the opinions of the denomination, and the founders cannot change them without leave reserved in the deed, see pp. 217, 219, 421. The support of the faith is intended by men who form a congregation and build a chapel, and they neither think of changing it themselves, nor intend to leave posterity at liberty to do so. The chapels in question were not handed down with the faith of the foun- ders, nor with the faith of any subse- quent generation ; the founders would have abhorred the indifference of the men of 1740 ; the latter would have condemned the downright Arians ; the last would have denounced Socinians ; and the first Socinians would in their turn have pro- tested against the disbelief of miracles, and of everything supernatural, which is preached in so many of the old meeting- houses at the present day. What right can these subscriptions give as against the founders ? 64 514 Unitarian place of worship? Is it just or right, that congregations possessed of these chapels, which have been handed down from generation to generation, together with the faith they professed, and which they contributed to support, and looked on as their own, should be called upon to hand over those chapels to perfect stran- gers? And it must be borne in mind also that it is not the original foundation alone, which is to be taken from them, but all additions made to that foundation, al- though made by professed Unitarians, and if therefore money has been given for the enlargement of the chapel, for the increase of the minister's stipend, for a pension to his widow, and all given by professed Uni- tarians, and since Unitarian doctrines have been openly preached in the chapel, they will all follow the fate of the original foundation, and with it be taken from the present possessors and handed over to strangers. If this be a legal right, is it a moral or an equitable one? But, Sir, I think it right to say that it ought not to be assumed that the law on this subject is clear. I believe it is the very uncertainty which prevails with regard to it that has in- duced all the lawyers without exception, This is not certain. Lord Eldon directed inquiries which indicated an in- tention to separate the secondary from the primary charity, p. 218. Lord Chan- cellor Sugden apparently would have done so if the circumstances had shewn the propriety of it ; see Attorney-General v. Hutton post. It had never been de- cided that these secondary endowments should be applied contrary to the donors' intentions. They were, however, almost as a matter of course, annexed to the chapel, and not given for the support of any doctrine ; why, then, should their founders' intentions be presumed and respected, any more than those of the founders of the chapel ? The Attorney- General, by exclaiming here against Uni- tarian funds going to strangers, in fact gives up the principle of the bill. It will be found that generally speak- ing, collateral endowments, subsequent to the foundation of a chapel, were contri- buted, if not by the orthodox, by Arians, who were much nearer to Trinitarians than to Socinians. Indeed in many cases the difference between them and Athanasians was more in expressions than in thoughts. How then could Socinians claim through them ? As stated already, the line of demarcation should be drawn at the doc- trine of the mere humanity of Christ, rather than at that of his perfect deity. The chapels were built by professed Tri- nitarians, and in and after their time Trinitarian doctrines were preached in them ; the introduction of the measure shows that this gave the legal right, and did it not give a moral right ? After the unwavering concurrence of so many Judges, Sir William should not have said this. No doubt he saw the effect of what he had just said, and hazarded this sentence as a diversion. ,15 whatever may be their political or religious bias, to recommend the introduction of this measure. Let it not be supposed thai by passing this bill you are depriving either Presbyterians or Independents of property to which they are entitled. I say that the object of the bill is to do that which is fair and right. If you have upon the face of your deed a declaration that the trust shall be for Trinitarian doctrines, or for the doc- trines of a particular sect, this bill will not interfere with that trust. But supposing it is not so, are you to assume that the founders of the chapels meant to bind down all posterity to the same faith which they themselves professed ? If you are to assume that, then I ask, how are you to find out what that faith was ? This is one of the difficulties which I know not how to grapple with. Sir William then quoted the following passages from Lord Chief Justice Tindal's answer, other extracts from which are given at p. 346. ["The general rule I take to be tbat where the words of any written instru- ment are free from ambiguity in them- selves, and where external circumstances do not create any doubt or difficulty as to the proper appHcation of those words to claimants under the instrument or tbe subject matter to which tbe instrument relates, such instrument is always to be construed according to the strict, plain, common meaning of the words themselves ; and that in such case evidence dehors the instrument, for tbe purpose of explaining it according to the surmised or alleged intention of the parties to the instrument is utterly inadmissible. If it were other- wise, no lawyer would be safe in advising upon the construction of a written instru- ment, nor any party in taking under it, for tbe ablest advice migbt be controlled, and the clearest title undermined, if at some future period parol evidence of the particular meaning wluch the party affixed to his words, or of his secret intention in making the instrument, or of the objects he meant to take benefit under it, might be set up to contradict, or vary the plain language of the instrument itself."] ["But whilst evidence is admissible in these instances for the purpose ol making the written instrument speak for Independents were entitled to the chapels, because the founders were really congregationalists ; otherwise real Presby- terians would have been entitled to them. It had been judicially pronounced that the Presbyterians were Trinitarians, no Judge had intimated a doubt of it ; the Socinians had not brought forward any thing' to the contrary except Benjamin Bennet's loose expressions in books pub- lished after 1720, and his real opinions shewn in the appendix, by extracts from the volumes quoted in the Proofs, prove that he was himself orthodox. These passages were omitted in the account of the hearing in the Lords, as they gave the general rule which had been previously stated by other Judges, and Mr Baron Parke's statement had been in- serted at length, but perhaps they had better have been given. On their being compared with Sir Edward Sugden's words, as quoted by the editor of the debates, or as set out in full in foregoing pages, it will be seen that there is no discrepancy between the two. Tbe judgment of the House of Lords was supposed by Mr Simons, the law reporter, to agree with Chief Justice Tindal's exposition of the law, (indeed be quotes it as embodying the views of the majority of the Judges), and Sir E. Sugden intended all he said to be in strict accordance with that judgment. It is submitted that there was no difference between the two Judges. "We have seen in the last paragraph that Sir William asserted that the law on the subject was not clear, and that this had occasioned the law lords to support the bill. When Sir William made these unwarranted asser- tions he was speaking, not as member for Exeter, but as first executive law officer of the Crown, and he should not have considered himself a mere advocate for the bill. Quotations and assertions such as these, when made by a personage of autho- rity, impose upon Parliament, as they cannot be answered at the moment. The reader can judge for himself whether Sir 516 itself which, without such evidence, would be either a dead letter, or would use a doubtful tongue, or convey a false impres- sion of the meaning of the party, I con- ceive the exception to be strictly limited to cases of the description above given, and to evidence of the nature above de- tailed ; and that in no case whatever is it permitted to explain the language of a deed by evidence of the private views, the secret intentions, or the known principles of the party to the instrument, whether religious, political, or otherwise, any more than by express parol declarations made by the party himself, which are universally excluded ; for the admitting of such evi- dence would let in all the uncertainty before adverted to ; it would be evidence which in most instances could not be met or count ervailed by any of an opposite bearing or tendency, and would in effect cause the secret, undeclared intention of the party to control and predominate over the open intention expressed in the deed. "] I think it right to state that there is a difference, a conflict of opinion, upon this point, and there is an opinion of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland apparently opposed to that judgment. Sir William did not quote any sentences of Sir Edward Sug- den's, but the Socinian editor of the debates refers to those to be found at p. 441, beginning, "I shall admit evidence," and ending, "accord with the intentions of the founder." But why do I refer to this ? For the purpose of showing the uncertainty and mischief of litigation of this kind ; for mischievous it is in every sense of the word. In the first place, it is wasting those funds which were intended to be devoted to charitable purposes. But besides that, although I by no means mean to say that the most solemn points of the Christian religion were discussed with levity, (for I believe that none of my learned friends engaged in that discussion would be guilty of such an act) I do say that it is impossible to argue questions of ■this sort in a court of law with that solemnity which ought to be observed with regard to them ; the tribunal is not a fit one for such discussions ; and when I find that these great questions of religious faith were in the end taken back to the master's office, for discussion there, I ask William had any justification for what he said, or whether he took advantage of his influence with the House, and spoke just as he might, without blame, have spoken, (if indeed he had thought it worth while to do so), with the knowledge that what he said would be answered by a counsel of equal ability, It is better to have them spent in law, in order that by their loss similar funds may be saved, than devoted to the sup- port and diffusion of error. It is absolutely necessary that the most solemn subjects should be argued before courts of law, to prevent misappro- priation by trustees. The Ecclesiastical Courts and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, before whom mat- ters of doctrine are tried, are really lay tribunals. This was not true as to the ques- tions in dispute with the Sociniaus, but as to the matters in dispute between the Independents and Presbyterians, and >17 whether the continuance of these suits is not a scandal which every true friend to religion would wish to see removed ? Well then, Sir, what is it that is sought to be affected by this bill. That you should not leave parties to speculate upon what were the intentions of the founder, but that you should apply the same certain test which you have applied to other analogous cases. There is no single case of private right that is indepen- dent of usage. Whether it be wise or right that the law should be so with regard to chai-ities, we are not now dis- cussing. This bill does not interfere with that. [He then instanced a modus of titheing, as proved against the church by twenty years' usage, and the proof of the contents of a lost deed by proving usage under it for twenty years.] I understand it has been said in another place, [in the House of Lords by the Bishop of London], that if you want to show by usage what are the contents of a deed, it would be much better to show what took place twenty years after the execution of the deed, than what took place twenty years prior to the present time. No doubt it would be better, if you could get such evidence. But why does the law take the last twenty years ? First, because the law does not suppose that parties will slumber over their rights ; and, in the next place, because modern usage affords the only criterion to which the contending parties the introduction of doctrines on that occa- sion was by the Presbyterians, in an attempt to put the Independents on a level with the Socinians. All questions as to the doctrine of the Trinity were settled by the court, and the matters discussed in the master's office were : Whether any Scotch Presbyterians were entitled to English charities ; whether the Kirkmen could be considered Dissenters ; whether the trustees should be taken from denominations not in existence in Lady Hewley's day, and subjects of like nature. These, without any profanation of sacred subjects, could be discussed by solicitors or their clerks. It having been settled by the courts that the Presby- terians were Trinitarians, no further inquiries would have been necessary as to the sacred doctrines discussed in the Attorney -General v. Shore. Again the suggestion of uncertainty, which did not exist, as the foundation of the bill. The matter was one of charity, and not of private right. This evidence was obtained as to Pres- byterians, and the point was admitted as to Independents. This is not correct, as the Trinitarian opinions of the Presbyterians of the 518 can refer. That being the principle adopted in other cases, why should not the same principle extend to the case now under the consideration of the House, and why should there not be the same test of modern usage to which parties might have recourse? There is this advantage in passing such a measure, that you do not disturb existing interests ; there is this advantage, that you do not take from congregations those places of worship of which they have been in possession now for centuries ; there is this advantage, that you do not take from congregations the benefit of those sums of money which they have themselves expended on their chapels, or contributed for the support of then- ministers. But I am told that the conse- quence of j>assing this bill may be, that property now possessed by Presbyterians, or other Dissenters from the Church of England, may in the lapse of time fall into the hands of Unitarians. But how could it be so? because by this bill the usage must be the usage of the congrega- tion, and not a portion of them. Let me suppose for a moment that there is a trust for the benefit of Trinitarians, if the minister went into the pulpit and preached Arian or Unitarian doctrines, any single member of that congregation might imme- diately apply to have that minister re- moved. Unless, therefore, the congrega- tion itself sauction the appointment and the doctrines preached by a minister, no such case as that apprehended could arise, and Trinitarians could not be ousted, and have their property handed over to Uni- tarians. chapel building period were not denied, and it was not proved that they regarded those opinions as non-essential. This very lapse gave occasion for the bill, as Sir William himself shews. Sir "William here distinguishes Arians from Unitarians. The dispute relates to the time within which this is to be done. The manner in which Arianism was introduced is explained at pp. 40, 41, find can any moral claim be founded upon it ? Sir Robert Harry Inglis (member for Oxford University) moved, and Mr Plumptre (member for East Kent) seconded, an amendment that the bill be read a second time that day six months, using the same arguments as are embodied in the Bishop of Exeter's protest. Mr Macaulay, (member for Edinburgh city,) rested his support of the bill upon the expediency and justice of the proposal, con- tending that all religious bodies, in process of time, changed their opinions; but the only illustrations which he gave will not be thought to have any bearing on the subject. They were that the Seceders no longer supported the propriety of a state church, and that Wesleyan 519 ministers administered the sacraments contrary to their great apostle's injunction ; he did not, however, say that the command was contained in the notes and sermons which John Wesley made binding on the consciences of all his preachers. These changes were evidently unavoidable from the circumstances of the two denominations. A body remaining so long uncon- nected with the state must contract feelings and habits at variance with the principle of an establishment, and must resolve not to be dependent on the ministrations of an alien clergy. Mr Macaulay avowed the bill was intended to benefit the Socinians only, and professed himself willing to incur unpopularity for supporting it. Mr Bernal, member for Weymouth, followed. He was a gentleman of Jewish extraction, and had, apparently at any rate, Like several so circumstanced, become a Socinian ; how capable he was of entering into the discussion is shown by his mentioning in two parts of his speech baptists and anabaptists as different bodies in England, and by his cautioning the Wesleyans, lest through great difference of opinion existing as to predestination and election, they should lose some of their chapels. Mr Monckton Milnes, (member for Pontefract, now Lord Houghton), after mentioning that he was descended from "Pres- byterian ancestors, who afterwards adopted Unitarian opinions," supported the bill because the tenure by which the Church of Eng- land held its property " involved the acknowledgment of the principle of development in religious communities •" he thought " that Lady Hewley's case brought the matter plainly before the House •" and that the rejection of the measure would be " in effect the robbing of the Unitarians of all the sums which for years they had expended on the chapels," which would excite a sympathy for them, not felt at present. He quoted Baxter, Calarny, Milton, and Professor Hey, and referred to Bishops Watson and Hoadley, evidently from the Proofs, and threatened that if 'the bill did not pass we should have ' ' such a play [display] of reli- gious fanaticism as had not for many years been witnessed in this country, and he was afraid that on all sides we should have acts of recrimination, Unitarians enquiring how far the Wesleyans carry out the doctrines of John Wesley, the Churchman, and how far the Independents carried out the doctrines of Harrison, and of the Independents of the Commonwealth." 520 Mr Milnes was a descendant of the Hewley trustees of his name, and spoke the mind of the Socinians. Such different men as Mr Macaulay, Mr Bernal, and Mr Milnes could scarcely have agreed in falling foul of the Wesleyans, the last two with menaces, if their information had not proceeded from some common source, as the present Wesleyans certainly conform to the rules laid down for them in the constitution which their Patriarch gave them by his deed enrolled in chancery, at any rate they have not shown any leanings to predestination. Mr Milnes should have known that the Independents of the Kevolu- tion, and not those of the Protectorate, built the old chapels of the body, and that Major-General Harrison adopted their princi- ples for a short time only, and abandoned them long before his death. Mr Fox Maule, (member for Perthshire, now Earl of Dalhousie,) followed with a very argumentative speech against limiting the time for bringing the suits in question ; and he objected to the period proposed. He also made strong complaints of the manner in which the bill had been altered to include Ireland, and to apply to pending suits ; and stated that Lord Lyndhurst, in the last August, had told a deputation of the Synod of Ulster that he had not then made up his mind whether he should introduce a bill on the subject, but that when it was made up he would inform the Moderator ; and that he did so only by sending a print of the bill after it was introduced. Mr Fox Maule also asserted that the Chancellor engaged the bill should not be extended to Ireland without giving the Synod an opportunity of being heard against it before a committee of the Lords. Then Mr Gladstone, (member for Newark, and President of the Board of Trade,) addressed the House in support of the bill in a manner which shewed that his mind was accustomed to dwell on religious themes, (his mother often worshipped among Indepen- dents), and that he could enter into changes of doctrine. He put both facts and arguments in a very different light from preceding speakers, but evidently derived his information altogether from the Proofs, and was not aware how completely they had been answered. This is a question which is considered by the public to bear an intimate relation to the interests of religion . . » with respect to which . . . her Majesty's government . . . have been supposed to have shewn a most culpable disregard. 521 I have made up my mind that . w . . I have before me a great question of justice. That question I apprehend to he in substance, whether those who are called in England Presbyterian Dissenters, and who were, I believe, a century and a half ago, (1094), universally of what are called Trinitarian sentiments in religion, ought or ought not, being now generally Unita- rians, to be protected at the present moment in the possession of the chapels which they hold, with the appurtenances to those chapels. This is an honest avowal that the act was intended solely for the benefit of Socinians. Lord Lyndhurst did not once mention Unitarians in his speech with which he moved the going into committed What I am prepared to argue is, that though the original founders of these meeting-houses may have been, and were, in the vast majority of instances, persons entertaining Trinitarian opinions, yet that on principles of justice the present holders of the property, being Unitarians, ought to be protected in the enjoyment of it. This is contrary to the supposition on which Lord Cottenham and Sir Robert Peel based their support of the bill. Are the parties who instituted the chapels to which this bill refers, founders at all ? I ask that question, whether they are in the eyes of the law entitled to be considered as founders at all? I appre- hend that they were parties not devoting their property for the benefit of others, but parties devoting it to their own pur- poses during their lifetime, though un- doubtedly after their death that property would descend to others. I believe that the difference between the cases is broad and practical, and that the right which a founder has to have his intentions ascer- tained, respected and preserved, is a right of a nature entirely different from that which may be possessed by any persons who associate together to form a body, who are to be the first to enjoy the benefits arising from that association, and which body is to be propagated by the successive entrance of new members, in the natural course of mortality, through the following generations. Mr Gladstone admits the sacredness of! a founder's purpose, but supposes that a congregation building a chapel does so for its own purposes only, and therefore from the nature of the case, retains for itself, that is the congregation for the time being, the right to vary the doctrines preached there. Lord Eldon was clear that a chapel, subject to a vague trust for the members of the congregation contribu- ting to its erection and such as should afterwards support it, Was necessarily dedicated to the use first made of it. That this is reasonable is easily shown. From the first step taken towards the erection of a chapel it is intended to be connected with some particular deno- mination, so that this intention enters into the essence of the scheme, and the thought of any change is excluded by interest and confidence in the faith and church order agreed on. It is not merely the accommodation of the contributors which is intended, but the benefit of the neighbourhood, by setting up in it the doctrines, church order and worship, which they believe most accordant with the New Testament. To secure these ends assistance is obtained from men of the same opinions at a distance, and persons friendly to them in the neighbourhood, on the under- standing that the chapel shall be settled 522 for divine worship on those principles. This joint contribution creates a trust to carry out and secure the joint purpose. A chapel thus built by the gifts and sacrifices, and hallowed by the prayers, of many claims greater sympathy and respect than the benefaction of one rich man. When it is vested in trustees, sub- ject to the most general trust for the con- gregation, all private property in it is extinguished, and the founders' usage is rendered unchangeable ; and rightly so be- cause there can be no doubt that is in unison with the intention of all concerned. If they were not founders, it is impos- sible for you to make out that any change in the form of doctrine professed in the chapels, can constitute a breach of trust. If they were the mere representatives of the first partners or associates in these congregations, I believe it would be im- possible for you to raise even the faintest presumption, that there was any obliga- tion whatever incumbent upon the con- gregations in succeeding times to perpetu- ate the presumed opinions of those first associates. But I am not content to stand upon that ground. I do not think it necessary even to stand upon the ground taken by my right honourable friend, the member for Edin- burgh (Mr Macaulay). I think that in a part of the very able speech which he has made to-night, he appeared to allow that there might originally have been a case of fraud, and yet that the parties in jiosses- sion might be permitted to retain that possession. This may be true, but I con- fess I do not think that in taking our stand upon such a proposition, we do full justice to the case. I confess, for my own part, that if it could be shewn to my satisfaction that there was a case of fraud, even though committed long ago, I should view the matter as one of Considerable difficulty. If, indeed, this were proved, there would still remain many matters which 1 could not dismiss from my mind. I should still have to consider the position in which the present holders stand ; I should consider ihat they, and even those who have immediately preceded them, are on all hands allowed to be inno- cent both in act and in intention, I should Mr Gladstone treats a congregation as if it formed a corporation existing for its own purposes, but its property must be held by trustees, and this makes all his reasoning bad, for they act on behalf of the founder and all generations, and re- duce the congi-egation to so many benefi- ciaries, without any power over the chapel except such as is given them by the deed, or is necessary for the continuance of the trust estate. It is notorious that this fraud actually took place, and so Mr Gladstone's opinion is here given on the Trinitarian claimants' side. All persons not properly entitled who enjoyed the bsnefit of the chapels did so with full notice, not only in legal construc- tion, but in fact, that it was a charitable foundation, and they ought to have ascer- tained to what doctrines it was dedicated 523 take into view the length of time during which their opinions have prevailed, I should not forget that they are the per- sonal successors and the personal lineal descendants of the original institutors of these chapels, and that they are naturally and laudably attached to the memorials of their dead and to the place of their re- mains. I must remember, too, the enormous difficulty, at the present moment, of finding a claimant with a good title to the proper- ty ; I should consider also the gross scandal to which litigation on such matters is likely to give rise, and to which, as it appeals, it has actually given rise. And I must say, without wishing to give offence to any man, that I should also have to consider this, that while for a hundred years, upon the average, Uni- tarian principles have been preached in these chapels, the classes of persons now coming forward and claiming to be the rightful possessors of them, have endured in silence that abuse, (as they deem it), of the trusts, have fought, side by side, and shoulder to shoulder, with Unitarians, in their struggle for civil franchises, have derived great benefit from the co-operation of Unitarians in the acquisition of those advantages, and have not taken any step during three or four generations to put an end to a misapplication of the funds of those chapels which have been originally endowed for other than Unitarian pur- poses ; and therefore, Sir, I should still feel that if there has been a breach of trust, the case was one of a most painful and difficult description. But the main question still is this, has there been a breach of trust and a violation of the intentions of the founder ? . . . I say that, according to the present law, the real will of the founders will be set aside unless the legislature interfere to prevent it by passing this bill You arc dealing with the case of a body, which, if you examine its history, you will find was from generation to generation, almost from year to year, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in a state of perpetual change ; and it affords no argu- ment at all, and will only tend to bewilder and mislead the judgment, if you go back to the writings of the ancient Puritans, by the expressed intentions of the foun- ders, or by intendment of law resulting from the usage immediately following the erection of the chapel. What difficulty can there be in Eng- land, where, in the words of Baron Gurney, (who from his religious associations under- stood the matter better than any other Judge) "the Presbyterians indeed, though they retained the name of Presbyterians, became substantially Independents ;" or in Ireland, where the Synod of Ulster was ready to receive its old chapels ? A hundred years was the outside period of heterodoxy in any form ; there may on an average have been sixty years of Sociuianism. This passage is given to show how completely Mr Gladstone entered into the case of his clients. This is correctly put. The bill as it then stood secured the old meeting-houses irrecoverably to Soci- nians, and this Mr Gladstone persuaded the House was the real will of their founders. This one sentence should be thought of in connection with everything else which he said, and his whole speech may be judged of by it. 524 and ask what they thought upon these great questions of Christian doctrine. You must go on from year to year, and consider the direction which religious inquiry was taking, and its progress from time to time. I am well aware that there is a strong feeling against it [the bill] out of doors, and I am, on the other hand, quite sure that if we can show to the people of England that justice is con- cerned in the passing of this bill, not only justice to the present holders of these chapels, but justice likewise to the real intentions of those who first established them ; I am persuaded that the opposition which is made to this bill will dwindle into nothing. Now, first of all, I would ask, who, are the parties into whose views we ought to institute an investigation? Not the Presbyterians preceding the period of the passing of the Act of Toleration. It is clear that the opinions of that body were in a progressive and fluctuating state ; great changes had even already taken place in their doctrines and opinions ante- cedently to the passing of that act, and the signs of still further and greater changes were visible. The Presbyterian body, which originally held the tenets of Calvin, had adopted Arminian doctrines at the period of the Act of Toleration. This change of itself was no small one. But over and above this, the Presbyterian body, which in 1643 actually composed the Westminster Confession, in 1690 had virtually abandoned it, and I do not find that since that period the use of the West- minster Confession has been resumed by them. Now I ask the House, whether that is not an important point? If you find men in the habit of conducting their religious matters without reference to creeds, the fact does not of itself neces- sarily justify any strong inference : it may be that it is because they have not found any necessity for creeds; but if you find The Bishop of London said, " In the course of my parliamentary experience, and I came into your lordships' house at a time when the public mind was agitated to a degree almost unprecedented by the probable fate of the Roman Catholic ques- tion, I never remember the public mind to have been more agitated than it has been upon the present question, consider- ing the very short time that has elapsed since it was first made known ; and I do not scruple to say that your lordships will do just the contrary than rise in public estimation if, after the expression of feeling with which you have now been made acquainted, feeling not on a topic of every-day-interest or ordinary occurrence, but one of truth, equity, and religion, you pass a measure which in my opinion con- travenes all the maxims on which they rest." This would never have been said by any one but for the purposes of this con- troversy, and Mr Gladstone's only autho- rity for it is the assertion in the Proofs. The reader is referred, for the real state of the case, to p. 139. They did not retain the use of the Westminster Confession, which in other churches was used at ordinations and then only, as they adopted the plan of taking a minister's declaration of his faith in his own words, as more in accordance with the spirit of the New Testament, and a more certain guide to his opinions ; but they did adhere to the Assembly's Cate- chism until long after the chapel-building period. 525 the children of those who have framed a creed, departing from that creed and casting aside the use of it, you cannot resist the inference that they had some reason for it, and that that reason was in their view some strong and cogent one. Then, Sir, as early as in 1075, Mr Baxter wrote a work in which he declared dis- tinctly that he objected to all confessions of faith not couched in scriptural phraseo- logy, and stated that there never would be peace in the church until creeds were reduced to the language of Scripture. . . But now observe the idea of Christianity, as a shifting, changing, and advancing subject, contained in this passage. This was the address of Mr Robinson, the leader of the colony of New England, delivered in the year 1620 to the first planters of that colony, and I quote it in support of my argument, that you will fall into the greatest error if you look at what was the actual belief of a particular period, and apply that belief to a period a century afterwards : " For my part, I cannot sufficiently bewail the condition of the Reformed Churches, who are come to a period in religion, and will go at present no further than the instruments of their first reformation. The Lutherans can't be drawn to go beyond what Luther saw. Whatever part of His will our good God has imparted and revealed into Calvin, they will die rather than embrace it. And the Calvinists, you see, stick fast where they were left by that great man of God, who yet saw not all things. This is a misery much to be lamented ; for though they were burning and shining lights in their times, yet they penetrated not into the whole counsel of God ; but were they now living, they would be as willing to embrace further light as that which they first received. I beseech you to remember it ; it is an article of your church-covenant, that you will be ready to receive whatever truth shall be made known unto you from the written Word of God. Remember that and every other article of your most sacred covenant." There you have the seed of all those progressive changes, of the effects of which you are now consider- ing the course. The reference to Hallam which is to be found from the Proofs, at p. 70, was then made by Mr Gladstone. The Catechism was framed shortly after 1G43, and it held its ground for a century. Baxter's opinions as to creeds may be learnt from pp. 143 to 151. This passage is here printed for the nobleness of its views. Mr Gladstone seems not aware that Mr Robinson was an Independent, the one rigid, unchanging body, according to his authority, the Proofs. Every word of this the Independents receive and believe at the present day, and yet have to bear taunts and reproaches such as have been here reprinted from the Proofs. Not a single latitudinarian opinion can be attributed to Robinson, who uttered the sentiment, having re- ceived it from the fathers of the Reforma- tion. It is startling to find Mr Gladstone's remarks upon it. Did he not share the opinion ? Did he not see that this is the great Protestant principle? Is Socinianism the genuine and necessary result of it ? 526 I come now to the Toleration Act. And here I must ask, when were these foundations really made? for that is a point of considerable importance. There were very few before the Toleration Act, and those we may reject. The great mass, according to a statement made on behalf of the Unitarians in the Lady Hewley case, and adopted as I perceive by the Bishop of London, an eminent authority in opposition to this bill, may be taken to have been made between 1690 and 1710. Bvit those who made these foundations, did not die until some time after they were made. They remained in the natu- ral course of things for many years the natural guardians of their own founda- tions. We must allow, therefore, to the parties who founded these chapels the usual term of human life, and assuming them to have lived some thirty years after those dates, they were themselves for the most part alive and approvers of what took place, after the years 1690 and be- fore the years from 1720 to 1740. Of course these dates do not admit of the utmost degree of precision, but I say it is upon the whole the state of opinion in that body between the years 1690 and 1740 that it is my business to look at. I look at it as a question of history, and I endea- vour to form a judgment from that history as impartially as I can. It is clear that at the commencement of that period there were two great antagonistic principles engaged in deadly conflict ; the one, a regard to authority in matters of reli- gion, and a view of religious truth as something permanent, substantive, inde- pendent, and immutable ; and the other, the supremacy of private judgment. I say that these two great principles were struggling together at the time of the Toleration Act, and that a regard for the supremacy of private judgment, and a dis- inclination to tolerate human interpreta- tions of Scripture, was even at, and before that time, rapidly gaining the upper hand over the old principle, of which I have shown that some records might be found. Now may I be allowed to give the House historical proofs of that important posi- tion ? The House is very well aware that it was required by the Toleration Act, that parties, before they could take the The founders of the chapels were men in middle life at 1688, and were in their graves by 1720. Whatever changes took place after 1730 were produced by men who, in 1710, were too young to have any influence in the denomination. Every account makes the changes confined to the young. This struggle commenced in or after the year 1717, with the Occasional papers, (p. 110,) about the time of the repeal of the Schism Act, when a season of liberty brought a relaxation of the devotional spirit. There is no trace of this spirit at that time. 527 benefit, of that act, should subscribe a declaration which involved indeed a great deal more besides, but which required, among other things, a confession, in the most explicit form, of their full belief in the Holy Trinity. Now the first point I put is, that that act was not universally subscribed. The case of Dr. Calamy, which has been mentioned as a remark- able one, because he was an eminent and devout man, and a sincere believer in the Holy Trinity, is an instance ; it appears that he never subscribed. I again appeal to the authority of Mr Hallam, who acquaints us that the measure of liberty accorded by the Toleration Act was but a scanty measure ; but he says it proved more effectual through the lenient and liberal policy of the 18th century ; the subscription to articles of faith, which soon became as obnoxious as that to matters of a mere indifferent nature, having been practically dispensed with. . . . Baxter, in 1698, published a work called, "A Sense of the Articles of the Church of Englaud," the object of which was to reconcile Dissenting ministers to this subscription : shewing that already the elements of repugnance to subscription were powerfully felt Baxter was willing to subscribe, yet not without stating his regret that any subscription whatever was required beyond an acknow- ledgment of the Canon of Holy Scripture ; and not without also putting his own sense upon the articles. That sense is also in some particulars not a little re- markable ; as, for example, where, upon the article which affirms the Athanasian Creed, he actually excepts from his assent a part of that creed. . . [After noticing that the Heads of Agreement required that a congregation should own the Angli- can, Presbyterian, and Independent for- mulas, see pp. 31 and 76, Mr Gladstone remarked :] I am not, therefore, in a con- dition justly to assert that, at this time, subscription was repudiated. But, on the other hand, I must offer some qualifying remarks. In the first place, this is not intended in any manner to guarantee the profession of a permanent belief. It was not the foundation of a permanent decree, but rather a treaty of co-operation for immediate and practical purposes. In 1694, i m account of doctrinal differences For the manner in which the Doctor spoke of the matter himself, and remarks on the matter, see p. 75. Baxter stood alone in this respect. Only the damnatory clauses of it, p. 155. The three confessions were the basisi of the agreement between the Presby- terians and the rigid body of the Inde- pendents, and were inteuded to continue so. 528 which kept swelling and struggling up- wards, such a project as the union was found to he quite impossible, and those articles of agreement came altogether to an end, and upon them of course depends the virtue (if there be any) of what I have quoted Assuming that these parties were willing at that time to sub- scribe, that might be because they them- selves believed in these particular doc- trines, but it may still be true that they meant to leave to others the means which they had themselves put in action, of departing from the belief of their prede- cessors. But when I look at these chapel deeds, I find, according to the best accounts I can obtain of the terms in which the trusts are commonly declared, that the most general words are used, and if the parties who themselves were willing to subscribe, when they came to found meeting-houses, which of course were intended to be used by their posterity as well as by themselves, no longer referred to doctrinal tests, but framed their deeds in the largest and most general language ; does not that raise a strong presumption, that though they were themselves be- lievers in particular doctrines, yet they objected, on principle, to binding their posterity to the maintenance of them for ever ? I have no motive to bias me, that I am aware of, in this matter, and I wish to state strongly to the house, and to bring strongly before my own mind, the argu- ments on the other side. There are two other points urged by them. One argu- ment which has been used by those who oppose the bill (though it has not been made in this house) is as follows : Those who declared these trusts, and who asso- ciated themselves for the purpose of estab- lishing these chapels, never could be expected to specify the particular doctrine of the Holy Trinity, because it was at that time forbidden by law to deny that doctrine. Now, does any man seriously think that that is a compliment to the foresight, the sagacity, and common sense of those who drew these deeds, or of the parties for whom they acted? Does any man think that those who had seen the changes which took place in the seven- teenth century, calculated on the per- manence until doomsday, of that declara- See p. 138. The union came to an end only in London ; in the various country districts it lasted until the prevalence of Arianism among the Presbyterians. The fact that the chapel deeds of the contemporary Independents were not more precise entirely disposes of this argument. The method in a trust deed is to pre- scribe what is intended, not to proscribe particular errors, otherwise every error omitted might be supposed to be tolerated. At the Revolution the Westminster Con- fession was understood as that of the Presbyterians, and it was sufficient to call a congregation Presbyterian to define its faith. Reference to the Toleration Act was not intended to define the faith, but to prevent any imputation of illegality. 520 tion which, under the Toleration Act, ministers were required to subscribe ? They had seen the Canons of 1040, passed under Archbishop Laud ; they had seen the act of 1648, denouncing the penalty of death against any person questioning the authenticity of the canon of Scripture ; they had seen, in lf>G2, the Act of Unifor- mity passed ; they had seen, in 1689, Nonconformity legalized and permanently established under the shelter of the law ; and is it to be supposed, that with such experience, those men were so unobservant as to imagine, that the great movement winch they had themselves used all their strength to impel, and which manifestly embodied the prevailing sentiment and spirit of the time, had reached the extreme limit of its progress ; that they applied, in fact, the doctrine of finality to that parti- cular form which the policy of the legisla- ture had assumed in the Toleration Act ? It is obvious that they could have done no such thing. But, again, some say that the doctrine was so fixed, not merely by law but by religious faith, in the minds of men, that it never occurred to them that it could be doubted, and therefore that they never thought of predicating it expressly in the trust deeds. But this ground is cut away from them, because it so happens that at this very period the keenest controversies were raging with regard to that doctrine. Even before the Toleration Act, those controversies had commenced. The works of foreign Uni- tarians had been brought into England. Men of very considerable eminence, Mr Biddle, Mr Firmin, and others, persons, I am bound to say, of great individual virtue, were professors of those doctrines ; and I do not suppose that years would suffice to read the tracts that were pub- lished on the subject of this controversy, during the very period in which these chapels were instituted. How, therefore, can it possibly be said that the reason why these parties excluded all reference to the doctrine which they wished to promulgate, was because it was a doctrine as to which no doubt was entertained by any of the religionists of the day ? The provisions of the act (of 10 Anne, 1711, the Occasional Conformity Act) exempting non-subscribers from the penal- ties they had incurred under the Tolera- It cannot be shewn that the Presby- terians of the chapel-building time had any misgivings that their system of doc- trine was unsound, or likely to be super- seded by any other. Every possible form of error had been professed under the Commonwealth, on the overthrow of the laws restraining freedom of opinion, but survived only in individuals. The English Dissenters were all Calvinists, except a few Arminian Baptists, some, chiefly Independents, pushing the doctrine to extravagance ; and the Assem- bly's Catechism being taught in every con- gregation, the term Presbyterian, or indeed Protestant Dissenter, might well appear sufficient definition. Socinianism had, in Cromwell's time, met with universal repro- bation, and heterodoxy took root in the shape of Arianism, but though many Arian and Socinian treatises were pub- lished at the close of the seventeenth century, the opinions which they incul- cated made no way until long after "Winston's and Clarke's volumes appeared, and beyond the utmost limit which can be assigned to the chapel building age. Arian- ism for a long time was confined to ministers, and was not professed by them, so that there was no dread of Anti-Trini- tarianism sufficient to ensure precaution'? against it. 66 530 tion Acts, lead to the inference, both that they were a considerable class, and like- wise that the offence they had committed was a light one in public opinion ; that is, that subscription to the articles, by Dis- senters, was falling into disrepute. But some honourable member has quoted to- night a case which occurred in the year 1702, when Mr Emlyn, an Irish minister, adopted Arian opinions, and became the object of universal reprobation among his brethren. That is the history of 1702 ; but the peculiarity of this case is, that the history of 1702 is not good for 1703, nor is the history of 1703 good for 1704. I will show that a few years after that date, liberty or license, call it which you will, and we might differ perhaps upon that question, had come to such a height, that the whole Presbyterian body had become divided. [The defeat of the attempt to require a declaration of the inspiration of the Scriptures and belief in the Trinity from persons taking the benefit of the Dissenters' Relief Act of 1718, 5 George 1, is then stated]. Now, here was a declaration of the doctrine, reduced to the most naked and unobjectionable form. It is not involved in a multitude of scholastic terms or refined definitions, but it is a simple proposition that a plain and per- fectly intelligible declaration of belief in a particular doctrine, reduced to the most naked form, shall be made the condition of holding office All those who supported the bill and represented the united dissenting interest in Parliament opposed that clause. Does not the right honourable gentleman think that that is a pregnant fact to show what was taking place in the minds of Dissenting ministers and of Dissenters generally at that time ? And be it remembered, too, that at that period the greater part of these founders, as my honourable friend, I think inaccu- rately, calls them, on whose behalf, or on behalf of whose descendants, he is interest- ing himself, must have been themselves alive to take care of their own foundations. [The dismissal of Tierce and Hallett by the Exeter committee is stated, and the reference to the London ministers, see pp. 23-20, and 99-113]. It was debated whether a declaration con- cerning the doctrine of the Trinity should be inserted in the letters of advice which This statement of variation in the body from year to year is utterly ground- less. Emlyn's congregation became ex- tinct in his lifetime, as his friends died, which would not have been the case had there been this divergence from the old faith. Dr. Calamy states there was no reason for putting this test to the Dissenters, and it is evident they resented it as an insult ; yet he writes very co.illy on the subject, and represents the Dissenters generally as not caring much about the matter, except such as were stirred up to do so by an individual to increase and shew his power, pp. 102, 103. The proposal of the declaration was resisted as calling on persons, whom there was no ground for suspecting, to state their opinions in the words of other men ; but 531 it was resolved to send down to Exeter, and it was carried by a small majority, by 73 to GD, that that doctrine should not be conveyed to the congregation at Exeter. Is it possible, then to deny, that in 1719 the opinion of a majority, although a small majority, of the Dissenting body was, that this doctrine should not be made a term of communion? And if so, how can it be said that no doubt was entertained with regard to the doctrine itself ? How, above all, can it be held that the denial of it is a disqualification for succeeding to the use of the chapels now, if it was not a bar to communion then ? But, Sir, the case is still stronger. That meeting was composed of Presby- terians and Independents together. The Independents were not possessed, like the other class, with a tendency to Unita- rianism, and therefore the minority was in point of fact in a great part made up of the Independent body ; but the historians of the Dissenters, Messrs. Bogue and Bennett, fairly admit that the majority of the Presbyterian body who assembled on this occasion, were hostile to any declara- tion as to the doctrine of the Trinity. Now if we keep in view the fact, that that was a period when the majority of these founders of chapels, or partners or asso- ciates in them, were still alive, is not that fact of itself almost conclusive upon the question, as to whether by passing this bill we are violating the intentions of those founders ? There is a most singular testimony upon this subject. It goes further than I should venture to go, because I should not presume to go up to the point of saying that non-subscription was a fundamental principle before the Toleration Act. I d<> say, howevei-, that from 1718 it was estab- lished. But I find that Mr Wilson, who plays a great part in the Lady Hewley controversy as relator, has said in express words (unless he h;is been misquoted), " It is equally a matter of historical noto- riety that the English Presbyterians of the time of Lady Hewley's charity, and subsequent thereto, refused to subscribe any tests, creeds, or declarations of faith, because they objected to bind themselves to the w^ords and phrases <>f any human composition, as the Scotch Presbyterians of the Church of Scotland then did, and us the reverend Scotch petitioners in full communion with the Church of Scotland, the non-subscribers declared that they fully believed the doctrine. The Exeter congregations had dismissed their ministers for Arianism, and appealed for advice to five London Divines, who advised consulta- tion with neighbouring ministers, but were prevailed upon by the ministers' friends to call together the Presbyterian, Inde- pendent, and Baptist ministers of London and its suburbs ; the scheme being to get them to send a letter prepared beforehand with the sole view of saving the ministers from expulsion from their chapels. It was urged that the ministers should not give their advice as if a council ; when that was overruled, it was proposed they should state their opinions in the words of their catechism ; but this was refused because they were not the parties accused, and because they would not subscribe any. human confession ; yet their decision was against the Exeter ministers, for it stated that there were doctrines the non-belief of which justified a congregation in ex- pelling its minister, and that they must be judges in the matter ; so that the decision was in favour of the congre- gations, and supported them in their dis- missal of their ministers. Bogue and Bennett, after referring to the non-subscribers' letter, p. Ill, state : " Wherein this strong declaration differed from the subscription of the other party it is not easy to say." This is very different from Mr Gladstone's statement. Mr Wilson docs not say this. The English Presbyterians from the time of the Revolution did not practise subscription as part of their own discipline, but this does not prove that they were indifferent to doctrine, as Sir Edward Sugden pointed out, p 442. They re- quired a minister at his ordination to give an'exa< t account of his faith, p. 20. 532 and the said reverend Scotch petitioners in connection with the Secession Church, now do." Mr AYrilson, therefore, conies forward and says, "It is true that you Scotch Presbyterians are subscribers, but we English Presbyterians were always non-subscribers," and thus he establishes the very position which, if it be made good, renders the argument for this bill, not as a question of compromise, or of settlement by way of limitation, but upon its merits, in the strictest sense, quite irresistible. But, Sir, I am going to quote to the House the sentiments of two individuals upon this most important question, ex- pressed within the periods to which I have referred. First, I will refer to the senti- ments of Dr. Calamy, and then to those of a man who perhaps stands higher in reputation among religious persons of the Dissenting body than any other individual of the eighteenth century, Dr. Doddridge. Dr. Calamy wrote in 1718 upon the subject of this Salters' Hall controversy. He was delivering a course of lectures on that great doctrine to which I am sorry to have had occasion so often to refer by name ; he was solicited to join in this Salters' Hall controversy, but briefly refused to do so, and he gives this very clear account of that refusal, [see pp. 104 and 105.] " I told him .... in my apprehension unavoidable," and "As to the grand matter . . . . one in communion." So much for Dr. Calamy. Now let us hear the words of Dr. Doddridge, with whose testi- mony I will close my examination of the sentiments and the doctrinal movement of the Presbyterian body between 1689 and 1740. In a letter dated December, 1737, he uses this remarkable language : "I think we cannot be too careful not to give any countenance to that narrow spirit which has done so much mischief in the Christian Church. And what confusion would it breed amongst us, if those who were supposed to be of different senti- ments, either in the Trinitarian, Calvinis- tical or other controversies, were to be on both sides excluded from each other's pulpits !" Now, by what has taken place in Par- liament, by what has taken place at meet- ings of Dissenting ministers, and by what has been stated by the greatest oracles of Mr Gladstone ought not to have allowed himself to have been led into such a mistake as to suppose non-subscription shows indifference to doctrine. These quotations shew that Dr. Calamy was against subscription to any human statement of doctrine, but nothing more. Mr Gladstone seems not to have known that Dr. Doddridge was an Inde- pendent. This expression exactly tallies with the representation before given ; for.there was at the time supposition and suspicion of heresy only. 533 those Dissenting ministers, it is established, that before the deaths of the very parties who first of all associated themselves together in order to establish these chapels, it had become entirely an open question whether or not a man should hold the orthodox and ancient belief with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. .... Upon that [the bill of 1779] I do not stand, because if you could show that the transition took place at a period so long after the deaths of the parties founding these chapels, you might create dissatisfaction in the public mind, though I do not think you would prove thereby that tins bill ought not to pass. But, Sir, to me it appears that this is not a question on which there is justly any room for difference of opinion. I cannot admit that it is subject to the smallest doubt, whether these parties ought to be regarded, or not, as qualified successors of the early Presbyterians in their chapels. If you are satisfied to look at nothing but the mere external view of the case, and to say, Here were certain persons who founded these chapels enter- taining one creed, and the present posses- sors of those chapels profess another creed, I admit that that sounds startling. But if you take the pains to follow the course of events from year to year, it is impossible to say that at any given period the transi- tion from one doctrine to the other was made. It was a gradual and an impercep- tible transition. There can be no pretence for saying that it was made otherwise than honestly. I at least do not hold myself entitled to say so. The pai-ties who effected it made a different use of the principle of inquiry by private judgment from those who had preceded them ; but they acted on a principle fundamentally the same, and though I may lament the result, I do not see how their title is vitiated because they used it to one effect, and others to another. I feel no competition or conflict be- tween my religious belief and the vote I am about to give. I am not called upon to do that which I could not do, namely, to balance the weight and value of a great moral law, against that of some high and vital doctrine of Christianity. Our reli- gious belief should guide us in this as in other acts. But I contend that the best This mis-statement as to the Salters' Hall meeting has been refuted before. It was the gradual nature of this transition which prevented its being noticed, or made those who noticed it despair of obtaining redress from a court, on any slight departure from time to time from the original doctrines. And this circumstance presented the strongest reason for not confirming the ultimate state of things reached by it ; whether the changes were introduced by persons who did not see what they were doing, or whether the process was the result of a scheme first devised, and afterwards carried out, by a small confederacy of insidious men. 534 use you can make of your religious belief is to apply it to the decisive performance, without scruple or hesitation, of a great and important act, an act which, whether the consequences to arise from it may he convenient or inconvenient, (and I believe the balance will be found to be greatly on the side of convenience, but that is the second question, not the first, of those now before us,) I hope I have in some measure proved to be founded on the per- manent principles of truth and justice. Mr Gladstone's speech, though wrong in assuming facts, shows an earnestness and conscientiousness about the matter, and a power of entering into questions of religion, not found in any other supporters of the bill, and his reasoning throughout admits, expressly or by implication, principles decisive in favour of the orthodox claimants of the chapels. Mr Sheil, member for Dungarvan, spoke for the Romanists, and said they also supported the bill " because founded upon the great principle of religious toleration." He said he " endeavoured to associate with the lofty faith of the illustrious Bossuet, the gentleness and the charity of the merciful Fenelon." " To the defrauded spirit of William of Wykeham (worth a hundred Lady Hewleys) let restitution be made [by restoring the honours he paid to the virgin] and then you may consistently become the abettors of the orthodox Presbyterians." He spoke of Mary Armstrong and her four daughters being " cast out with predes- tination for their comfort " of " litigation in which controversy and chicane are combined, in which the mysteries of Calvinism are rendered darker by the mystifications of jurisprudence, and in which the enthusiasm of orthodox solicitors is associated with the rapacity of acquisitive divines," and of the Irish opposers of the bill " seating themselves in the iron chair of Calvinistic infalli- bility, and reading the Book of Mercy by that lurid light with which Geneva was illuminated when Servetus was consumed." The Irish Presbyterians are mostly Orangemen, hence this attack. Sir Robert Peel (the Premier) then member for Tamworth, next addressed the House. Notwithstanding a preponderance of Sir Robert refers to the bill as if it argument on one side of the question, had been introduced by the Socinians, and unexampled within my recollection in any not by his own administration, and he might former debate, I should still be unwilling well do so. His candour in admitting to permit this debate to close, without that he did not at first expect it could be briefly expressing the grounds upon which carried, and that he gave his assent to it 535 I have determined, with ray colleagues, to give to this bill the most decided and persevering support. I undertook to give that support under very different impres- sions with respect to ultimate success from those which I now entertain. I undertook to give my support to this bill, at a time when I had good reason to doubt whether it woidd be conducted to a suc- cessful issue. But I did entertain so strong a belief with respect to the justice of the principles upon which this bill was founded, that I and my colleagues were prepared to make evei-y other considera- tion subordinate to the fulfilment of that duty, which appeared to us to impose upon us the obligation, of supporting a bill founded upon those principles. I am bound to say that my opinion was formed without any very elaborate con- sideration of the historical truths or of the legal doctrines that are presented to us in this consideration. "With respect to the legal doctrines, I am not about to undervalue the great legal doctrines which are to be found in the law of England, that great doctrine of trusts, I dare say, ought to be held in great veneration and respect ; but I say this, that if that or any other great doctrine imposes the necessity of inflicting wrong, I will look out for a mode of applying a remedy ; first, because 1 think individual justice requires it ; and secondly, because in proportion to the importance of the doctrine, and in pro- portion to the necessity of maintaining it, so in proportion is increased the necessity of not subjecting it to the odium of being made the instrument of inflicting wrong. I find that before the year 1813, there were a number of chapels founded with trust deeds, some of which deeds express, that the doctrine of the Trinity shall be preached in those chapels, founded by those who dissented from the Church of England, but who agreed with the Church of England in the maintenance of the doc- trine of the Trinity. Where those deeds are so expressed as to show that the inten- tion of the founder was, that the doctrine of the Trinity only should be preached in that endowment, we do not want this bill to disturb those intentions. The inten- tion of the founder will still remain. But there are other chapels founded, where there is no express declaration in the without knowing accurately the facts of the case, or the principles of law respect- ing it, is very great, but the majority was so certain that he could safely own that he made up his mind on statements made to him. The confessed fear of defeat at once accounts for the unfair advantages secured by the ministry, and admits the impression which the bill was calculated to produce upon the public mind. This cold reference to the non-applica- tion of the bill to such cases, and to the re- spect due to founders' intentions, may be thought to indicate that it was only the fear of defeat which restrained Sir Robert Peel from attempting, by his bill, 536 trust deeds as to the nature of the doc- trines to be preached there. In the great majority of those trust deeds the words are simply these, that the chapel is for the worship of Almighty God by Protestant Dissenters of the Presbyterian denomina- tion. Would it be consistent with justice, I ask, that, those being the words, I should now presume (there being nothing more express as to the intention of the founder) that it was the purpose of the founder that the doctrine of the Trinity should be preached ; and that, notwith- standing usage and notwithstanding pre- scription, I should dispossess those who are now in possession of the chapels, and confer them on others ? Am I to be called on, in deference to any great principle of English law, to violate the first principles of justice in order to maintain the techni- cal application of the law ? I can under- stand why a Unitarian founder should have said nothing as to his intention. The principle of the law was against it. There was a motive for the concealment of his intentions. It was wise in him to deal in generalities, because a law existed which told him, " If you contravene the doctrine of the Trinity, your endowment is forfeited." But why should Trinita- rians remain silent as to their intentions ? The doctrine of Unitarianism was repug- nant to their feelings. The law would respect their endowments if their inten- tions were expressed. What motive could they have for only expressing, that a chapel was founded for the worship of Almighty God by Protestant Dissenters of the Presbyterian denomination ? Is it not much more probable that the founders of those chapels were hostile to any sub- scription ; that they wished to maintain freedom of opinion ; that they objected to conformity to any particular class of doc- trines ; and that, therefore, they objected to bind their successors by any formula of particular doctrines, but respected in their successors that freedom of opinion they claimed for themselves ? And (presuming that to have been the original intention of the founders) can I with any justice impute, and would it be a veneration for the intention of the founders to impute, to them opinions which they may never have entertained ? to override the most express trust for Trinitarians, if the congregation, equally unconscientious, had for the requisite period, professed Socinianism. Lord Lynd- hurst, from his expressions, seems to have had the same views, and Lord Brougham, seeing how safe the measure was, gently rebuked his timidity. The disclosure of their loose notions as to the obligation to comply with founders' express directions, so contrary to all received principle, will it is supposed render all they said of little weight with the genera- lity of readers, but being in high places their reasonings must be answered. As a matter of fact, Ernlyn's and Pierce's con- gregations were the only ones in which heterodox worship was carried on during the whole of the chapel-building period ; see the remarks of Lord Chief Justice Tindal p. 358, Mr Baron Gurney p. 355, and Lord Chancellor Sugden pp. 449, 452 ; and the latitudinarian notion of differences of opinion being immaterial was entirely strange to English Presbyterians of that time according to Mr Baron Alderson p. 309, and Mr Justice Coleridge p. 354. In Ireland, down to the formation of the Presbytery of Antrim, all were of admit- ted orthodoxy. Wherever suspicion of Arianism arose, in Exeter p. 23, in London p. 26, in Dublin p. 449, in the whole North of Ireland p. 381, the laity were up in arms, and they were the budders of the chapels. The trust deeds of the chapels of the Presbyterian congregations most zealous for orthodoxy, are all equally vague as to doc- trines, and so were for the most part the deeds of Independent chapels, even of those founded by seceders from the old meeting-houses on their choosing Arian ministers. The Irish deeds are not more definite, but that would be occasioned by trust in the notoriety of the principles professed by the Synod, and confidence in the safeguard of its jurisdiction, as to which there was no doubt at that early day. For the spirit which the frisk Pres- byterians there displayed see p. 372. All the deeds of the chapels built before the death of Anne were prepared in fear of the worship again becoming illegal, as is shewn by the provisions introduced as to the disposal of them in that case. The method of turning their ministers out of the church had been to require of 537 Sir, my determination to support this bill was founded on a belief in its justice, and on a knowledge of the injustice that would arise from the application of the existing law in particular instances. Every one who may consult the records of the place he represents, may find, in some small retired nook, some unpretending little chapel, to which, if you choose to apply the technical rigours of the law, grievous injustice may be done. Each honourable gentleman is of course conver- sant with his own locality. For myself, I represent a town (Tamworth). There is a Unitarian chapel there. It was founded in 1724.. It was founded by Unitarians. There never was a suspicion that it was founded for the promotion of Trinitarian doctrines. For fifty-three years, there was a minister holding Anti-Trinitarian doctrines. I recollect the close of his life. There was but one single bequest for the endowment of that chapel, which was left by the daughter of that Unitarian minis- ter. There is religious peace in the con- stituency I represent. We have Roman Catholic, Unitarian, and Church of Eng- land chapels connected with it. We are altogether undisturbed by rehgious dis- cord. But if, under a professed venera- tion for the doctrine of trusts, you let in a speculative attorney, who for the sake of costs will bring this Unitarian chapel, circumstanced as I have described, with but one bequest, and that the bequest of the daughter of a professed Unitarian minister, into the Court of Chancery, the costs of the suit to be paid out of the endowment, the speculative attorney will be the only person who will profit by it, because it is impossible that Independents, or Baptists, or Wesleyan Methodists, can establish their title to that property ; you will extinguish the funds of that institu- them subscription to the prayer book, which supposes that it was contrary to their doctrines, and they woidd be unwilling to state them through fear of their being pronounced unlawful as contrary to the established faith. A reference to the Westminster Confession, the work of a Synod convened by the rebel Parliament, which imposed first the Covenant, and afterwards the Engagement, would have been entirely opposed to the caution which framed all the early trust deeds. The Tamworth congregation, who knew the facts, contented themselves with saying in their petition that the second minister, the Rev. John Byng, was a de- cided Unitarian. It was founded pre- viously to 1718, and was beyond all question of Trinitarian origin. With all Sir Robert's seeming candour he is most disingenuous here ; he forgets the Independent, Baptist, and Wesleyan chapels at Tamworth, though he mentions all those denominations immediately after- wards, when he imagines them as claiming the Socinian chapel, and by their pre- sence introducing discord into his own little borough. Sir Robert's ignorance of the matter is shown by his putting Independents on a level with Baptists and Wesleyans as re- gards title to the old meeting-house at Tam- worth ; he forgot that the last-mentioned body was not in existence at its fouuda- 6* 538 tion, and introduce religious discord into a community to which religious discoi-d is a stranger. But, Sir, what is the case of Ireland ? What is the case of the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster ? Is it possible that the House of Commons will permit the grie- vous infliction of injustice which will be the consequence, if every chapel in com- munion with the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster in Ireland, is to be dispossessed of its property as the result of a suit in a Court of Chancery ? Now what is the history of that Remonstrant Synod ? It has lost two chapels already, at the expense in one case of costs to the amount of £2,000. Two chapels have been already forfeited, and further suits are threatened if this bill does not pass. In 1829, a separation took place. The Remonstrant Synod of Ulster, having professed Unitarian opinions up to that time, separated from the general Synod of Ulster, and some seven- teen or eighteen congregations severed the connection. That severance was made in peace, with the distinct understanding that the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster should remain in possession of its privi- leges and immunities. The chapels were then in decay. The members of the con- gregations, however, since 1830, have repaired the chapels, rebuilt them, taken fresh sites, added to the chapels, formed additional burying-grounds, and not a word was heard of disturbance until the decision in Lady Hewley's case, and then the principle which pervaded that decision induced persons, who appeared to have no direct interest, to bring actions against this Remonstrant Synod. To do what ; To recover Trinitarian property ? No ; but to take from the Unitarians the chapels which they had built or enlarged, and the burial-grounds in which their wives, then- fathers, and their children had been buried. Sir Robert's assertions as to the Unitarian origin of the chapels the trust deeds of which contain no specification of doctrines, and in particular of the one at Tauiworth, and as to Trinitarian attacks on the Remonstrant Synod, are misrepre- sentations about as gross as can well be conceived, and show the deception under which he lav as to the facts of the whole case. From his own statements it is clear that he was the real author of the bill, and there is therefore no injustice in judging tion ; and Iris reading never made him acquainted with the state of the churches described in pp. 59, 60. The Presbytery of Antrim was de- feated in its attempt to take the chapel of Clough from the Synod of Ulster, and the Remonsriant Synod failed to get from it the chapel of Killinchy. The statement that the Remonstrant Synod had already lost two chapels was no doubt made to Sir Robert, but he should not have lent him- self to retail whatever his Socinian friends told him without some examination. The Synod of Ulster merely succeeded in re- taining its own, so that the position of the parties was the reverse of what he stated. He seems to have fancied that the Remonstrant Synod was, before 1828, (like the Presbytery of Antrim before 1724) a body of itself, having rights as such to the seventeen chapels, whde in fact they be- longed to the Synod of Ulster. As to the outlay on those seventeen chapels, sixteen years only had elapsed since the formation of the Remonstrant Synod, and much may have been done by it in the first fervour of its existence in liberty and honesty ; but since the time that Sir Robert spoke Crumlin has disappeared from the list of Unitarian chapels, and in Cairneastle there is but one chapel, while the Presbytery of An- trim had one there at the time of its formation. The congregation there which eventually took part with the Remons- trant Synod appears to have been formed to supply the vacancy in the Synod of Ulster, occasioned by the defection of the congregation which constituted part of the Presbytery of Antrim ; and it must have been a Trinitarian foundation. 539 of it from his speech. His reputation for accuracy, aud care in religious matters, gave irresistible force to his statements, and when their utter incorrectness is seen nothing more should be needed to induce a condemnation of the whole proceeding. Lord John Russell (member for London) after agreeing with Sir Robert Peel that the argument was all on one side, said the bill had been objected to as an injury to religion, but if it did jus- tice it could not be so ; and that he thought there should be presci-iption for that kind of property. Lord Sandon, (member for Liverpool), whose pedigree begins with an ejected minister, and who gave as his motto Servata Fides Cineri, and who might well therefore see the monstrous injustice the bill, warned the House against the clause binding the con- gregations irrecoverably to opinions confessedly opposed to those of the founders, but did not suggest any other plan of attaining the object of the bill. The House then divided: 300 Ayes to 119 Noes; majo- rity, 191.* * The following notices of motion were given : 6th June. Mr Boyd, (member for Coleraine). That George Mathews, of the city of Dublin, Esq., be heard by himself or by counsel, in support of his petition against the first and second clauses of the bill. Mr Boyd: That the Rev. Henry Cook, D.D., L.L.D., Moderator of the General Synod of Ulster, be heard by himself or by counsel, in support of his petition against the bill, and also against the first, second, and third clauses of the said bill. 10th June. Mr Shaw, see text. 17th June. Mr Boyd : to add Clause 2, And be it enacted, That in all cases where such meeting-houses, schools, or other charitable foundations shall have been built, founded, or endowed for the use of one denomination, and have come into the possession of another denomination, by whose members the original foundation or endowment shall have been augmented or improved to the extent of one hundred pounds or upwards, it shall be lawful for the High Court of Chancery in England or Ireland, or other court of equitable jurisdiction, in any suit that shall be instituted for the restoration of any such meeting-houses, schools, or other charitable foundations, to direct inquiries to be made into the facts of the case in the Masters' Office ; and if it shall appear to the satis- faction of the court that such meeting-houses, schools, or other charitable foundations> ought to be restored to the denomination on whose behalf it was built, founded, or endowed, but that such augmented or improved endowments ought with regard to the intentions of their respective donors to belong to some other denomination, then and in " such case it shall be lawful for the court to sever from the original foundation all such augmented or improved endowments, and to direct the same to be exempted from the operation of any decree ordering the restoration of any such meeting-houses, schools, or other charitable foundations as aforesaid, and to be applied in such manner as shall seem to the court best calculated to promote the true intentions of the respective founders of all such augmented or improved endowments. Clause 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, that in case it shall appear to the said court that such exempted part or parts cannot be severed from the other part or parts thereof, without inconvenience and injury to the meeting-house, school, or other charitable foundation in general, it shall be lawful for the said court to ascertain by 540 21st June. On Sir James Graham, member for Dorchester and Home Secretary, moving the going into committee on the bill, Mr Plumptre said the bill would remove the keystone from the arch of Christianity, but he would not divide the House, as its opinion had been so clearly expressed. Lord John Russell remarked that Unitarians must have justice, and Sir Robert Peel resented the imputation of endowing Unitarianism, which had been cast upon reference to its proper officer the actual existing value or amount of such exempted part or parts of such meeting-house, school, or other charitable foundation, which cannot be separated as aforesaid, such value to be ascertained in such manner and subject to such directions as such court may consider, under all the circumstances of the case, just and equitable ; and the said court is hereby empowered to declare, that the value so ascer- tained shall be a charge upon and payable out of such meeting-house, school, or other charitable foundation, at such time or times, and in such manner, and subject to such orders and directions, and for such trusts in respect thereof, as the said court, under the circumstances of each particular case, shall order and direct, and subject thereto ; that the said meeting-house, school, or other charitable foundation, shall thereupon be for ever afterwards held upon the trusts intended by the donor or donors thereof respec- tively. Provided always, and be it enacted, that nothing herein contained shall affect any right or title to property derived under or by virtue of any judgment, order, or decree already pronounced by any court of law or equity, or affect any property the right or title to which was in question in any action or suit pending on the 1st day of March in the present year ; but subject nevertheless to a power and authority to be exercised by the court wherein any such action or suit shall be pending, to institute and direct an inquiry whether any and what part of the property sought to be recovered by or in question in any such action or suit had been given, granted, or bequeathed, by persons not main- taining or professing the religious doctrines or opinions of the original donors of the property, or founders of any meeting-house in question, in such action or suit, and had been so given, granted, or bequeathed for the teaching and maintenance of other reli- gious doctrines or opinions believed or professed by any congregation then occupying or frequenting such meeting-house as aforesaid, at the time of any such gift, grant, or bequest ; and shall and may separate such property from the other portion thereof in question in any action or suit, and shall and may direct that it shall and may be held and enjoyed by such parties, for such purposes and upon such trusts, and subject to such regulations as to the said court shall seem meet, any custom or legal opinion, practice, or judgment to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding. Add to Clause 4, And whereas there may be individuals and families deriving annuities or salaries from such charitable foundations who have come into possession of the same unconscious of any change from the original intention of the trust, and with regard to the continuance of which doubts might ai-ise ; therefore be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for the High Court of Chancery, or other court of equitable jurisdiction in England or Ireland, to direct that such annuities or salaries, or any portion thereof, shall continue to be paid during the lives of all who shall be in receipt of such annuities or salaries at the time of issuing any decree for restoration of any such charitable fund to the intentions of the original founder. 17th June. The Earl of Hillsborough, (member for County Down). That clauses 2 and 3 of the bill be struck out, and the following clauses substituted in lieu thereof ; the same clauses as Mr Boyd's, with the addition of the following : Clause 5, And whereas it is expedient to provide a more summary remedy in cases of breaches of trust of any such meeting-house as aforesaid, as well as for the just and upright administration of the same ; be it therefore enacted, That in every case 541 the bill, asserting that it benefitted equally all Dissenters possessing property of that nature. Mr Shaw, member for Dublin University, Recorder of Dublin, referred to the disadvantage the opponents of the bill were under in consequence of Sir Thomas Wylde, who it had been understood would oppose it, having changed his mind the night before the second reading, and of Mr Boyd, who had given notice of of a breach of any trust of any such meeting-house as aforesaid, or whenever the direc- tion or order of a Court of Equity shall be deemed necessary for the due administration of any such trust as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for any two or more persons to present a petition to any Court of Equity in England or Ireland, as the case maybe, having jurisdiction in cases of charitable trusts, stating the matter of complaint, and praying such relief as the nature of the case may require ; and it shall be lawful for such court to whom such petition shall be presented as aforesaid, and such court is hereby required to hear such petition in a summary way, and upon affidavits or such other evidence as shall be produced upon such hearing, to determine the same, and to make such order or decree therein, and also with respect to the costs of such application, as to such court shall seem just ; and such order or decree shall be final and conclusive, unless the party or parties who shall think himself or themselves aggrieved thereby, shall within two years from the time when such order or decree shall have been passed and entered by the proper officer, have preferred an appeal from such decision, to the House of Lords ; provided always, That every such petition shall be signed by the persons preferring the same, in the presence of and shall be attested by the solicitor or attorney for such peti- tioners, and shall be submitted to and allowed by Her Majesty's Attorney or Solicitor- General, and such allowance shall be certified by him before such petition shall be presented. And be it further enacted, That no such petition, nor any proceedings thereon, or relative thereto, nor any copy of such petition or proceeding, shall be subject or liable to the payment of any stamp duty whatever. 28th .Tune. Mr Shaw, see Text, (second clause). Viscount Jocelyn, (member for King's Lynn). That, in the second clause, instead of the words "any suits relating to such meeting-house," be substituted the words "the passing of this act." Lord Ashley, (member for Dorsetshire). To substitute the following for clause 3 : Provided always, and be it enacted, That nothing herein contained shall affect any right or title to property derived under or by virtue of any judgment, order, or decree, already pronounced by any Court of Law or Equity, or affect any property the right or title to which was in question in any action or suit pending on the first day of March in the present year ; but subject, nevertheless to a power and authority to be exercised by the court wherein any such action or suit shall be pending to institute and direct an inquiry whether any and what part of the property sought to be recovered by or in question in any such action or suit had been given, granted, or bequeathed by persons not maintaining or professing the religious doctrines or opinions of the original donors of the property or founders of any meeting-house in question in such action or suit, and had been so given, granted, or bequeathed, for the teaching and maintenance of other religious doctrines or opinions believed or professed by any congregation then occupying and frequenting such meeting-house as aforesaid, at the time of any such gift, grant, or bequest, and shall and may separate such property from the other portion thereof in question in any action or suit, and shall and may direct that it shall and may be held and enjoyed by such parties for such purposes and upon such trusts, and subject to such regulations as to the said court shall seem meet ; any opinion, practice, or judgment to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding. 542 amendments, being absent in consequence of the illness of "a relative. Mr Darby (West Sussex), Colonel Sib thorp (Lincoln), Sir Walter James (Hull), Mr Lawson (Knaresborough), and Colonel Verner (Armagh County), spoke against the bill; Mr Sergeant Murphy (Cork), Mr Collet (Athlone), Mr Ward (Sheffield), Mr Mark Phillips (Manchester), The Hon. John Stuart Wortley (West Riding), and Mr Bickham Escott (Winchester), for it. The House then went into committee. Mr Hardy (Bradford), moved that the bill should be entitled, " a bill for the relief of Dissenters, commonly called Unitarians/5 or " certain persons dissenting from the United Church of England and Ireland/' but on the Solicitor-General, Sir Frederick Thesiger, member for Woodstock, pointing out that the first clause benefitted all Dissenters, he withdrew his motion. Mr J. Stuart Wortley, noticing Lord Lyndhurst's expressions in his judgment in the Hewley case, p. 320. " If we are correct Unitarian doctrines and Unitarian purposes," said, he did not intend to protect trustees who had so acted ; he also pointed out that the Irish Presbyterians were on a different footing from that of the English Dissenters. Mr Shaw then stated that very few of the Irish chapels, not twenty-two out of five hundred,* had trust deeds, but that they were part of a body governed by a yearly Synod, which had a recognized standard of faith. He moved the insertion after "therein," of "Where no particular religious doctrines or opinions are contained in any book or other documents preserved among the authentic records of any recognised Synod or religious body, or preserved by the congregations attending their meetings." The language of this amendment would have suited the case of Independent congrega- tions, but stated the case of the Synod of Ulster, a Presbyterian body with a recognized standard of faith, so weakly as to prevent the true point from being seen, and almost to shut it out from argument. The Solicitor- General opposed the amendment because" the documents proposed to be referred to could not prove the intentions of the founders of the chapels, and he referred to Dill v. Watson as shewing that the Presbytery of Antrim had been Arian from its foundation. * i.e. of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland formed by the union of the Synod of Ulster, the orthodox part of the Synod of Munster, and the Secession Church. 543 Mr Shaw said that lie did not know the case as to the Presbytery of Antrim, but the Synod of Ulster never intended to take pro- ceedings against it or the Eemonstrant Synod. He represented the Synod as saying, " We only want to secure the right we have always enjoyed, the right of bringing actions against those of our own body who are endeavouring to get away their property. Let us have our property ; we do not want upon any technicality of law to get possession of Unitarian property." Mr Shaw pro- fessed himself willing to maintain the rights of the Presbytery of Antrim and the Remonstrant Synod. The Attorney- General said the Synod founded no chapels, and that the principle of the bill was that the original congrega- tions, though professing some pai'ticular doctrines for themselves, did not intend that their successors should be bound by their doctrines to all time, while the object of the amendment was, that the Synod of Ulster might preserve their faith in their present chapels, but the committee to do so must deal with faith, and not with property. He added, " The fact is, that the Synod of Ulster think that if there exists any tendency in the Protestants of the North of Ireland towards Unitarianism, this provision, if introduced into the bill, would tend to put a check on it. I can assure my right honourable and learned friend that if such a tendency exists, no act of parliament will or can stop it." Sir Robert Peel referred to the Presbytery of Antrim being Arian from the beginning, and to the Synod of Ulster and Remonstrant Synod as having separated by consent, and said that the declaration that the Presbytery of Antrim and Remon- strant Synod were not intended to be interfered with by the Synod of Ulster would relieve them from apprehensions, for which they had good grounds, in consequence of the Synod's resolution of 1st March, 1843 (p. 482). The mistaken assertion as to the Presbytery of Antrim being Arian from the beginning was thus turaed against the Synod ; and it seems to have been so convincing to Mr Shaw as to induce him to disclaim the Synod's real inten- tions, and so reduce them to the humiliating position of opposing the act through fear lest they should lose others of their chapels. The case of the Synod was unanswerable if it had been clearly and fully stated, viz., that they had been from the beginning rigid Trinitarians professing the Westminster Confession, that the laws of their church required subscription to it, and that the 544 Presbytery of Antrim were expelled for not subscribing it, that therefore there was no need of their chapels being by deed dedicated to the support of any doctrines, that they had very few deeds by which to define their tenets, and that the acts of their Synod set up and maintained an unchangeable standard of orthodoxy for every congregation under their care. The com- mittee then divided : For the amendment 45, and against it 163; majority 118. Mr Shaw then moved to substitute sixty for twenty-five years as the period of limitation, contrasting it with the period of ad- verse possession necessary to gain a title against ecclesiastical sole corporations, in whose case an adverse possession must have continued during the period formed by two incumbencies, and six years after the appointment of the third incumbent, if such period amounts to sixty years, and if not, then during such additional time as will with such period make sixty years, so that the establishment cannot lose any real property till it has been in other hands for sixty years, and until at least three incumbents have had full time for claiming and recovering it, (while a layman loses his land if for twenty years out of possession of it,) on the ground that a clergyman with a mere life interest has not the same motive for incurring the expense and trouble of litigation as a common proprietor, and therefore a benefice should not be despoiled of any property until three incum- bents have neglected to recover it. In the case of the chapels only twenty-five years is allowed by the act for suits instituted for the restoration of chapels to their proper use, although no one has any beneficial ownership in them, and litigation for such an object is most expensive and hazardous. The reason assigned for the selection of this period by the editor of the debates is that it was proper that a witness should be twenty-five years old at the commencement of the period to which he had to depose, but why he should not be more than fifty at the time of his giving this evidence it is difficult to say. No doubt twenty- five years was adopted as the first round number (a quarter .of a century) since 1817, when first preaching against the doctrine of the Trinity became lawful ; it being obvious that, as an illegal act would not be allowed to become the foundation of a right, the period of limitation could not commence before 1817; and any longer period would have made the act valueless as regards the cases it was intended to serve. 545 Mr Hardy and Colonel Sibthorpe supported this amendment, but it was negatived witliout a division. Lord Jocelyn declined to press the one of which he had given notice after the fate of the others. A question arose as to the meatiing of the phrase "usage of the congregation/' when Sir Robert Peel stated that the motion and phrase were both taken from Lord Eldon's judgment in The Attorney- General v. Pearson. Mr Hardy then moved an addition to clause 2, which was even- tually adopted as the last sentence of it, but there was a division of 188 to 62 on the whole clause, which was to all intents the bill. Lord Ashley was not ready with a clause framed on his notice. Mr Shaw said that on the hearing of the Attorney- Genei'al v. Drummond, it was arranged that the decision as to a sum of £2000, part of the General Fund the subject of that suit, {being the principal set apart to provide £100 a year for the Strand Street Chapel), should stand over until the suit then insti- tuted as to that chapel should be disposed of; and this produced a. conversation as to the suits for the Strand Street and the Eustace Street Chapels, and as to the Irish Chancellor reserving his judgment in the latter case after intimating an opinion in favour of the relators, in the course of which the Solicitor- General stated that the case of the Eustace Street chapel was stronger for the Unitarians than that of the Strand Street chapel ; so that no inferences are to be drawn from the proceedings in the case of the last-named chapel not being before the public. Mr Godson also spoke. He said that there were two chapels in his borough (Kidderminster), one an old one and the other built by a Unitarian secession from it ; that both were the pro- perty of their congregations, and they conceived they might be affected by the present state of the law, and he wished justice done to such congregations. This remark shows how completely the act was misunderstood even by a Queen's Counsel, the foun- ders' intentions were protected by the old law, and put in jeopardy by the new one. The old chapel, it should be stated, was preserved by the course of proceeding referred to at page 40. 28th June. On the day fixed for the third reading, Mr Col- quhoun,* member for Newcastle-under-Lyne, urged that a com- * It should have been mentioned that in the debate on the second reading Mr Colquhoun answered Mr Macaulay's argument, and showed the difference between recovering an estate held upon a religious trust and recovering a bailor's bill, whioh that gentleman had mentioned as parallel cases. OS - 546 mission should have been issued to examine into the case of every chapel. He argued that where the expenses of a suit would exceed the worth of the chapel there was no danger of litigation, and pointed out that Lady Hewley's Charity Fund was saved, but her chapel would be lost by this bill. He showed the danger of litigation under it, and warned the house against breaking in upon the principles of law which regulated all trust property. Sir Robert Inglis supported this view. Lord Eliot, member for East Cornwall, Irish Secretary, seemed to think that the Synod of Ulster had no better argument to use than the illegality of heterodoxy before 1817. He relied also on the outlay upon the chapels by persons of the opinions of the holders. Sir Thomas Wilde explained that he had met the opponents of the bill when himself adverse to it, but had never been asked to take a leading part in the opposition, or been supplied with papers by them ; that he had not undertaken their case, but had merely obtained from the government further time for consideration of the bill; and that he had not been applied to again until the day before the second reading, when he told the persons applying to him he should support the bill. Mr Shaw closed the debate by a protest, " That the obvious tendency of the measure will be to encourage and favour one small body of the Dissenters, namely, the Unitarians, who alone desire the bill, while the great and overwhelming majority of the Dissenting community of all parts of the kingdom warmly oppose it, as injurious to their just rights of property, and offensive to their conscientious principles in religion." 28th June. The bill was returned to the Lords with the Commons' amendments, and ordered to be printed by 1st July. 1st, 8th, 9th, and 11th July. • Petitions for and against the bill were presented; and the Bishops of Durham and Norwich, Earl Fortescue and Lord Campbell, made remarks in support of it, and the Earls of Wicklow, Fitzhardinge, Galloway, and Roden and the Bishop of Exeter, spoke against it. The Bishop preferred the bill as returned, but pronounced it inconsistent with itself, and a stultification of the Lords' decisions. 15th July. The Commons' amendments were considered. The Bishop of London moved that they be considered that day three months. The Chancellor, the Bishops of Durham and Norwich, and Lords Brougham and Cotteuham, spoke in favour 547 of the bill, and the Bishop of London, the Earls of Roden and Galloway, and Lords Teynham and Lyttelton against it. Lord Cottenham justified himself from remarks on the amendment which he proposed on the bill passing. A few words with which Lord Lyttelton concluded at once his speech and the debates, put the matter in its proper point of view, " I think the words of this [the second] clause greatly narrow the field allowed to the courts for discovering the intention of the founder; and the introduc- tion into the law of a new principle of this breadth is neither necessary nor safe." On the division there were : For agreeing to the Commons' Amendments, content, present 100, proxies 102, total 202. Not content, present 27, proxies 14, total 41 ; majority 161. The minority of nine on the third reading consisted of the Marquis Cholmondeley ; the Earls of Mountcashel, Winchelsea, and Brownlow; Viscount Combermere; and Lords Teynham, Boston, Arden and Kenyon. The following particulars refer to the division on agreeing to the Commons' amendments. Bishops voting for the bill: Durham (Maltby), Norwich (Stanley), Hereford (Musgrave), St. David's (Thirlwall), aud Worcester (Pepys). Prelates voting against the bill : Archbishop, Armagh (Beresford) ; Bishops, London (Blomfield), Llandaff (Copleston), Gloucester (Monk), Chichester (Gilbert), Rochester (Murray), Salisbury (Denison). The Bishop of Exeter did not vote as he saw it would be of no avail, bat he entered his protest. Absent prelates : Archbishops, Canterbury (Howie}7), York (Vernon Harcourt) ; Bishops, Bath and Wells (Law), St. Asaph (Carey), Baugor (Bethell), Carlisle (Percy), Chester (Sumner), Oxford (Bagot), Ely (Allen), Ripon (Longley), Peterborough (Davys) . Singularly enough the English Archbishops, and the Bishops who were to be Archbishops, were absent, except that the Bishop of Hereford voted for the bill. All the law lords, except Lord Wynford, voted for it, and they were a goodly number; Lyndhurst, Brougham, Abinger, Cottenham, Langdale, Campbell, Denman, Dunfermline, aud Plunket. All the Romanist lords except the Viscount O'Neill, and almost all the Scotch and Irish lords, were in the majority. The minority of the lay lords were Dukes, Manchester, Back- 548 ingham, Newcastle ; Marquis Cholmondeley ; Earls, Cardigan, Galloway, Mansfield, Egmont, Roden, Mountcashel, Carnarvon, Onslow, Clancarty, Denbigh, Essex, Dunmore, Mayo, Cardigan; Viscounts, Doneraile, Combermere, Lorton, O'Neill, Maynard, Sidmouth; Lords, Teynham, Boston, Kenyon, Lyttelton, Cal- thorpe, Bayning, Blayney, Carbery, Bexley, Walsingham, Gi-antley, Feversham, Wynford, Willougliby de Broke, Castle- maine, Rayleigh, and Hood. The list includes peers who paired. The Duke of Manchester and the Earl of Denbigh remembered the principles of their ancestors or predecessoi*s ; but not so the Dukes of Bedford and Cleveland, the Earls of Shaftesbury, War- wick, Man vers, and Harrowby, (the two last descended in the male line from ejected ministers), Carlisle and Tankerville ; Viscounts Hereford, and Hawarden, or Lords St. John, and Foley. The members of the House of Commons are to be thus classed on all the divisions taken together : Fob the Bill. Min. Opp. English 115 183 Scotch 9 17 Irish 2 31 There voted on every division : For the Bill. Min. Opp English ... 36 24 Scotch ... 6 6 Irish ... 1 7 The following English members voted against the bill on all the divisions : Mr Adderley (North Warwickshire), Lord Ashley, (Dorsetshire), Mr Blackburn (Warrington), Mr Bruges (Devizes), Sir John Chetwode (Buckingham), Mr Colquhoun (Newcastle- under-Lyne), Mr Dickenson (West Somersetshire), Mr Farnham (North Leicestershire), Mr Hardy (Bradford), The Honourable E. J. Harris (Christchurch), Mr Henley (Oxfordshire), Viscount Jocelyn (King's Lynn), Mr MacGeachy (Honiton), Viscount Pollington (Pontefract), Colonel Sibthorp (Lincoln), Sir Henry Smyth (Colchester). Colonel Rushbrooke (West Suffolk) voted in the majority on the second reading, but afterwards against the bill. The bill as brought into the House of Lords, and the Act as passed, with the variations in italics, will be found in the ap- GAINS! r the Bill. Absent. Min. Opp. Min. Opp. 108 17 149 32 2 2 11 12 20 1 16 32 1 : Against the Bill. Min. Opp. 18 0 0 0 8 1 540 pendix, and notes will be added to the latter showing the reasons for the minor changes. The false pretences on which the bill was passed have been pointed out in remarks on the speeches, but they must be reca- pitulated together to be properly estimated. The chief of them was that the Presbyterians did not from the Revolution hold any settled doctrines as being essential to Christi- anity, and purposely inserted vague trusts in their chapel deeds, in order that their successors might use their chapels for the support of any other opinions which they might adopt from time to time. Any one at all acquainted With their books will know that such a fancy was never for a moment entertained by them ; yet this was the leading proposition for the support of which the proofs were compiled, although the reader has seen how completely they failed to establish it ; and the defendants' counsel in all the cases laboured this point more than any other, but with- out in the slightest degree inducing the judges to entertain it. Nevertheless this baseless figment underlies every speech delivered in support of the bill. It is difficult to say whether this pretext was or was not made as to the Irish chapels. The minute of 1716, p. 372, is conclusive that it did not apply to them at that date ; and when the founders of the Presbytery of Antrim advan- ced the notion that dogmas were nonessential, they did not refer to the English Presbyterians as keeping them in countenance. The next pretence was that it was impossible to ascertain the personal opinions of the founders of any particular chapel, although the case of the Hewley charity had decided that such matters were not to be enquired into. Such an argument from the law- yers, especially from Lord Lyndhurst, was inexcusable. It should be noticed, moreover, that it was assumed, without any enquiry, that endowments connected with a chapel, made while it was supposed to be in the possession of Socinians, were intended to support Sociuianism, although the givers had not expressed such to be their intention. Another pretence, boldly stated by the Attorney- General, and insinuated by the Chancellor, (for even he, though his course had been one series of changes, could not avow any doubt of a decision confirmed first by himself, and afterwards by the House of Lords, under his presidency), was that the Socinians might after all be held entitled to the chapels ; but what they said should have no more weight than if they had been counsel 650 talking for their fees. The House of Lords had decided the point on the broad ground of the proved, and indeed notorious, opinions of the so-called English Presbyterians; and the Irish judges had taken the same ground with regard to the body more properly bearing the name in Ireland. Another false pretence was that it was uncertain who were entitled to the chapels, while it was certain that if Independents were not entitled to those in England, Scotch Presbyterians must be. The Independents would have been entitled, as both deno- minations held the same faith, practised the same mode of worship, agreed that each congregation should manage their own affairs without interference or control, and throughout the country, for forty years from the Toleration Act, until the spread of Arianism, their ministers associated together for ordinations and brotherly conference, without distinction, and became indifferently pastors of congregations of either denomination; the Presbyterians having adopted the ways of the Independents, and by 1719 abandoned even their theoretical approbation of subscription. If on the other hand the decision went by names and not realities, and no difference should be seen between Congregation- alism (or the independency of congregations,) and Presbyterian government, and between non-subscription and subscription, (though this, after all that has been urged by Socinians and Independents seems scarcely possible), there were Scotch Presbyterians, of one name or another, ready to take the chapels. This pretence could not be for a moment urged in the case of the Irish chapels, since from whichever body they were claimed, the Presbytery of Antrim or the Remonstrant Synod, they or the chapels with which they had been associated had originally belonged to the General Synod. The only reason given for disregarding the intentions of the founders was the unfairness of appropriating to Trinitarian pur- poses funds contributed by Arians or Socinians, as secondary endowments, or for rebuilding the chapels; most stress being laid on the widows' fund of the Strand Street Chapel. The possession of the chapels, as a mere wrongful enjoyment of a charity, apart from outlay on them, would not have proved sufficient to justify and perpetuate itself even in the eyes of that "chambre introuvable," Sir Eobert Peers last House of Commons. But what reason was there for heterodox endowments being held sacred, and for control over orthodox foundations being pur- 551 chased by them; and why should the intentions of a secondary founder or rebuilder prevail, while those of an original founder were to be altogether disregarded ? Another false pretence was to make the bill applicable to all dissenters' chapels, when it was intended, as was avowed in the progress of the argument, to apply to the case of the Socimans only. The Chancellor in the debate on the Commons' amend- ments said : It has been suggested that those persons who introduced or concur- red in the introduction of this bill introduced it for the purpose of giving encouragement to Unitarians. Nothing could be more foreign to the intentions of those who introduced this bill. It was meant as a bill giving relief, and was intended to give relief to the whole body uf dissenters. It might at one period affect the interest of one class ; it might at another period affect the interest of another ; but the principle of the bill, the ground of its being introduced into this house, was for the purpose of preventing expensive litigation, for the purpose of apply- ing to the dissenting church, if I may so express myself, that principle which is applied to all other property of every description in this coun- try ; for the purpose of preventing property that was given to charitable purposes being diverted from those objects, and put into the pockets of lawyers, of the danger of which there is abundant evidence. His lordship should have seen that the bill could be for the benefit of all denominations of Nonconformists alike only because their deeds were all equally vague ; and as no one accused the old Independents of latitudinarianism, this consideration destroyed every argument adduced for the bill. But the plan of legis- lating for a single case under the guise of a general amend- ment of the law was not new to his lordship ; for he had early in his chancellorship brought in a bill to regulate the whole marriage law of England in order to meet a particular case, which also was connected with the North of Ireland. He must in his last sentence have referred to the bruit of coming suits raised by the Socinian party, though he might seem to have alluded to the two firms who, between them, commenced all the suits with which we have had to do. He could not, as he was of a very kindly nature, have intended any reflection on men so respectable, and he must have known that they could be no gainers by suits the exact facts and true merits of which when gathered with great difficulty from the divines assisting in or instigating the proceedings, they would have to put into every- 552 day language and a business shape, in order to secure their being understood by counsel whose thoughts were, in more res- pects than one, alien to such matters ; suits in which it was requisite to preserve the technicalities of theology, amidst the technicalities of the old equity pleading, not only in direct state- ment, but in charging misfeasances or misrepresentations, in framing interrogatives such that sooner or later they must be answered with a sufficient degree of truth and precision, and until such answers were obtained in taking exceptions to evasions and equivocations certain to expose and set them aside ; and suits which imposed the still harder task of devising methods whereby to prove beyond all doubt the religious faith and practice of past generations who subscribed no creed and used no prayer book, and the religious faith of opponents whose only principle was to make the rejection of all authoritative dogmas their bond of union. The same remarks apply, though in a less degree, to every similar suit which might afterwards have been undertaken by other solicitors, and should show that they also could never find in taxed costs, the only remunera- tion of such suits, any inducement to useless litigation.. A suit for recovery of a chapel, even one having an endowment, is about the last speculation any solicitor competent to carry it through would undertake, even if, living in London, he saved agency charges. It was another false pretence that the bill sought to make suits for estates or funds held upon trusts for religion subject, like all other suits for property, to a period of limitation, for its authors did not dare, though from what has been said it is evident that they wished to do so, to tamper with trusts for specified doctrines, and it answered their purpose to pass a bill confined to cases of general trusts requiring evidence of the founders' intentions. But it really was a false pretence that the old meeting-houses were not dedicated to pai'ticular doctrines, when the trust deeds expressed that they were held for Presbyterians, or for Protes- tant Dissenters, the last expression having at that day the definite meaning of the two associated bodies, of which the Presbyterians were the most numerous and important. The Judges had no difficulty in stating the doctrines which these names indicated. The pretence made by the original bill, of respecting foun- ders' intentions, when it would have had the contrary effect and 553 have prevented their chapels being ever again used for the support of their faith, was so gross that it is wonderful that the infamy of the scheme was not avoided by men all so clever, and some of them genei-ally so careful to observe decorum . It was a false pretence that the act was passed to prevent money dedicated to a charity being spent in litigation, as the judges must have given costs against persons defending suits which had the authority of the House of Lords to warrant them ; and besides there was indicated during the debates a cheaper method of procedure, specially adapted to the case of the old chapels. It was a false pretence that it would be necessary in future suits to discuss such doctrines as the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, either in court or at chambers, as the House of Lords had in Wilson v. Shore, entirely settled the question, not only for England but for Ireland also, as was shewn in the Attorney- General v. Drummond, then under appeal, and no inferior court would have permitted an argument contrary to a decision in which all the courts had agreed, and in which the House of Lords had followed the opinions of the common law judges, as well as the judges in equity. The false pretence of seeking to avoid profanation of sacred doc- trines, scandalous litigation, and uncertainty of a right decision, as if these results were all inseparable from suits such as that which rescued Lady Hewley's estates from misappropriation, will be best shewn by the unavoidable result of a ay proceedings by which the act itself could be put in force. In the meanwhile it must be noticed as mere hypocrisy for the State, (the guardian of charities), to preserve sacred themes from being profaned by lawyers wrangling over them, by handing over funds dedicated to uphold the common faith of Christendom to men who would lower it to the unmeaning truisms of natural religion, in which the Deist, the Jew, the Mahommedan, and the Buddhist can unite on equal terms. Every legal inquiry into erroneous doctrines involves undesirable discussions of them, but this consideration does not outweigh the reasons for its being instituted. All the evils just enumerated, the prevention of which by the bill was no doubt the ground on which the majo- rity of both Houses voted for it, must be carried to the greatest height in suits depending on proof of the doctrine preached in a chapel during the last twenty-five years. It is 69 . 554 difficult for the most practised speaker to convey with exactness his opinions on any of the doctrines respecting the preaching of which such suits will arise. The most competent hearers will scarcely trust themselves to give a fair account of a sermon recently heard by them on any controversial topic, and in an ordinary congregation but very few such hearers will be found willing to give throughout a sermon the attention necessary to qualify them to give evidence respecting it. In many cases a right judgment cannot be formed otherwise than on the very words used, and who will undertake to repeat them ? Notes made for the purpose of giving evidence will be open to the objection that the writer must have been under a bias which rendered his testimony not to be relied on, and if they were taken without auy special interest or object, there will be no certainty that sufficient care was bestowed on them. Men of education and judgment will not come forward as witnesses in such a matter, but will leave the office to those whose ignorance and presumption render them blind to the difficulties they are undertaking. The doctrines which avowedly it was the single object of the bill to establish in old meeting-houses were in themselves most vague and uncertain. To define Socinianism is, on the testimony of those who profess it, to bind the fleeting Proteus. The Hewley trustees declared p. 265, thac amongst persons holding what are called Unitarian principles there is great diversity of opinions. Mr Wellbeloved said p. 267, " that very few persons agree in the defini- tion of the term Unitarian, and that sects entertaining very different opinions claim it for themselves ; that he did not agree in some very important points of doctrine with any sect that either takes to itself or receives from others the application of 'Unitarian,'" and in the same answer he said that he could not "take upon himself to state what is the religious belief of the members of his congregation, for he had made no inquiries, and had received little information on the subject from the major part of them, but from their continued attendance on his minis- try he presumed that their views of Christian doctrine were something like his own." The defendants in the Eustace Street case stated that " the bond of congregational union and the fundamental and distinguish- ing principle of the congregation in that chapel, had been the rejection of all human creeds, articles, and confessions of faith, as the standard of religious doctrine, and the admission and reception of the Holy Scriptures alone as the rule of faith and practice, and the recognition of the right of private judgment and free inquiry in all matters of scriptural inter- 555 pretation," p. 462. The defendants in the General Fund case added, " that in conformity with the said principle, the ministers and members of the said congregations respectively are at liberty from time to time to adopt such views of Christian faith in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity or any other doctrine, or asserted doctrine of the Christian faith as may appear to them consonant with scripture, without incurring thereby the forfeiture of any right, temporal or otherwise, which they may enjoy as members of the said congregations respectively," p. 435. The defendants in the Hewley case said, "that Mr Cappe was not in the habit of preaching doctrinal sermons, but habitually urged upon his hearers love to God, faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the prac- tice of holiness and righteousness,' which was, as the proofs say p. 123, "the manner of the divines of the school to which he belonged," Accordingly Mr Hincks "could not say whether he ever heard the preaching and doctrine or the sermon delivered [at the York chapel which he attended] such as he should call a Trinitarian sermon or otherwise ; but he believed he had generally heard Mr Wellbe- loved and Mr Kenrick preach what he considered to be Unitarian doc- trines." The trustees inform lis, p. 276, "that the doctrines now entertained by Unitarians materially differ from the doctrines which distinguished the persons in Lady Hewley's time called Socinians." The trustees' defendants in the Wolverhampton case said, p. 214, "they were not of exactly the same religious opinions, but although of different per- suasions, they all believed in the existence of God and the propriety of worshipping and serving God." So varying and uncertain, as the law lords well knew, was the doctrine which the bill sought to establish on proof of twenty-five years' usage, and yet they could found their bill on the ground of the uncertainty as to the doctrines held by Oliver Heywood, Richard Baxter and John Howe (all referred to in the Hewley case as representatives of the Pres- byterians), and their brethren, whose labours raised the first Presbyterian congregation s, or whose liberality built their meeting-houses. It is difficult to see what usage there can well be, or what will be the benefit of it, where the minister and con- gregation have many different opinions among them. It may further be assei'ted that there are very few Socinian ministers during the last twenty-five years whose own opinions have not undergone great changes on points really fundamental on their own showing, at least in other persons' estimation. It seems impossible to state the doctrines of discourses dwelling on mere morality, on the love and mercy of God, the acts of Christ's 556 human nature, and His teaching while Judaism had not been superseded by Christianity, or of any negative system of theo- logy. Yet, although the judges might not find in them any thing beyond a few topics of mere natural religion, as it is called, yet they will have to reduce the few incoherent notions which can be distilled from the expressions which the witnesses may happen to use, into the shape and nature of a creed thence- forward to be tolerated in the particular chapel. The task will annoy a judge the more in proportion as, by acquain- tance with religious subjects and the habit of considering them, he is competent for the office of creedmaker which he would find thus devolved on him. His only method of avoiding the labour and disgust occasioned by such an occupation will be to make two classes, the one of those who come up to his own notion of orthodoxy, and the other of those who depart from it, treating as one the infinite varieties of error, and if he finds error has for twenty-five years been taught in a chapel, to take any system which the persons in possession there present to him as their notion of religion, and declare it may be taught there until the congregation shall grow tired of it. But will this be a decision on such a subject worthy of an English Judge ? The worst part of such a suit will however be the partisan- ship and unscrupulosity of the witnesses distorting every notion which they depose to, the rancour with which they will repeat the most sacred words, and the imputations of perjury which will be bandied about between the parties. Counsel will run riot in their deductions of either fact or doctrine, from the farrago which the pleadings and evidence will present. Such abominations must always accompany suits to be decided under the act, and they have been rendered inevitable forsooth by consciences too delicatt to tolerate the discussion of religious doctrines by counsel! Such a bill passed both houses of parliament not so much because introduced by the skill of Lord Lyndhurst and Sir William Follett, and supported by the government, the leaders of opposi- tion, and the law lords, as because the cause of orthodoxy had no advocate in either house, fully to present the real facts of the case, and the principles of law involved in it. Sir Eobert Harry Inglis, Mr Plumptre, Mr Colquhoun, and Mr Fox Maule, and even Bishops Blomfield and Philpotte brought to the debate only the general information of Christian gentlemen, and they could feel what was unjust and sacri- 557 legious in the measure much better than they could express their convictions, in opposition to the clear and apparently fail manner in which the most persuasive orators in their respective houses, both being also lawyers, had explained the grounds and the effect of it. The government, according to their tale, were stepping forward, in aid of men opposed or supposed to be opposed to them in religion and politics, in order to prevent a crying injustice about to be perpetrated, by the resuscitation of perse- cuting statutes and antiquated rules of law, to the scandal and offence of the whole kingdom, and to the benefit of no one but solicitors speculating in chancery suits. To counteract the impression produced by such statements when made by the highest officials in the kingdom, orthodoxy needed in each house but one competent champion. But he must have been a lawyer himself to enter into the matter fully, much more to speak upon it with any authority ; and he must have made himself master of the history and doctrines of the dissenters of the chapel-building age, and the evil days which succeeded it, and also of the details of the trials, an account of which has been given in these volumes. That would have required so much time and labour, even if for the historical part the attention had been confined to the proofs on the one side, and Mr Joshua Wilson's pamphlets on the other, that it was not to be expected that a mere volunteer would have presented himself to under- take it. Lord Lyndhurst had acquired a knowledge of the matter during two hearings of the Hewley case, and besides the line of argument winch best suited his purpose lay on the surface, and required little thought; while a report of his speech was sufficient instruction to Sir William Follett, even if he had not been previously acquainted with the history of the old chapels, and the ways of the heterodox who worshipped in some of them. The task of the speaker who undertook to answer either of them was an entirely different matter. He would have ad- dressed an audience entirely satisfied with the prima facie utilitarian views of the subject which had been instilled into them by the great orator who had introduced the bill to their notice, and to succeed he would have had to induce them -to take the trouble of obtaining a much deeper insight into the facts, as to the chapels and the doctrine of the Presbyterians, than they would have gathered from all the speakers for the bill, avid of mastering the principles on which trusts, and es- 558 pecially charitable trusts, are administered in England ; he would have to call on them to do right, although it was on behalf of persons professing Calvinistic opinions, and though they might have in some ten or a dozen cases to leave congregations of respectable size, and consisting of rich and influential people, to the justice of the law. Nor could it have been expected that either house would have made the effort necessary to understand the matter by listening to a thorough discussion of it, instead of legislating upon it uuder the guidance of sentiment, prejudice, or trust in a Tory administration. The matter ought to have been thoroughly sifted by a select committee of the Lords, by whom deeds and documents would have been called for, and wit- nesses compelled to attend, and all would have taken the form and attained the reality of an entirely judicial proceeding; the result in that case must have been the same as it had been in the courts, although all the law lords would have been on the committee, because both sides would have been fully heard, and all would have taken place under the public eye. This method would have ensured the consideration of the whole matter, facts, legal principles, and legislatorial reasons, by a thoroughly competent tribunal. It would also have admitted the employ- ment of counsel who would have put themselves in possession of the whole case, and displayed it in all its strength. Such a committee in such a case was so much a matter of course that Lord Lyndhurst offered and promised it to the Synod of Ulster. Mr Fox Maule's statement to that effect, made on the second reading in the Commons, before Mr Gladstone and Sir Robert Peel had spoken, was never contradicted. A select committee of the Lords did sit on the bill, but it was only to consider whether the bill should apply to Ireland, so that the Synod could not have been heard before them ; but that committee ought to have seen that before any change was made in the law as to trusts for religious charities, as just settled by repeated decisions of a case fought on every stage of appeal, and followed by judgments of Lord Cottenham himself, Sir Edward Sugden, and the Irish Court of Exchequer, all treating the settlement as not admitting even of a cavil, there ought to have been the fullest, and most impartial consideration of the subject, after hearing every one who wished to give evidence, and compelling all disclosures sug- gested by either of the parties. A report would have been obtained setting out the evidence, stating conclusions and making recom- 559 mendations founded upon it_, which would have put every member of either house in possession of the merits of the case. The debates showed how necessary such a preliminary investiga- tion was. The House of Lords passed the bill with only one divi- sion, that on the third reading ; the minority consisting of nine lords only, and there being no bishop among them. Their lordships really cared about the bill for the first time on considering the Commons' amendments, but only to find that the bill having been passed by their House, there was nothing to be done but to scrutinize the alterations, and as they were real improvements, and in accordance with the spirit of the bill, to pass them. The melancholy issue revealed to the country that the upper house had lost its claim to be considered the certain guardian of the religious charities, the property, and the old laws of the country, as it had fallen under the dominion of lawyers who, not laying aside the habits of their earlier lives when they had risen to seats among the old nobles of the land, abused the forms and practice of the House, by tricks which would scarcely be tolerated in any town council. The bill passed the Lords and the second reading in the Com- mons, with its second clause, which was really the whole measure, of such a nature that every one felt that it must be entirely changed, not indeed in its effect but in the mode of its operation. That change was, in the same stealthy and underhand way which marked the whole course of the measure, accomplished in or previously to the committee, without a word being said about it ; though a division took place upon the clause which it is difficult to account for upon the speeches, as they appear in the volume so often referred to, which purports to be a copy of Messrs. Gurney's short-hand notes. The majority on that division, excluding all hope of any amend- ment being carried, all motions which had not fallen through by the absence of those who had given notice of them were aban- doned. Even that respecting the period of limitation, so palpably unjust, called forth no other remark than those made by Mr Shaw in withdrawing it. Every speech in either house betokens the need of reliable information on the subject. Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell expressed their astonishment at the argu- ment being all on one side, and that circumstance should have suggested to them the necessity of a select committee. Lord John was not ignorant of religious matters, yet his speech betrayed a 560 consciousness that he had not sufficient knowledge of a matter of such manifest delicacy and importance to justify his voting on it, without the objections to the bill having been stated by a practised debater in possession of the whole merits of the case. It is a great pity Mr Boyd was not able to attend and urge the appointment of a select committee, before which the Synod of Ulster should be heard by counsel, but as the bill had come from the Lords, and their house was the proper place for the enquiry, it cannot be asserted that if he had carried his motion, it would have had much effect. As to the institution of any new method of proceeding, the House, being bent on preventing all litigation to the disadvantage of the Socinians, would not have stultified themselves by entertaining the question. Lord Hills- borough's absence was not accounted for in the debate, and if it was occasioned merely by unwillingness to encounter such a host as he would have had against him, especially to oppose details when the principle had been carried, it is certainly not to be wondered at. Mr Shaw was apparently a volunteer, who interfered because, knowing something of the matter, he could not but protest against the chapels being lost for want of there being deeds relating to them, or because those by whom, and those for whom, any such deeds were penned, could not foresee that there ever could be a doubt as to the Presbyterian faith. It is strange that throughout the debate no speaker likened such a deed to one in favour of the United Church of England and Ireland. As an argumentum ad hominem this ought to have settled the question, for no member of either house could have suggested there would be doubt as to the system of doctrine specified by such a trust. The Proofs, p. 91, hint at such as an argument for their side of the question, but the difference between Tillotson or Hoadley and evangelical divines cannot fairly be shown to have extended to their opinions as to the Deity of Christ. The comparison may suggest thoughts suffi- cient to make a nonconforming theologian smile, but reasons or analogies drawn from the Establishment, whether expressed or not, will without doubt always govern an English Judge having to decide any matter of fact or right in regard to doctrine in connection with the trust deed of a dissenting chapel. The Socinians could not approve of the bill without an entire renunciation of the one pi'inciple again and again put forth by them in season and out of season, viz., that a Protestant Non- 5, that admission even by the minister soon fell into disuse, and any person might take the sacrament just as he might in the National Church, There appears to have been absolutely no discipline in the generality of the i'. churches, so that there was no need <>f elders. 75 602 members of various O.P. congregations in E. began to repudiate sub- scription to creeds and articles of faith as unjustifiable restraints upon human liberty, and that in consequence amongst such persons the doctrinal purity for which those P. ministers who had been ejected from their livings in the year 1662, and their immediate successors who lived during the time of L.H., had been, and were so much distinguished, began to decline, and that by degrees some of the said persons who so repudiated creeds and articles of faith,* apostatized under the vague designation of P.D. and Nonconformists from the creed and practice of their fathers, and from that which they had until then themselves professed, and hecame practically I. That the I. of the present day are not the actual representatives to any extent of the old E.O.P., as well as of the old I. congregations, [Sec. nor even of the old E.I.] but that inasmuch as the I. of the present day have no creeds or public standards of faith they are liable to change at any time. That although many of the I. congregations of the present day are in the possession of many of the old P. chapels with the valuable property belonging to them, and which they have gained possession of in the first instance under the names of P.D. and Nonconformists, but never under the name of P., which last-mentioned name they have never presumed to make use of, being conscious how entirely * [Sec. began to make converts and to form congregations in some few instances in an unjustifiable and improper manner, and under the vague names of p.D. and Nonconformists,, took or held possession of chapels winch, from the time of their erection, solely and strictly had belonged to, and had been erected for the worship of O.E.P., and that such persons who had so departed from the creed and practice of their fathers, and from, that which they had until then themselves professed, became practically I. and exhibited the characteristics of the I., viz., an independence of all articles of faith, creeds, and formularies, and the separate and independent government of each congregation.* * This representation is simply dishonest. The English Presbyterians from the devolution were as practically Independents, so far as their congregations being indepen- dent, as the Socinians are now, and they did not enforce subscription to any confession or other document ; but as they did not separate a church from the congregation, and confide to it the selection and dismissal of the minister, they omitted the one vital essential, and indeed specific principle which, wherever it was preserved, saved the Inde- pendent churches from Socinianism. It is believed that every congregation of Indepen- dents which lapsed gave the seatholders, either alone or with the church, the appoint- ment and dismissal of the minister. The giving this power to the seatholdei-s, or a parish as they are termed in New England, was the chief cause, (together witli the quasi establishment,) of the lapse to Socinianism <>f the Congregational Churches there. The father of Socinianism in the States WftS the rector of the First Episcopal Church in Boston. 603 they differed [See. they widely differed] in every respect from the old P. in their religious belief, opinions, and practice with respect to church government, yet the said I. have formed in such chapels congre- gations purely after the I. form of church discipline and religious belief, from which congregations every O.E.P. would be, and is necessarily, excluded, and from which even L.H. herself, had she been living, and had she held the same religious faith and doctrine as that in which she lived and died, would have been excluded, and her first-named trustees of the said charity, viz., the Revd. Richard Stratton, or her purely P. chaplain, Dr. Colton, would have been severally prevented from preaching in, or from becoming candidates for, the preachership of any of them.* * * * * * That it is proved beyond a doubt by the historical writings of all who have treated of the subject of religious dissent from a time anterior to the date of the foundation of the said charities until the present time, that the I. have, from the period of the Commonwealtht until the present time, formed quite a different and distinct class or sect of D. from the Established C. of E., from the old E.O.P. congregations of that time, and during the intervening period until the present time, when they still form an entirely distinct and separate class of D., and that tin; I. can in no way be assimilated to, or identified with, the P., but belong to a denomination which has always been distinguished from P., and have in many instances, as is proved by the best authenticated histories of the times, been most violently opposed to each other, (sic) and that the T. can in no way be regarded as the successors or representatives of the E.O.P. with whom L.H. was connected, and of whom she was the warmest and most liberal supporter.;}; That a letter from the Secretaries of the Congregational Union to the Voluntary Church Society, Glasgow, contained the following passage : " Descended from those illustrious and holy men who, during the English Commonwealth, renounced ecclesiastical establishments and the interpo- sition of the magistrate in religious concerns, our churches have inheri- *See for the terms on which the Preshyterians and Independents were in the time of Lady Hewley pp. 188, 189, and 59. Can any instance be brought forward of a Presbyterian as such having been refused admission into an Independent church since that time ? t The question is as to the terms the denominations were upon since the Revolution. % When the English P. and I. have been since opposed to each other, the I. have always taken the stricter side. The Socinians said so, and they knew more about the I. than the Scotchmen did. It is most amusing to notice how differently the I. were spoken <>f by the two extreme parties with whom they were in conflict. Each imputed the extreme opinions of the first generation of Independents to their successors, feeling the moderate principles of those successors the greatest impediment and rebuke to them- selves. 604 ted and acted upon their principles," which is an admission by the secretaries of the Congregational Union, on behalf of the whole body or denomination of I. or Congregational Unionists, that they are descended from the I. of the time of the Commonwealth, who formed a body distinct from, and opposed to, the P. who then formed the National Established C. of E.,*and of whose ministers 200 were ejected by the Act of Uniformity, and were the immediate predecessors and fathers of the E.P. of the time of L.H., and whose principles are represented in the suit by the defendants of the Kirk and Secession Church. Reference to a letter of Dr. Pye Smith, in the Congregational Magazine, April, 1835, page 24:7, from which passage, (to which all who are strictly I. or C, would assent), it appears that the I. regard the I. form of church government as binding upon Christians jure Divino, and that they cannot conscien- tiously receive the P. form of church government ; also reference to " Congregational Nonconformity Defended," a Sermon preached by Dr. Fletcher, 1820, and an article in the Congregational Magazine, 1835, page 295, ending thus : "While our body boasts of their principles as rigid Congregational ists, let them look with a most jealous eye upon every approach, however apparently trivial, to Presbyterianism." * * * * # That the I. of the present day are not the actual representatives of the old I. or C. of L.H. time, for it is only within the last fifty years that the I. have become numerous, and their churches or societies were entirely isolated until the year 1833, when they became partially united under the title of the Congregational Union of E. and W. The I. of the present day differ essentially from those called I. or C. at the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth centuries, both with regard to doctrine and discipline. It is a matter of history beyond doubt that the I. of the latter part of the seventeenth century acknowledged the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Confession as the basis of their short lived union with the London P. ministers about the year 1691,t whereas these defendants have already shown the great and vital distinction and difference which exist between the modern I. Declara- tion of Faith as drawn up in the year 1833, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, upon the fundamental doctrine of the Holy Trinity. * The defendants' witnesses assert that Presbyterianism was the established reli- gion of England from 1646 till the return of Charles the Second, or the Act of Unifor- mity. Middlesex, Lancashire, and Essex only were divided into Presbyteries, and in 1655 an attempt at a provincial assembly for Middlesex was abandoned. The ascendancy of Cromwell and the Independents prevented the ordinance from being more than waste paper, so far as respected church courts or any coercive power. t A similar union was effected in the West Riding, in 1691, as in all other parts of the kingdom, (see Hunter, p. 374), and they all remained in full operation until the prevalence of Arianism among the Presbyterians, when the Independents withdrew from them. See Hunter, p. 374. It was by a deputation from the West Riding Association, not by a Presbytery, that Dr Colton was ordained. 605 That it is a well known matter of history that the Savoy Confession of Faith was drawn up in the year 1658, by Dr. Owen and other well- known and celebrated I. ministers, and that the same, so drawn up, inculcated the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in One Godhead in as precise, full, and decided a manner as the Westminster Confession, in the words following : " In the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost ; the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding ; the son is eternally begotten of the Father ; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the father and the Son, which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence upon Him." That it is quite evident that the Savoy Confession of Faith was universally assented to and acknowledged by the I. of the time of L.H. and that the modern T. cannot, and ought not, to be regarded as in any degree successors of the old I. or C. congregations, nor yet the representatives of their principles, inasmuch as the modern I. do not hold the same opinions respecting the Trinity and Divinity of Christ nor the Atonement, as were held by the old I. or C. congregations.* That the modern I. and those of the time of L.H., differ in respect of discipline and church order, as it is a well-known matter of history that the I. of the time of L.H. were what were termed subscription ists, that is to say, it is a well-known and authenti- cated matter of history that the old I., at a convention at Salters' Hall in the year 1719, voted in favour of subscription to "the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in one Essence," and that they refused to be satisfied with a general profession of making the Bible their creed, and that they insisted upon " the imposition of a human standard," explanatory of the sense in which they understood the doctrine of the Scriptures upon the important subject of the Holy Trinity.t References to Dr. Calamy's account of the transactions of 1719, and 3 Bogue and Bennett, pa»e 2-40 and 7th Preliniinaiy Note to the Declaration of Faith, 1833, whereby the union declared their "jealousy of subscriptions to creeds and articles * The fault found by the defendants' witnesses with the clause from the Declaration of the Congregational Union is, that the technical words trinity, substance, person essence, kc, are omitted. So also is the eternal sonship of Christ, which was noticed in an after part of the answer. The declaration is also silent as to the double pro- cession. t The Independents of Lady Hewley's time were not subscribers, and did not impose a human standard, they simply declared their adhesion to an article of faith. If there were Presbyteries and elderships in England in 1719, what did they do as to the controversy? The reference of the matter by the ministers of Exeter "to individual ministers in London, and their convening the Independent and Baptist ministers, and not only the Presbyterian ones, show how utterly extinct real Presbyterianism was. Any reference to the Salter's Hall Assembly was ill advised, as few beside Presbyterians refused to testify their orthodoxy. , 606 and their disapproval of the imposition of any human standard, whether of faith or discipline." For all which reasons, and in addition thereto for the many others which might be adduced, it is impossible for any one to believe that the old I. or C. who differed so entirely from the modern I. in the most essential parts of their religious creed and doctrine, can be considered to be represented by the I. of the present day, or even supposing that there ever existed between the O.P. and the I. of the beginning of the eight- eenth century, such an intimate connection and agreement upon certain religious tenets as is alleged by the I. of the present day to have existed between them, (but which intimate connection, as so alleged, the defen- dants by no means admit), that the I. of the present day are the actual representatives to any extent of either the old E.O.P. con- gregations, or either of the old I. or C. congregations.* That it is a well-known fact that in the lifetime of L.H. there were congregations of P.D. from the Established Church in many places in the Northern Counties of E., i.e., Whitehaven, Tynemouth, Alnwick, Long Framlington, Lowick, Morpeth, Penrith, Great Salkekl, Plump- ton, Penraddock, Carlisle, and other places from which congregations have sprung up other P. congregations, some of whose ministers were trained up to amity with the Established C. of S., and some with the secession C. of S. That the P. congregations represented in this suit by the P. defen- dants hold precisely the same tenets and opinions upon all matters relating to religious belief and discipline and church government, as were held by the O.P. congregations in the life time of L.H., and by her at &c. They deny that the said O.P. congregations which so existed at the time of L.H., and are now represented by them, have ever fallen into Arianism, or from thence into Unitarianism, or that they have retained the name of P. for the purpose of preserving to themselves the endow- ments of P. chapels, for they have always been strict P., not only in name, but in principle and practice. That it is impossible that they should fall into such heresies so long as they maintain and uphold, t as they now do, those old English * The Socinians started the notion that the present Independents were the product of the Methodist revival, and the Scotchmen in their evidence took the same ground. Neither party, however, stated any particular on which what they called the New and Old Independents differed. No two generations, though holding the same principles, hold them with the same feelings or understand them in exactly the same way, whatever may be pretended, and such have been the only variations in the Independent deno- mination. t The Kirk has always professed to uphold and maintain these standards, but it is notorious that during the sway of the Moderates several of their number, and those foremost men, were vehemently suspected of Socinianism. The writer of this was told by a leading clergyman of the Free Kirk that in some parishes they found, on the disruption, that justification by faith had to be taught the congregation, as a new and strange doctrine, just as if they had been so many Papists. 607 doctrinal P. formularies, composed and approved of by the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and which formularies furnish the best securities which human wisdom could devise against heretical opinions of any kind whatsoevei*. That about the year 1719, or niue years [Sec. say 1720 or ten years] after the death of L.H., some persons who had up to that period been believed to be, and who had professed to be, strictly P. in their religious belief both in doctrine and discipline, began, as the I. of the present day avowedly do, to repudiate creeds and articles of faith as unjustifiable restraints upon liberty of conscience, and in consequence gradually departed from the distinctive peculiarities of P. That such of the descendants of the O.P. of the time of L.H. as thus repudiated those creeds and formularies which the wisdom of their ancestors had drawn up and assented to. as the best protection which human wisdom could devise against the encroachments of heresy amongst them, gradually became in their religious belief, doctrine, and discipline, practical I. alike discarding all those confessions and articles of faith, and utterly abandoning that system of church discipline by which the O.P. of the time of L.H., were distinguished from the I. of that, as well as of the present day. That there are numerous instances on record in which persons who had so discarded the distinctive peculiarities of Presbyterianism and had become to all intents and purposes practical I,, fell into Arianism, and from thence into Socinianism, [Sec. that there are numerous instances of persons who so depai'ted from the creeds and forms of Presbyterianism and had become practically I., falling into Arianism and from thence to Unitarianisin,] and as evidence thereof they refer to the history of the St. Saviour Gate Chapel, York, which had been the place of worship which L.H. attended for many years previous to her death. That in a pamphlet written by George Hadfield, one of the relators in this suit, entitled, " The report of His Majesty's Commissioners concerning Dame Sarah Hewley's charity," it is expressly stated by the said George Hadfield to the effect that it was the introduction of Independency into the said St. Saviour Gate chapel which prepared the way for the gradual progress of its fomer O.P. congregation (so far as those who relinquished the strict Presbyterian forms of worship, church discipline, and religious tenets, might compose the said congregation), to Uuitarianism, and the said George Hadfield then proceeds to state in the words following : " It is rather curious, and renders the Pres- byterian plea set up to justify the present mode of applying the charity at York quite ludicrous, that Mr Hotham, Mr Cappe, and Mr Wellbeloved, who have severally occupied the pulpit in St. Savioui Gate Chapel during the last hundred and twenty years, were all pr<>- fessed [ndependents, and were educated by that denomination in their 008 own views of church discipline,"* p. 32. However the defendants deny that Mr Hotham ever fell oif from, or maintained any other than the most strict and orthodox Presbyterian doctrine or church discipline in the said chapel. [Seceders add: Or that he ever ceased to approve of Presbyterianism as distinguished from Independency.] *?F -5p 9P ^F -n- That the dispersion of the O. P. congregation at St. Saviour Gate Chapel was caused by the said Newcome Cappe shortly after his appointment to be the preacher at the said St. Saviour Gate Chapel avowing himself an Arian, [Sec. becoming an I. and an A., and afterwards what is now commonly called a Unitarian]. And the aforesaid dispersion of the congregation of the St. Saviour Gate Chapel to the extent herein mentioned was only one of many instances of con- gregations which, during the lifetime and at the time of the death of L.H., had been purely O.P. congregations gradually lapsing into Arianism and Socinianism, and in many cases called themselves Presby- terians in name only, but without retaining any of the distinguishing characteristics as of the E.O.P. of the time of L.H. That many of the points of religious belief held by the I. and the class of D. called U., are very similar, [Seceders omit very] and as an instance of such similarity they refer to the statement of the doctrine of the Trinity as given in the declaration of faith of the Congregational Union, which definition they assert may be, and is assented to, by the class of U. commonly called Sabellians, who deny that there are three persons in the Godhead, and assert that there is but one person revealed * These words are to be found in Mr Hadfield's book, but it is incorrect to inti- mate that he had in the context referred to the introduction of Arianism into Presby- terian congregations, for he had merely, by remai'ks of his own and the quotation from Dr. Pye Smith set out in the answer, denied the right of Unitarians to be termed Pres- byterians. At page 21 he had stated that Unitarianism was introduced into York by Mr Cappe, so that it is evident that he did not intend to impute heterodoxy to Mr Hotham ; nor had he connected together the notions of heterodoxy- and Independency, or in any way afforded the least excuse for pretending that he had made the confession here im- puted to him. Nor do the words quoted contain such a confession though, having other- wise no bearing on the subject, they must have been given in hope of their being so mis- construed. This misrepresentation may not be greater than is attempted in many passages of the answers, but they require some knowledge of the subject to correct them, while one would have thought that no person knowing the meaning of the words he was using, would have committed himself by a misconstruction so palpably false as imputes such an admission to Mr Hadfield. Supposing that it was worth while for the parties to risk such an attempt to impose on the Court, it might have been considered impos- sible for them to have found a counsel and solicitor sufficiently self-regardless to act upon their instructions in that respect. It is not, however, meant to agree with Mr Hadfield as to the denomination of the three ministers. Mr Hotham seems to have been a Presbyterian, and though Mr Cappe and Mr Wellbeloved might have been originally Independents, (as Dr. Priestley and Mr Belsham also were) yet when at York they were not Independents, though like all others of their party, their notions as to church government were Congregational and not Presbyterian. G09 under three manifestations or aspects of the Deity, as the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost. That the language of the said Declaration of Faith with respect to the essential and eternal Deity of the second person of the Godhead, is very different from the precise and unequivocal language of the said Westminster Confession of Faith held and maintained by L.H. and the E.O.P. of her day. That the article contained in the said Declaration of Faith upon the important question of the eternal Deity of the second person of the Godhead may be and is assented to by the class of D. commonly called A., who, while they deny the doctrine of the personal, eternal, and essential [Seceders omit personal and essential] sonship, are willing to admit the official sonship of Christ.* That like the different shades of U.t the modern I. unionists dis- allow the utility of creeds and articles of religion, and protesting against subscription to any human formularies, reserve to themselves the most perfect liberty of conscience. [Omitted by Seceders]. * Mr Berry in his evidence deposes that some Independents do not hold the doc- trines of Original Sin, the nature and extent of the Atonement, and justification through the imputed righteousness of Christ, as they are stated in the "Westminster Confession, and in an affidavit by Dr. Henry Thompson of Penrith, Richard Hunter of Carlisle, and John Miller of Penruddock, all ministers among the Seceders, is the following paragraph : " In further illustration of the charge of heresy these petitioners will adduce the Rev. "William Jay, of Bath, one of the most respectable ministers of the congregational deno- mination. In his enumeration of the 'Essentials of Christianity,' in the preface to the Fourth Volume of his Short Discourses, he gives the following unsatisfactory exposition of his creed, an exposition from which the doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ are systematically excluded. According to Mr Jay all that it is necessary for men to believe is the following : ' That man is a sinner, guilty, depraved, and helpless in himself ; that help is laid on one that is mighty, that Jesus is not only able but willing to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him ; that faith is necessary to our deriving advantage from him, and that good works will result from faith, and prove it to be of the operation of God. This, it is immediately added, is what the author means by the Gospel, and what is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord." From all this it may be reasonably inferred that the doctrines of the Trinity and the essential divinity of the second person of the Godhead are, in Mr Jay's estimate, exceedingly (sic) as chaff." Mr Jay would have said that the Deity of Christ, and consequently the Trinity, were implied in his words, and besides that he might take for granted a belief in it, as he was not drawing up a creed, but stating the pith of the Gospel scheme for presenta- tion to the generality of persons in this country. t A parallel is run throughout the answers between the Independents and Unita- rians in disregard of the fact that the Independent congregations, with few exceptions, resisted the deluge of heterodoxy, which swept away the old Presbyterians and inundated the establishment ; and that after its subsidence they remained to gather to themselves the Calvinistic part of the Methodists and their converts. By them alone it was that the old dissent survived, and in Mr Hunter's words, " the old doctrines were made pro- minent, and were preached with that energy which a century before had won the hearts of man}', and engaged them to withdraw from the church and to form separate commu- nities." 7G • 610 That the I. of the present day hold and maintain doctrines and tenets upon the subject of religious belief and discipline utterly opposed to, and inconsistent with, the religious belief and practice of L.H. and the O.P. of her day. [Omitted by Seceders]. [Sec. That many of the I. congregations of the present day were originally formed and partly composed of persons who had renounced the faith of the E.O.P. congregations.]* That it is a truth that such only of the old O.E.P. congregations as in the manner aforesaid gradually became practically I. both in principle and pr-actice in their doctrinal belief and church discipline, fell into Arianism, and thence into Unitarianism, and in many cases retained the name of P. for the purpose of preserving to themselves the endow- ments of P. chapels. That the congregations represented by these defendants constitute part of the remnant of the E.O.P. congregations existing in the time of L.H., and are now, in fact, with the exception of the other portion of the remnant represented by the Seceder defendants, the only E.O.P. congregations now existing who have, up to the present time, held and maintained in their original purity the religious faith and church discipline held and maintained by the foundress of the said charities. They deny that the remnant of the E.O.P. congregations fell into Ai'ianism, and thence into Unitarianism, or that they in any instances retained the name of P. for the purpose of procuring to themselves the endowments of P. chapels, and they defy the relators to prove the reverse. [Seceders omit this defiance.] [Sec. That if the congregation commonly designated U. be a consider- able class in E. who either have called or still call themselves E.P., they neither were nor are entitled to assume such a denomination.] They deny that the U. congregations are the only considerable class or body of D. in point of number in E. who now call themselves E.P., for no persons or congregations holding and maintaining the religious doctriues discipline and church government which is held and main- tained by the U. of the present day can be in any way entitled to lay claim to the appellation of P. That such appellation is not given or yielded to the U. by any person or persons whatever, save by such of themselves amongst the U. who for the purpose of retaining different Presbyterian charitable endowments, may please to call themselves P. * # # # # They deny that both classes of persons in E. calling themselves P. differ materially or in any respect from the opinions or religious practice * This sentence conveys the notion that many of the present Independent congrega- tions had heterodox founders, which was not the case. 611 or discipline of the persons in S. called P. in the early part of the eighteenth century. [Seceders add : Except that these defendants believe that there were some points of practice and church government which from the circumstances of the times L.H. and other P. in E. in her day were unable, after the restoration, to cany into complete effect.] That inasmuch as the principles and practice of the two denomina- tions of D. called P. and I. differ so entirely the one from the other in all questions of doctrine, discipline, and church government, it is a gross and unjust perversion of the meaning of words and of their general signification to make use of the term I. P., and that such con- gregations as are in the said supplemental information improperly denominated LP. congregations have not and cannot have any existence.* [Sec. That it is a perversion of terms to denominate any congregation or class of D. as I. P. and the use of such terms is of recent introduction, and was unknown previous to the present stage of this suit.] That the P. congregations in the six northern counties are one hundred and twenty-two, and that there are others in E. That they represent the P. congregations in E., and situate in the northern counties thereof, for which L.H. designed her charities, and therefore the persons nominated on behalf of the P. congregations repre- sented by them as trustees of the said charities, are entitled to be entrusted with the Seceder defendants with the management of the trust funds of the said charity. That the congregations represented by them are entitled to be called E.O.P. congregations, because they inherit the principles of the E.P. in the seventeenth century, when L.H. acquired her P. views upon doctrine, discipline, and church government, and which were maintained at the time of the foundation of the said charity, and at the period of the death of L. LL They deny that the P. congregations represented by them can be legally regarded as S. congregations so long as they are E. congregations by locality. That a considerable proportion of these have existed for 100 years and upwards, and from the very times of L.H., and that by far the greater proportion of such congregations are composed of persons born and bred in E., and that there are comparatively very few Scotchmen * That was not true in Lady Hewley's clay, and the framers of the bill were not without reason in framing this compound name ; Presbyterian of itself signifying relation to a Presbytery, the word Independent was necessary to negative that meaning in Pres- byterians \mconneeted with any body which could, with any propriety, be called a Presbytery. At the same time there can be no surprise at objection being taken to the new compound name formed of words nullifying each other, by those who do not see that to call such persons Presbyterians produces a notion so delusive that they them- selves cling to it though disproved by every fact and reason bearing upon the matter. 612 in some of them, and that wherever they may have been born, their actual residence in E. renders them E.D. from the established C. of E., maintaining to the fullest extent the principles of L.H. in all points of doctrine, discipline, and church government.* That the I. congregations in the six northern courities of E. at L.H. death did not exceed twenty-two, and were insignificant in number and influence compared with the P. congregations of that time. That although the number of I. congregations in E. and W. has increased since the time of L.H. to a greater extent than the number of P. congregations, yet inasmuch as the I. in no way represent the reli- gious opinions of L.H. or the denomination of D., of which L.H. was a member, either upon points of doctrine, discipline, or chm*ch government, the relators, as representatives of the I. or their nominees Seceders : That the congregations represented by them are entitled to be called E.O.p. congregations, and ought not to be called S.P. congregations, and although they are in a state of ecclesiastical communion with the Secession Church aforesaid, such communion is based upon a common attachment to the distinguishing principles which were characteristic of the compilers of the E.P. formularies of the West- minster Assembly, and that a considerable proportion of the said hun- dred and twenty-two congregations have existed for a hundred years and up\vards,t and from the very time of Lady Hewley, and that by far the greater proportion of such congregations are composed of persons born aud bred in E., and that in many of them natives of S. are not to be met with in greater numbers than in many of the congregations of I. in the six northern counties, and that the members of the said P. congregations are from their locality E.D. from the Established C. of E., and maintain the principles of L.H. in all points of doctrine, discipline, and church government. That with respect to the antiquity of the P. congregations repre- sented by them, and their distinctive character, they refer to, and adopt, as part of their answer the affidavits before the Master. * The children of Scotchmen in these congregations remain almost as entirely Scotch as if living beyond the Tweed. The congregations are Scotch to all intents. Our northern brethren should not deny the ancestral feeling which is always perpetuated in their congregations. The English have their cognate feeling but, the seat of govern- ment and the concentration of the national institutions being in England, English nationality seems imperial, while Scotch nationality is provincial. t It was asserted before the Master that very few, if any, of these congregations had joined a Scotch denomination before the beginning of the present century, and details were given in the suit to shew that all, or almost all, the old chapels were at or since that time in possession of Independents ; and particulars were also given of the violent manner in which Scotch Presbyterians had taken possession of tbem at Carlisle, Nuttal, Penruddock, Whitehaven, and Morpeth. G13 [Sec. add, or any person belonging to the L] ought not to be entrusted with the management of, and ought not to derive any benefit from the said charities. That they have hereinbefore stated the similarity of religious belief, and terms of friendly intercourse, and eligibility to each others' churches, which has from a period anterior to the date of the foundation of the said charities, existed, and still does exist, between the E.O.P. congre- gations, represented by these defendants, and the established Kirk of S. ; and although they have been unable, in consequence of the Act of Uniformity, passed in the year 1G62, to obtain P. ministers educated at either of the English Universities, and have been obliged to derive their candidates for the ministry chiefly from among those who have passed through a regular course of training at one or other of the Scottish Universities, yet the P. congregations, represented by these defendants, are wholly E., both in locality and membership, and they have always claimed and exercised, and still do claim and exercise, the inherent right by P. to grant licenses to preach the gospel, and from the days of L.H. down to the present time by far the greater number of the ministers of such congregations have been ordained in E. by P. ministers, and they deny that the pastors or ministers of the P. congregations, represented in this suit by these defendants, are almost without exception Scotchmen who have been ordained in S., and that nearly all the ministers or pastors of the said O.P. congregations, represented by the Seceder defendants, have been ordained in E., and not Scotchmen who have been ordained in Scotland. Sec. That owing to the similarity of religious belief, and the terms of friendly intercourse which subsisted between the P. of S. and E., the ministers of the P. Churches in S., and the ministers of P. churches in E., were from a period anterior to the foundation of the said charities, regarded by each other with special interest ; however, in consequence of the inability of the Seceder congregations, by reason of the Act of Uniformity, passed in the year 1662, to obtain P. ministers educated in E. Universities, the said congregations, with a view to secure to them- selves a properly educated ministxy, and to give effect to the opinion in that behalf" held by O.P. have been obliged to obtain for pastors and ministers persons educated at the S. Universities, where the same * It is asserted in the Scotchmens' answers, and still more pointedly in their evidence, that their system requires that their ministers should he educated in a chartered or national university. Attendance at a Scotch University is rendered an easier matter hy their having one term, commencing after hai-vest, and ending at the commencement of farm labour, so that the students may support themselves during half the year. But whatever may be the Scotch feeling on the subject, the English Presby- terians resorted to the private academies, see p. 81 ; and this point tells against those 614 That it does not appear from the said foundation deeds of 1704 and 1707, that L.H. wished to point out any pai'ticular county in E. or W. in which the education of young men designed for the ministry of Christ's Holy Gospel should be carried out and completed, or that the exhibitions should be confined to any college or university situate in any particular county in E. or W., but on the contrary that it appears that the primary intention of L.H. was to provide for the maintaining and educating candidates for the ministry of Christ's holy gospel at one of the S.P. Universities, and it is a well -authenticated doctrinal and disciplinary principles held by these defendants are professed and taught, but that although such persons, who for the most part have been and are Scotchmen, have been trained where the only university education for the P. ministry could, since the passing of the said Act of Uniformity, be had, yet the ministers represented by these defendants have been all ordained in E., with the exception of the Hev. Dr. Hugh Crichton, of Liverpool, who was translated from a congregation in S., and was ordained in S. before his translation to an E. congregation. That the ministers of the O.P. congregations represented by them in this suit, have always claimed and exercised, and do still claim and exercise, an inherent right to grant licenses to preach the gospel, and to discharge all the Presbyterial functions sanctioned by the E divines of the Westminster Assembly, and by their immediate succession in the latter years of L.H. That a great proportion of the Elders and Deacons who constitute a numerous body in the E.O.P. congregations, represented in this suit by defendants, are natives of E., and that the great majority of their congregations were born in the E. counties aforesaid, for which L.H. assigned her charitable benefactions. That with respect to the con- gregations represented by the Kirkmen, defendants, the greater part of their pastors and ministers are Scotohmen, and have, for the reasons previously specified, been educated in S., that is to say, in one or other of the Scottish Universities, and by far the greater number of such ministers have been ordained in E., though some of them may have been ordained in S., and the defendants deny that the pastors or ministers of the said 122 P. congregations are almost without exception ministers who have been ordained in S. who made it. Attendance at a university without taking a degree always raises unfavourable inferences, and on reference to the Scotch Clerical Almanack for 1865 it will be found that (reckoning all degrees, not only A. M. and D.D., but A.B., LL.D., Ph. D. , and M. D. ) in the Church of Scotland, 456 had degrees, to 784 who had not ; in the Free Church the numbers were 168 to 673 ; in the United Presbyterian Church 103 to 424, and in the Reformed Presbyterian Synod 7 to 41. Among the Independents in Scotland the numbers were 10 to 50. 615 fact that from and after the death of L.H. the rents and profits of the said charities were entirely appropriated in just shares or proportions accord- ing to her intention as expressed in the said trust deeds and rules and manuscripts left by her with Dr. Colton, to or for the benefit of, dissent- ing preachers, and in allowing six exhibitions or more for or towards the educating of young men designed for the ministry of Christ's holy gospel, and sent to the University of Glasgow.* That there do now exist in E. and Wales colleges which are now improperly and incorrectly called P. colleges, but which were originally colleges in which the creed and the tenets of the old O.P. were upheld, but that the masters, tutors, and students of such colleges have gradually fallen away from, and cast off and repudiated, the creed and the restraints of old P. orthodoxy, and they have become either U. or I. colleges, which in no way recognize or endeavour to maintain the discipline and church government which is the peculiar feature of the old P. orthodoxy, but reserve to everyone under the most perfect liberty of conscience, [Seceders say and teach and disseminate the principles of the most perfect liberty of conscience, and no such college having degenerated into the religious opinions and belief either of the U. or I., would have received support or assistance from L.H.] in which particular such U. or I. colleges entirely differ in the most essential parts from that which was the religious faith of L.H., and there does not exist in the northern counties of E. a single college connected with the E.O.P. either Kirkmen or Seceders, and the only colleges there called P. are in fact U. That different individuals have, at various times during late years, founded or instituted colleges in the northern counties, and in the county of York and elsewhere, and have becomet masters and tutors thereof, which individuals profess to be and are quite irresponsible to any person or persons concerning any system of religious belief in which they may think fit to iu struct any young men who may be educated in such colleges or institutions, some of which colleges and institutions are presided over and couducted by L or C, and others professing to be B. in their religious faith. That many of the young men who are educated in the last-mentioned colleges or institutions are in poor circumstances, and are designed for the ministry of what the said I. and B. esteem to be the holy gospel of Christ, and that all the young men who are educated in such I. colleges and institutions are instructed to believe and do believe that human * No proof was attempted of this "well-authenticated fact," and that being so it would have been much better omitted in the answers. t This is an unwarranted assertion that the present Independent and Baptist colleges have been private speculations. Such was ttie case with the academies a hundred years ago from the necessity of the case. 616 creeds possess no authority over the faith and practice of Christians, and they reserve to themselves and to everyone the most perfect liberty of conscience to believe or disbelieve the most important doctrines of Christ's holy gospel whereby such young men differ entirely [Seceders materially] from the faith held by L.H., and for the same reason would not have been esteemed by her as pious young men, and that under the circumstances and for reasons aforesaid, such young men are not fit and proper objects of L.H.'s charity. [Seceders say such young men who in truth belong to the denomination of I. or of B., differ materially in opinion and faith from L.H., and with the extravagant and dangerous notions professed and entertained by them of human liberty, and what are termed the rights of conscience could not have been esteemed by L.H. as pious young men]. [Seceders add, they verily believe it will appear from a due investi- gation of the mode in which the said charities at and shortly after the time of their foundation, were administered and applied, and from ascertaining the class or denomination of D. to which the persons who were originally appointed trustees thereof and their immediate successors belonged, that according to the intention of the said L.H. as expressed in the said foundation deeds, and as expounded by contemporaneous usage and practice, the management and administration of the said charities was, and were intended, and ought to be confided to E.O.P.D., and that the benefit thereof was, and was intended, and ought to be confined to persons of the same class or denomination of D., and defen- dants insist that effect ought accordingly to be given to such intention.] That the O.E.P. congregations represented in this suit by these defendants [Seceders add and the other P. defendants in consequence of their religious principles] are the sect of D. from the Established C. of E. who were intended by the said L.H. to be beneficially interested in and entitled to share in the management of and control over the said charities, and that it was not the intention of L.H. that the I. or CD. from the C. of E. of the present day [Seceders add who as a body ai*e, and were opposed to Presbyterianism and] and who do not even [Seceders add justly] represent the I. who were in existence at the time of the foundation of the said charity [and who refuse and decline to acknow- ledge and subscribe to those formularies of religious faith and doctrine, (which were recognised and upheld by the E.O.P.D. of the time of L.H.] [Seceders omit the words within these hooks] should be entrusted with any share in the management and control over the funds of the said charities, or have any beneficial interest therein. That Dr. Hugh Ralph had, since his nomination by the Master, obtained preferment in S., and the Rev. Charles Thompson had removed to S. 617 After reference to the 199th page of the Manchester Socinian Con- troversy, in which it is stated that Mr Hadfield had seen Mr Moody's papers, they submit that the papers referred to by the said George Hadtield, and acknowledged to have been within Jus reach and acces- sible by him in the year 1825, ought to be brought into court by him for the inspection of all parties concerned in the matters of this suit.* The matters urged in the answers had been for the most part set out in the affidavits used in the Master's office, and answered and combated there, and the advisers of the Presbyterian defen- dants had by that means been made aWare of the true state of the case on each point which has been remarked upon in the pre- ceding pages; there was therefore no excuse for misstatement, except the reason (which however invalid, and worse than invalid, seems sufficient for the consciences of most parties in turn,) that it was made in the course of litigation to secure a great benefit for a party in religion. The attacks made on the principles of the Independents were sure to be of no avail with the court if it were only that the proceedings under the first information afforded a trial and guarantee of their orthodoxy. The parties in the preceding litigation, although it threatened the existence of the defendants' denomination, had treated eacli other as worthy opponents, and knew better than to introduce unneces- sary bitterness into the pleadings, and the relators regretted to find in the real Presbyterians opponents far less courteous, and indeed less fair. The Presbyterians denied the right of the English Dissenters to share in the charity, notwithstanding the general words used by Lady Hewley, but if the relators had carried their trustees they would have partaken of her benefaction in proportion to the number of cases arising among them in the northern counties, if their pride had allowed them to own ministers as poor as those of the Independents and Baptists. The final decree under the first information would have provided for this by using words as general as those of the deeds, and the point as to the intention being to benefit members of English denominations would not have been raised. The relators examined eighty-two witnesses, whose depositions fill 257 brief sheets. The greatest part of this mass of evidence was * TriHing variations have not been given : for instance, where the Kirknien nun tioii the "C. of S. ;" the Secedera say "S.P. ;" "Kirkmen" and "Seeeders" are substi- tuted for longer descriptions of the two sets of Presbyterian defendants, or their respective parties. 77 ' 618 designed to prove that the congregations connected by the Pres- byterian defendants were connected with Scotch denominations ; that the buildings in which they worshipped were for the most part inscribed " Scotch Church,*' (the circulars sent out by Mr Thomson arousing the Kirkmen to claim the nomination of the trustees were so directed) ; that these congregations con- sisted chiefly of Scotchmen, and descendants of Scotchmen ; that the elders were generally Scotch ; that not only were their ministers from that country, but that they frequently returned to benefices and appointments in it ; and that the Kirkmen were in the habit of insisting that they were members of the Scotch Estab- lishment. The history of several of the old Presbyterian chapels, as far as was necessary to shew how late, and in many cases by what means, they had become connected with one of the Scotch denominations, was gone into ; as was also the nature and history of English Presbyterianism ; and it was proved that the ordination of Independents at the date of the information was the same as it was in the time of Dr. Doddridge a hundred years previously, and was according to the form of the Presbyterians as described by Dr. Daniel Williams, except that the candidates were not examined as to their literai-y acquirements or their ministerial qualifications ; and in particular that according to the Presbyterian form, just as in the Indepen- dent one, the orthodoxy of a candidate was tried by his delivering a confession of faith in his own words, but that he was not required to subscribe, or in any manner recognize, any merely human formulary. Dr. Raffles, Dr. Bedford, Mr Scales, Mr Slate of Preston, and Mr Cockin of Halifax, were the ministers examined. The Presbyterian defendants examined five witnesses only, but their evidence fills ninety-one brief sheets, and they were the Rev. Richard Hunter of Carlisle, and the Rev. Henry Thompson of Penrith, Seceders, and the Rev. Hugh Campbell, professor of Ecclesiastical History in the London Presbyterian College^ (his answer to the interrogatory as to his acquaintance with the religious history of Lady Hewley's time takes up five pages with the titles of the books he had read in reference to it), the Rev. Henry Lea Berry (then a Presbyterian, hut previously an Inde- pendent, and since an Episcopalian), and Mr John Hall solicitor of Manchester, Kirkmen. Dr. Thomas Rees's affidavit, used before the Mastor, was also read in this suit by order. -He 619 showed that Mr Stratton and Sir Nathaniel Could were Pres- byterians. Their evidence asserted that a great proportion of the attendants and church officers in their chapels in England were English by the place of their birth, and that there were many Scotchmen minis- ters of Independent congregations in England. The Kirkmen explained the name or inscription " Scotch Church" as indica- ting identity of faith and pi'actice with Scotch Presbyterianism, and intended to show they had no connection with the heterodox Pres- byterians of England; and they were careful to say that the words were equally used by Seceders with respect to their chapels, (Mr Hall called the contrary notion a great fallacy), yet in the affidavits used before the Master the Kirkmen had sworn that the name was used by them to distinguish their churches from those of the Seceders. The Kirkmen showed that the powers of the Kirk are matters of statute confined to Scottish ground. The Seceders stated that the supervision of their church over their congregations " is not only optional or voluntary, but purely and exclusively spiri- tual, and it neither has exercised nor would be permitted to exercise any power, authority, or control, over the administration or management of the secular affairs of such English Presbyterian congregations." A foreigner's fancy is taxed to divine in what respect the United Presbyterian church manages to control the secular affairs of its congregations at home. In utter disregard of the rule laid down by the House of Lords their witnesses were examined on matters of history, and they gave their own notions of them very freely, and made many and copious quotations, setting out fully those already inserted in the answers, but laying the greatest stress on printed statements of Independents, which of course bound no one but themselves. The answers, to guard against objection to the quotation from the Congregational Magazine before set out, add to it : " To which passage no objection has, as these defendants are advised and believe, ever been taken by the editor or publisher, or Indepen- dent readers of the said Congregational Magazine, but on the contrary, has met with their entire approval." As the main question discussed in this volume, and indeed the chief point taken in the answers, whether the Independents were the nearest representatives of the Presbyterians, was not decided in the cause, the depositions of the defendants' witnesses bearing on it are given here. The eighteenth interrogatory was 620 that which related to the carrying out in England of Presby- terian discipline and church government after the Revolution. Mr Hunter's answer to it is : Such as were subjected to persecu- tion for their adherence to the Westminster form of worship and discipline endeavoured to carry out their distinctive peculiarities as far as circum- stances would permit, and that they really did so is to be inferred from statements in Mr Joshua Wilson's Historical Inquiry. [As to their objecting to be reordained by Bishops, and themselves ordaining others.] The fact of the adherence of the English Presbyterians to all the o^her distinguishing characteristics of the Presbyterian discipline, not only before but after 1688, having remained unabated appears from a pub- lished work of Mr George Hadfield, one of the relators, called " The Manchester Socinian Controversy," in which the Rev. Richard Slate, an Independent minister at Preston, is introduced as affirming, " I find that the early English Presbyterians observed the forms as well as the name of Presbyterianism. Oliver Heywood, a Presbyterian minister, when describing the government of Presbyterian Churches in Lancashire in his days says, ' they had their eldership in every congregation, several congregations had their classes, and these maintained intercourse by a provincial assembly, which for the county of Lancaster was usually held at Preston.' On these principles," Mr Slate adds, "the early English Presbyterian Churches were formed and according to them they were governed. I have been informed from a very respectable source, that one of the last public acts of the assembly, of which the pious Matthew Henry was a member, was the suspension of a minister from the exercise of his ministry in a chapel in this county, for Arianism." This quotation from a newspaper letter of Mr Slate's, re-pub- lished by Mr Hadfield, shows the shifts to which the Presby- terians were put for the proof of their position. Mr Heywood spoke of the state of things before the restoration, " where the Presbyterian system was established " as Mr Slate qualifies the same assertion at p. 363 of his life of Mr Heywood, published in 1827, after Mr. Hadfield' s volume. As to Mr Slate's other statement, as he so carefully ascribes it to another person, there can be no inconsistency in relying on his testimony in the cause, and yet saying that his informant is contradicted as to the Cheshire Association by all the information which we have. The Arian could only have been suspended from his membership of that body. Mr Heywood and the ministers whom he acted with found themselves without power to do more than advise, in reprehension of Matthew Smith's views as to the imputation of Christ's righteousness, see Hunter, p. 403, and on any other diffi- 021 culties which arose in the Presbyterian congregations, ibid, p. 401. The evidence of the Presbyterians, notwithstanding the intense zeal manifested by all their expressions, and al- though they had in print the affidavits used before the Master, amounts to nothing but the most general statements of their individual opinions. The quotation from Mr Slate shews what it was wished the court should believe to have been the state of things, and as there was no attempt to bring forward a single fact to support the impression hoped to be produced by these supposed admissions of an Independent, we may well take it that all the positive assertions sworn to in the answers were abandoned when it became necessary to prove them. [Then follows a quotation from Dr. J. Pye Smith, describing the Pres- byterian polity, and stating that Unitarians did not follow it in any re- spect.] It appears from a passage in the 153rd page of the 2nd volume of Dr. Calamy's Life and Times, that in 1706 the English Presbyterians so far adhered to the ecclesiastical polity of Presbyterianism as to take a warm intei'est in the stability and welfare of the Scottish Presbyterian Estab- lishment, as an Establishment which exhibited their own favourite system of church government in alliance with the state. Writing in 1706 respecting the then pending union between England and Scotland, Dr. Calamy states that the English Dissenters (meaning the Presby- terians)* were very much for this union as the most etfectual for securing the continuance of their ecclesiastical establishment in North Britain against such as were, by principle, bent upon opposing it, or might be tempted to betray it. To show that in the year 1710 the English Pres- byterians adhered to and upheld the Presbyterian worship and discipline as a denominational system to which, in common with their Presbyterian brethren in Scotland they were conscientiously attached, may be adduced the testimony of a distinguished Presbyterian of Lady Hewley's time, the Rev. James Pierce, of Newbury. In the year 1710 Mr Pierce published a Latin work which was afterwards translated into English, and entitled, " A Vindication of the Protestant Dissenters," and in his dedication of the work "To the most reverend, pious, and learned ministers of that part of Christ's Church which is in Scotland," he asks, "What remains but that we who are knit to you in the same faith, worship, form of government and discipline, designs, (sic) and bi'otherly love, should experience your mutual affection and assistance. "t At the period referred to, the fact that there was no congeniality of sentiment * That is the explanation, or correction rather, made in the answers, -without any warrant, and most readers will think without any probability. + Mr Pierce's book also related, not to the Presbyterians only, but to the Dissenters generally ; "we" therefore refers to them. 622 between the English Presbyterians and the levelling and democratic polity of Independency, is evident from the language of other three leading and influential Presbyterians of Lady Hewley's day. The Rev. Dr. Daniel Williams, who, as appears from Dr. Calamy's Life and Times, states he was in his judgment for the divine right of Presbytery, and the Revds. James and Charles Owen, who in their work entitled "The History of Ordination," published in 1716, declare that "the government of the church by pi'esbyters is the remedy which the unerring wisdom of the Holy Ghost has prescribed against schism." To all this I deem it important to add that Dr. Calamy, when giving in the year 1717 to a divine in Germany a true account of the Protestant Dissenters in England, thus writes : " There are some things in which they (the Dissenters) differ among themselves, for some of them are most desirous* of the Presbyterian form of church government as it is legally established in North Britain, others (the Independents) are rather for the Congregational form of government by each worshipping assembly within itself, having no other reference to churches or synods than for advice in case of need." Mr Hunter was evidently the clieval de bataille ; his evidence takes up thirty three pages, more than a third of the wholo evidence on the part of the defendants. Mr Thomson's answer to this interrogatory is, " I say I believe that the English Presbyterians of 1688 and the beginning of the eighteenth century were the successors of the ejected Presbyterian ministers in 1662. When Lady Hewley was of mature age, the Westminster Con- fession of Faith, the form of Presbyterian church government, were the standards of the said ejected ministers, and there is no trace that the orthodox Presbyterians of 1688, and the commencement of the eighteenth century, had renounced these standards of orthodoxy." Dr. Hugh Campbell's answer to the same interrogatory is : " From the year 1688, and at the early part of the eighteenth century and thenceforward, the standards of faith, worship, and discipline drawn up by the Westminster Assembly of Divines, were continued to be standards of faith, worship, and discipline professed and observed by the English orthodox Presbyterians. These standards, however, having been drawn up for an Established Church, could not be fully observed in matters of discipline and government by the English Presbyterians after they ceased to be the Established Church, but so far as they could these Presbyterians professed and observed those standards till about the middle of the eighteenth century when, in some particulars, deviations from the forms previously observed crept in, but not one of those devia- * This is an unhappy phrase in proof of an organized system. 623 tions was inconsistent with Presbyterianism or subversive of any prui- ciple essential to rigid Presbyterianism. This statement I make upon the authority of the works already referred to, and from my knowledge of the history of the period." Mr Berry's answer to this interrogatory is : " The particular stan- dards of religious faith, worship, and discipline adhered to and upheld by the English Orthodox Presbyterian Dissenters from the Church of England from the year 1688, and at the early part of the eighteenth century, were the Westminster standards, drawn up for the three kingdoms of England, Ireland, and Scotland by the Assembly of English Divines, with the assistance of five ministers and three laymen from Scotland, which said Assembly was constituted by ordinance of parliament in 1643, and met for several years until the whole of the said standards were completed. In this Assembly there were as is well known by those conversant with ecclesiastical history, five independents who all throughout the compilation of such standards, objected to the same, and were therefore in that Assembly called the dissenting brethren. The English Orthodox Presbyterians always adhered to, and upheld, wherever circumstances allowed, and do now adhere to, and uphold the Westminster standard in theory and faith, [qy. fact] they always adhered to them from the time of their compilation, and it was only by reason of the exigencies of the times, the usurpation of Cromwell, the interference of the army, chiefly composed of Independents, that the standards coidd not be practically and fully carried out,* and again at the Restoration, and thence to the Revolution, the standards could not be upheld and adhered to, on account of the persecutions to which Independents and others who refused to conform to the doctrines and discipline of the Established Church of England were exposed ; but so far as it was prac- ticable the standards as to discipline and practice had always been adhered to. The several congregations of orthodox Presbyterians have always, both as to spiritual and temporal matters, been under the immediate government of a Session, even when they were unable to form or maintain a presbytery of the bounds, such Session always consisting of the minister and two or more male persons, called elders, and which Session they now and ever have maintained." t Mr Hall was not examined on this interrogatory. The Presbyterian defendants showed that the English form of ordination was the same as that authorized by the directory for * This is the fullest admission of the non-establishment of Presbyterianism tin ring the Commonwealth. + This is true as to all real (i.e., Scotch) Presbyterians, but proof should have been adduced of the English Presbyterians of Lady Ilewley's time having elders and being governed by them. 624 districts in which there were no Presbyteries of the bounds, except in one most important particular, that the ordainers were to be appointed by public authority, i.e., of the state, as the Presby- teries and provinces were created by the civil power. The difference between ordination by ministers appointed for the county and that by a number of ministers brought together by the candidate, or by a deputation from an association in which Inde- pendent ministers met Presbyterians on the most perfect equality, is so great, that the ordinations of Euglish Presbyterians after the Act of Uniformity were on a level with those of Indepen- dents. Not that it is intended to acknowledge inferiority in Independent ordinations; they are on an Episcopal, and not on a Presbyterian footing. Each minister is a New Testa- ment bishop, and his ordination is to be judged of as the conse- cration of a bishop for a district without an ai'chbishop, in which case any three bishops think themselves able to raise to the episcopal office of their own inherent power, and of course no Act of Parliament or a Sovereign's warrant can give any additional spiritual force to their act. The English Presbyterian ordinations during the Commonwealth in Middlesex, Lancashire, and Essex may, if regular, stand on Presbyterian grounds, but in any other county, even Northumberland, there were only Classes formed by a union with Independents. Oliver Heywood's ordination was irregular ; he had a perpetual curacy in Yorkshire, and yet he was ordained by the Bolton classis. All the ordinations subsequent to the Revolution mentioned in the answers or evidence were not by ministers having any authority as a Presbytery, but by self-authorized non-permanent bodies, in almost all of which Inde- pendents joined, or were invited to join. In some cases the ordi- nation was not to any particular church, and therefore improper on Presbyterian grounds, being in vagum ministerium. This was particularly the case with that of Timothy Hodgson, the chaplain of the Howleys, all whose antecedents seem those of an Inde- pendent. The witnesses evidently felt that they had no case as far as the existence of Presbyteries went, though they confouuded the ministers' meetings called classes or associations with Presby- teries, particularly as to Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland, and they fell back on the ground that a church was Presbyterian if governed by minister and elders ; but no fact or authority was brought forward to prove that any 623 English congregations were so governed, for the existence and functions of the elders were equally non-existent with those of the Presbytery. The state of things in Ireland had much more of Presbyterian order, but we have seen at p. 370 that Dr. Reid and Dr. Stewart called it real Independency. These matters seem not to have been discussed much before the Vice- Chancellor, but the point made or accepted by the counsel of the various parties as that on which the case turned, was whether the Presbyterian defendants belonged to English or Scotch denominations.* Mr Hall went further than the answers by denying that Con- gregationalists and Independents had ever been the same. He made the difference between them consist in the former having ruling elders. This was evidently stated to make the early Congregationalists real Presbyterians, as Dr. Hugh Campbell deposed : " When a congregation, as was the case with that at York, is fully organized, it is capable, according to the principles and practices of Presbyterianism, of doing everything necessary for its own order, discipline, and jurisdiction, such power being constitutionally lodged in the minister and elders in session assembled, subject, of course, to the review of the Supreme Court where such exists. In the circumstances of the case the congregation at St. Saviour Gate would appear to be * The Rev. Robert Hiddleston of Brampton, and the Rev. Walter Nichol of Long- town, both in Cumberland, Kirkmen, in their affidavit, to meet this view of the case, represented the Independents as of Dutch origin. The whole paragraph is given to shew the style of the Scotch affidavits : " That as the Independents are the most numerous sect of Dissenters in England, as their congregations are generally very poor, and as the Independents are violent Sectarians and enemies to the Presbyterians in particular, there is great danger that if the relators obtain the trustees proposed by them, the poor Presbyterian ministers in the North of England will not receive a large share of Lady Hewley's charity. If Thomas "Wilson [the relator, whose affidavit they were answer- ing] be a descendant of Dutch Independents of old, deponents wonder if he will allow his to be a Dutch attempt to obtain possession of an English charity." They seem not to have known that the Independent churches in Holland were formed of English- men, driven there by persecution, but not intending to remain there. The Scotchmen throughout showed a very limited acquaintance with English affairs. Their one argu- ment was, Lady Hewley called herself a Presbyterian, therefore she must have held principles really Presbyterian. They could see that the Socinians called themselves Presbyterians although not such, but not that they had inherited the name from the first founders who, in their practice, were no more Presbyterians than their successors were. The men of the time of the Revolution having called themselves Presbyterians when they were really such in their notions, continued the name when they had given up all notion of carrying out the system in any respect. That they sat very loose by Presby- terian principles, even by the time of the Restoration, is evident by their willingness to remain in the Establishment so that they were not required to submit to ordination, as they would have complied with the prayer book if they had not been compelled to 78 , 626 carried out presbyterially in all ordinary proceedings, notwithstanding there was no immediate Presbytery to exercise jurisdiction over it. It would be only in the appointment of their minister and in the higher exercises of jurisdiction, that the position of the congregation there would affect its external discipline and forms." It might be said in answer to Mr Hall, that the deacons in many churches have in reality, if not in theory and form, succeeded to whatever power the old polity theoretically vested in the office of ruling elder, and thus the principle has been preserved. The distinction, however, taken by Mr Hall, seems not to have been ever recognized by any other person, and his making it was also accounted for by his production of the trust deed, dated in 1695, of the meeting-house at Whitehaven, which was in favour of Dissenters of the Presbyterian or Congregational denomination, of which chapel Independents had, notwithstanding the trusts of the deed, been forcibly dispossessed by Scotch Presbyterians. By the hearing the disruption of the Kirk had taken place, and all the English congregations having, affecting, or desiring communion with it had joined the Free Church party, and so had become a new body, non-existent in Lady Hewley's time. On this information Mr Bethell, Q.C., Mr Bacon, Q.C., and Mr Chandless, appeared for the relators; the Attorney- General did not think it necessary to be represented. Mr Stuart, Q.C., and Mr declare their approval of everything which it contained as agreeable to Scripture. Not being allowed to do this, they made no effort to set up a Presbytery, but instead formed unions all over the country with Independents, which lasted, except in London, until the spread of Arianism among them. In every case any difficulties as to the unions, and the retiring from them, was on the side of the Independents. This might well be so, for the Presbyterians had become Congregationalists, without setting up either Congregational or Presbyterian discipline. That was a great change for them to submit to, and it was not to be expected that, being the most numerous, wealthy, and influential body, they should lay aside their name for that of the Independents, when they did not adopt their system. They retained the name and nothing more, and it became, as they were the most numerous and influential Nonconformist communion, to a great extent, syno- nymous with the generic term Dissenter, though it also had a specific meaning, that of a body practising no discipline, and owning no control. As had been already said, an Independent minister, whose church allowed itself to become practically a nonentity, and himself did very little else than preach, would be said to act on the Presbyterian system. The use of the word Presbyterian in this negative sense shows that the only functions to be seen in the system were those of the minister. It is a very odd thing that in a system calling itself from the office of elder, that name should have at last attached to laymen only. If this arose from the name or notion of ruling elders, the remark occurs that the ruler should have been at least equal with the speaker. The Anglican system more correctly calls the head of a parish rector. On the other hand it styles the man whose the sheep are not the cm-ate ; while in France the man in charge of the souls is the cure. 627 Rolt for the Independents defendants ; Mr Swanston, Mr Malms, and Mr Barker for the Kirkmen ; and Mr James Parker and Mr Lloyd for the Seceders. The case was argued on the 29th April, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 29th, 30th, and 31st May, and 7th June. Mr Bethell's opening speech occupied sixteen hours, and his reply nearly five. The Kirkmen and Seceders attacked each other before the Master, but they soon found that each party could injure the other, more easily than they could defend themselves, and that they were fighting the battle of the common enemy, the relators, and eventually they heartily coalesced. The answers had left the matter open, except that the Kirkmen had claimed the bene- fit of the charity for themselves exclusively, and protested that they ought not to be asked to say anything as to the Seceders. The Vice- Chancellor delivered judgment in these words : When I first addressed myself to the consideration of the question which is now before me, I was very much struck with this, that the deed of 1704 shows, upon the face of it, that if ever there was an English transaction, the transaction that was completed by that deed bore that character ; for it appears by it that Lady Hewley was herself ari Englishwoman, that she had married an Englishman, that all the property which she disposed of was situate in England, and that all the trustees were Englishmen ; and it has been unquestionably proved that some of them entertained the same religious sentiments as she did. J allude particularly to Mr Stretton and Dr. Oolton, and there has been some evidence given as to one or two others but I do not lay much stress upon it ; with respect to Mr Stretton and Dr. Col ton there is no doubt. Then the first material words in the deed of 1704 are, "To such and so many poor and godly preachers for the time being of Christ's Holy Gospel ;" and the question mainly depends upon this, Who were the persons that Lady Hewley has described in those words 1 Now I can- not but think that, in construing the deed of 1704, we must of necessity take into consideration the deed of 1707, for some of the learned judges who delivered their opinions to the House of Lords considered that the disposition made by the deed of 1704, and the foundation of the hospital, as well as the subsequent disposition of the deed of 1707, all made part of one transaction ; and I think that that is the fair and the true legal view of the matter. Not that it would much signify if it were otherwise, but it is impossible not to see that all the charities are blended together. The deed of 1707 has precisely the same parties to it as the deed of 1704 has. Their names too are placed in the same order, and the words in 628 the deed of 1707, by which the residuary rents are disposed of, are identically the same as those which are used in the deed of 1704. More- over it is to be observed that Lady Hewley appointed Dr. Colton to be one of the managers of the hospital founded by the deed of 1707 ; and that all the other managers were persons resident in or near York. She died in September 1710, and it appears from the sermon which was preached by Dr. Colton at her funeral, that she was in the habit of attending the chapel of which he was the officiating minister. There- fore her opinions on religious matters must have borne a very close resemblance, at least, to his. Then Lady Hewley having used those general terms to which I have adverted, we have to enquire what those terms mean. Now it has struck me all along, that in a very great degree, although not in terms, that question has been already decided : because it has been decided that no unorthodox dissenter, nor any member of the Church of England, is to have anything to do with the administration of the trusts created by the deeds of 1704 and 1707, or to take any benefit under them; then if you remove the unorthodox dissenter, and reject the Church of England man, the necessary consequence is that you must adopt the orthodox dissenters. Mr Baron Gurney gave a very plain and clear opinion upon that subject, and that opinion was referred to with approbation by the Lord Chancellor when he moved the judgment of T-he House of Lords. The question Raised by the supplemental information is, whether those who are members of the Kirk, or of the Secession Church of Scotland, come within the description of poor and godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel, those words having to the extent which I have mentioned, already received an exposition. Now it is perfectly manifest from history, (I allude to Neale's History of the Puritans, and Baxter's history of his own Life and Times), that though the Scotch Presbyteri- ans did predominate to a certain extent, yet they never predominated so far as to have their scheme of church government carried into effect by any law in England. Neale says, "Although as the influence of the Scots over the two houses increased Presbytery prevailed, and when the parliament were at their mercy, and forced to submit to what conditions they would impose upon them for assistance, the Kirk discipline gained the ascendant, and at length advanced into a divine right in the assem- bly of divines, yet the parliament never would come into it ; and "when the Scots were gone home, it dwindled by degrees until it was almost totally eclipsed by the rising of the Independents." Then there is ano- ther passage in which the same author says, " the Presbyterians never saw their dear presbytery settled in any one part of England, Baxter says it was settled in London and Lancashire, it never was settled by law." Then we find that after the Act of Uniformity of Charles the Second had passed, there came the Act of Toleration, and that was in the year 629 1689, and then after that we have what was called "The Happy Union," in 1691, which lasted for about four years, and then the Union appears to have been dissolved, but the state of things remained much the same as it was before the year 1691. And I think that it clearly appears, from the evidence that has been given, that in 1704 and 1707 the words "godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel," or "godly preachers" alone, would have been considered by every person who saw or heard them to mean those persons who answered the description of orthodox English dissenters at that time. The evidence that has been brought against that signification of the words is very slight indeed. It amounts to this, that except congregations here aud there which might more or less be composed of Scotchmen, and might have a Scotch minister, the body of Presbyterians was English, and had English ministers. Besides, Lady Hewley's English predilections are manifested by this, that she directs the trustees and managers should in their dispositions and distributions of her charities have a primary respect to such objects thereof as then were, or should afterwards be, in York or Yorkshire, or other northern counties in England, not excluding those in other coun- ties and places ; and there can be no doubt that the latter words as well as the former, point to England, because though in England we do use the word "county," it appears that the Act which was passed in Scotland for the purpose of carrying into effect the English Act of Union, when it prescribes the mode in which members should be chosen, uses invari- ably the word "shires" or " ste war tries," and never mentions the word "county," and I never heard that word applied to any divisions of Scot- land, though it is applied to divisions of Ireland. Therefore Lady Hewley intended to provide for persons who, with respect to religion, should bear the character of orthodox English Dissenters, and with respect to residence should be found in England. That such was her intention appears also from one ol the rules which she prescribed for the management of the hospital. She says, " Let every almsbody be one that can repeat by heart the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and Ten Commandments, and Mr Edward Bowles's Cate- chism." Now Bowles was one of the ejected ministers who were turned out in the year 1662, and it is remarkable that this lady does not direct that the poor men and women in the hospital shall be able to repeat either of the catechisms, which were the particular characteristics of the Scotch Church, but that they shall be able to repeat Mr Bowles's Cate- chism, which as I undei*stand was published by him, some time after he was ejected. And he was not a Scotch minister, but was one of the ejected ministers who suffered because he thought proper not to submit to the Act of Uniformity. Then if the words "poor and godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel," mean orthodox English Dissenters, there is no difficulty in 630 determining what other persons Lady Hewley intended to be the objects of her bounty, and therefore I shall declare that the words "godly preachers for the time being of Christ's Holy Gospel" contained in the deeds of 1704 and 1707, describe in general those who, at the time of Lady Hewley 's death were, and those who thereafter should be orthodox English dissenting ministers of dissenting churches or congregations essentially and substantially in doctrine and discipline of the same sort as the orthodox dissenting churches or congregations which existed in England, in the years 1704 and 1707, and therefore that orthodox English dissenting ministers of Baptist churches, of Congregational or Independent Churches, and of Presbyterian Churches in England, which are not in connection with or under the jurisdiction of the Kirk of Scotland or the Secession Church, are alone entitled to take the benefits provided by those deeds for godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel. Secondly, that the words in the same deeds " godly widows," described the widows of those orthodox English dissenting ministers. Thirdly, that the words "the preaching of Christ's Holy Gospel," describe the preaching of such orthodox English dissenting ministers. Fourthly, that the words "the ministry of Christ's Holy Gospel," describe the ministry exercised by such orthodox English dissenting ministers. Fifthly, that the words "godly persons" describe the individual mem- bers of such Baptist, Congregational or Independent, or Presbyterian churches, and lastly, that the poor people to be placed in the hospital must be poor members of such churches. Refer it to the Master, to whom the cause of the Attorney-General v. Shore stands referred to carry out the scheme directed by the original decree of the 23rd Decem- ber, 1833, made in that cause, having regard to the aforesaid declara- tions, and to appoint new trustees and sub-trustees or managers in the places of the defendants Lonsdale, Barbour, Einlay, Ross, Ralph, Thomson, Fair, and Pringle, who are hereby removed from being such trustees and sub-trustees respectively. The Presbyterians appealed to the Chancellor, who was then Lord Cottenham ; and the case was heard by him on the 1 5th, 16th, 19th, and 25th January, 1849. There had been attempts at a compromise previously to, and during, the hearing before the Vice- Chancellor, but the Presbyterians required that four-sevenths of the fund should bo placed at their disposal, being willing to leave the rest to the Independents, shutting out the Baptists. The prin- ciple of any division of the fund was always resisted by the relators, but they were willing to have allotted the trustees, three to the Independents, two to the Baptists, and two to the Presbyterians, and had put a proposal to that effect in writing, but there was no proper opening for offering it before the 631 Vice- Chancellor gave judgment. The Presbyterians when before the Lord Chancellor claimed only a participation in the fund, instead of the whole of it, on which they had insisted before the Vice- Chancellor j on their stating this Lord Cottenham showed his determination on the one hand not to let the Inde- pendents retain the preponderance in the trusteeship, and on the other to escape dealing with the principles which the Vice-Chan- cellor had laid down, as they would have rendered it difficult for him to have secured his purpose. When a Chancellor has ex- pressed his wishes for the settlement of a case, it is impossible to stand out against him j each side is in his power, and fears to provoke an adverse decision, and so as one of the leaders for the Presbyterians was out of court, the relators' counsel asked for the further hearing to stand over with a view to an arrangement. A great struggle was then made to carry the plan already intima- ted, but an answer to any further claims for the Baptists was always to be found in the fact that they were nearly unknown in the North in Lady Hewley's time, and had never received much benefit from the charity, so the relators felt themselves compelled to agree that the Independents should have three, each set of Presbyterians two, and the Baptists one. It was however dis- tinctly expressed by the relators' solicitors in making the pro- posal, that there was to be no division of a fund as had been formerly proposed by the Presbyterians, "but that the objects are to be dealt with as they may be presented to the trustees without regard to the denomination to which they may belong • and this stipulation being essential to a proper distribution, is here stated that adherence to it may be secured : it has hitherto been scrupu- lously observed. The final decree is in effect, " that under the words poor and godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel, poor and orthodox ministers of dissenting congregations in England and Wales, within the protection of the Act of Toleration of any of the three denominations, (i.e.) Independent or Congregational, Presby- terian and Baptist, (such order of enumeration not importing any priority) are eligible to the benefit of the charity ; and that the trustees and managers shall, in their disposition and distribu- tion of the charities, have a primary and chief respect to such objects thereof as aforesaid, as are or shall be in York, Yorkshire, and other northern counties in England. [It has been resolved by the trustees that Durham, Northumberland, Cumberland, 632 Westmoreland, Yorkshire and Lancashire be regarded as entitled to a preference under the trust deeds, and that Derbyshire and Cheshire be included, according to the practice of the former trustees.] That there shall be seven grand trustees or mana- gers and seven sub-trustees of the charities, whereof in each class three shall be of the body of Dissenters called Inde- pendents, three shall be of the body of Dissenters called Presbyterians, and one shall be of the body of Dissenters called Baptists. And every grand trustee or manager or sub- trustee, who in time to come shall be elected in the room or on the vacancy of an Independent grand trustee or manager or sub-trustee respectively, shall be elected by the surviving or con- tinuing Independent grand trustees or grand trustee, or managers or manager, [and so as to Presbyterians ;] and that every grand trustee or manager or sub-trustee, who in time to come shall be elected in the room or on the vacancy of a Baptist grand trustee or manager or sub-trustee respectively, shall be elected from the body or denomination of Dissenters called Baptists by the surviving or continuing grand trustees or grand trustee, managers or manager." Defendants Ralph, Thompson, and Fair were removed as disqualified. The charity has been fairly administered by the trustees, every case has been judged of on its own merits without regard to the denomination of the applicant, and if the trustees of that denomi- nation are not acquainted with the circumstances, they make it a point of honour to ascertain them. The grants in 1864-5, reported in the Congregational Year Book, were to : 102 poor and godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel ... £1,120 25 poor persons, chiefly ministers disabled by infirmity . . . 355 1 6 poor places for promoting preaching iu tliem ... ... 165 37 godly persons in distress, chiefly widows and daughters of deceased ministers ... ... ... ... ... 435 6 students for the ministry of Christ's Holy Gospel ... - 240 £2,345 The grants to widows seem the most beneficial application of the charity, as the sums awarded will be felt as substantial additions to their incomes, if expended on themselves ; but as to ministers, many will think £10 more suited to the value of that sum in a past age, and would rather see fewer ministers bene- G33 fitted, so that the recipients should receive at least £20. Any- small gifts tend to the erection of chapels in villages without proportional good effects, and to the support of men who, not having the requisite ability, ought never to have been in the ministry. The multiplication of small chapels does not tend to the strength or credit of Dissenters ; and experience has shown that endowments have very rarely if ever benefitted them. Inde- pendently of this consideration, it seems difficult to prove a man's right to withdraw any property from the dominion of those who come after him by giving it to charity, and so perpetuating his own control over it. Te teneam et mortuus should not be said by a christian man to his property. Endowment is a very potent part of establishment, and religious opinions should be left to be supported year by year by those who believe them; for error of one sort or another will, generally, be better endowed than truth, and the latter will be most advanced if endowment is prohibited. 79 034 APPENDIX. 1. AS TO THE OPINIONS OF MR SAMUEL BURY AND MR BENJAMIN BENNET. In accordance with the intention expressed at p. 197, the works of these authors have been obtained, and extracts from them are submit- ted to the reader. Mr Bury was made of importance for the present pur- pose only by being three times referred to in the Proofs, certainly not by the pertinence of any quotation there given from his writings ; but the passages cited from Mr Bennet's writings on the contrary called for notice, as standing alone they might be fairly construed as sanction- ing a considerable divergence from orthodoxy. Mr Bury appears, notwithstanding what is said in the Proofs, see supra 166, only to have asked the questions, and taken the confession of faith, at Mr Savage's ordination. In the title page of the volume in which the entire service was published, the Exhortation to the minister and the people quoted from in the Proofs is stated to have been delivered (as well as the preliminary sermon) by the Rev. John Rastrick, of King's Lynn ; and the author of the Exhortation speaks of his own ordination by Bishop Fuller of Lincoln, in which diocese Mr Rastrick's former vicarage of Kirkton was situated, while Mr Bury was not episcopally ordained, as is mentioned at p. 1 65 supra. Mr Savage's Confession of Faith is thoroughly Trinitarian and Calvinistic, and so is the Exhortation. It stated that "the Catechism contains two different methods of divinity, the first ending at the benefits which believers receive at the resurrection, and the second carried through the remaining part of the Catechism; the first being founded on God's decrees, the second on the covenant of grace." " Both are here ; free-will or natural power, and free grace ought to be asserted. Si non est Dei gratia quo modo salvat mundum 1 Si non est liberum arbitrium quo modo judicat munclum 1 I will hold the general grace of the Arminians, and not deny the special grace of the Calvinists." " Doubtless though redemption by Christ be of general virtue and universal sufficiency for its part, yet there was a particular or special intentional respect had to God's elect, and special grace is given them to incline them with it." 635 " Study true Catholicism and not parties. There are really no parties among christians, but they are all one body ; why then should they renounce each others' communion, and that for trifles, for extra-funda- mental opinions, when we all believe alike in Jesus Christ, and renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil 1 I am not ashamed to mention it that I could gladly receive a worthy Church of England man, a holy Arminian, a pious Anabaptist, of both opinions, General and Particular, if they would come, though I be not of their opinions myself." " Let unity and peace have your great regard. If we must pray for the peace of Jerusalem, we ought surely to endeavour it. Let there be no divisions that you can help, not iii the church, no more than from it. Read healing authors. The many excellent irenicons that learned men have wrote are of the best of our books."* It should be acknowledged that the quotation in the Proofs is taken from one sermon, and that given at p. 167 supra from another, but both by Mr Bury, and both with reference to Mr Fairfax's death ; the former was the funeral sermon at Ipswich, the scene of Mr Fairfax's noncon- formist labours, and the latter at the funeral at Barking, Suffolk, from which he was ejected. They were published together in a volume con- taining also a funeral sermon for Mr Wright, (Mr Fairfax's successor at Ipswich, who died in a year or two after his settlement there), with the motto from Horace, " Mista senum ac juvenum densantur funera." The sentence, the commencement of which only is given at p. 167, from the Nonconformist's Memorial, stands in full in the sermon, thus : " He was an orthodox minister ; one sound in the faith, and uncor- rupted in his principles. He heartily subscribed and constantly adhered to all the doctrinal articles of the Church of England. He utterly abhorred any new and upstart notions in religion, and loved the truth as it was in Jesus. And this in a time when so many fantastic errors were most audaciously propagated by others and the holy canon itself most desperately struck at by malapert and saucy ignorance." The sermon quoted in the Proofs has the following expression : " You will never forget his preaching, how solid, and spiritual, and close, and pungent, and evangelical." " He had various exercises in so long a life : but the most tragical scene of all was on that fatal Bartho- lomew in 1662, which on to-morrow w7ill be eight and thirty years ago; wheron he was removed not only from his maintenance, but also from his public service, (much more desirable to him than that), together with many hundreds, I had almost said some thousands more, as learned, and oi'thodox, and pious, and peaceable divines as England has ordinarily had ; and this only for the honour they had to the kingly power of * This extract is a digest of five pages in the author's own words. The correspon- dence between the two parts of the Catechism is most ably shown. 636 Christ in his church and the preservation of their own consciences invio- late." In the funeral sermon for Mr Wright he recurs to the same thought. " And that an orthodox minister, when so many enthusiastical seducers are propagating their errors, factions and heresies with so much ven- geance and zeal amongst us." .... " And that a moderate minis- ter, when so many others in their heat and fury are setting the world on fire about us." In his sermon on the opening of his "new erected chappel in St. Edmunds Bury," 1711, (which has a motto from the Amphitryon of Plautus hinting at quarrels), he instances among " such as have greater capacities, and vigour, and fortitude, and boldness : that have not only honesty, but courage enough to withstand the corruptions of the times and outface the sins and scorns of their enemies ; to plead for despised truths and to stand alone against the power and credit of a prevailing faction * * Athanasius against the power of Constautius and the general deluge of Arianism in the world." Mr Bennet's Irenicum has for its motto, " In necessariis Veritas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque charitas ;" and the preface contains the following sentences : " Two things I would admonish the reader not to impute to me, as any part of my aim in these papers, viz., the espousing any of the controverted schemes of the doctrine of the Trinity. My only purpose in what I have said is to moderate if it may be in that troublesome dispute; [which was begun in the Established Church, p. 1]; and to offer reasons for leaving the doctrine in general terms, as God has been pleased to leave it, without descending to particular determinations, further than we have warrant from Scripture ; which is so far from prejudicing the doctrine, that I reckon 'tis the only proper method of guarding it against abuse, and putting an end to our debates about it. Nor wou'd I be thought in what I've advanced in behalf of private judg- ment to patronize the fancies, and plead the cause of our libertines, who affect to call themselves freethinkers. These men's religion, so far as I know anything of it, mainly lies in tragical outcries against priestcraft. They are so shy of creeds that they can believe nothing God Himself has revealed ; and so afraid of ecclesiastical slavery and bondage, that they'll not submit to the yoke of Christ. That every one judge for himself is unquestionably his right and duty, as I have endeavoured to prove ; but if they judge against themselves, and against religion ; if, instead of judging in disputed modes of gospel ordinances and adminis- trations they judge away the things themselves ; instead of enquiring what is the law and appointment of Christ in this or that particular they neglect all his appointments ; conscience will convince them sooner or later this is not following its dictates, but abusing both themselves and it. 'Tis a sad way I must confess of thinking freely, to think the 637 gospel of Christ, its doctrines, and institutions into contempt. When we plead for a liberty for Christians to judge for themselves in religion it is that they may impartially examine it; and the more they do so the greater will be their veneratioD for it, and that they may act in it with a sense and reverence of the divine authority, without which their religion is of little value. But if any of these poor creatures permit this great- and necessary principle, as if because none may judge for them, therefore 'tis no matter how they judge, or whether they judge at all, this will be their own fault, 'tis an offence taken and not given." The objections to the Arian scheme are thus stated, (see p. 172, supra.) "Particularly the Ariau scheme can't be fundamental, the substance of which is : That the supreme eternal God created and made the Son before all ages, made him as great and glorious a being as was possible to omnipotency itself, and communicated to him as much perfection as a created nature cou'd admit of; that this Son of God is a creature of an ubiquitary presence and of multitudinous power ; that God having first made the Son, did thro' him create the Holy Ghost ■ and by the Son and Holy Ghost, or thro' the Son, and by the Holy Ghost, created this world and all things in it ; that these three govern the world not by a joint co-ordinate providence, but that their dominions are subordinate and adequate to their powers ; the one being supreme, the other two deputies. Now I say this scheme wants evidence sufficient to entitle it to a place among fundamentals, and make it necessary to be believed in the christian church by all its membei-s. The Scripture characters of the Son, viz., the true God, the mighty God, the great God, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Lord of glory, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end, the Almighty Jehovah, and the like, furnish such ai'guments against this hypothesis as require more skill in criticism to answer than most christians are masters of. 'Tis the grand principle of Arius, that the Son of God is not eternal, but that there was a time when he was not. And yet we find the Scripture describes the duration and eternity of the Son by the same terms and phrases as that of the Father : Isaiah xliii, 10, xliv, 6 ; Rev. , 1 8, xvii, 22 23; Ps. xcviii, 2; Prov. viii, 22. * * [17 lines omitted]. " Dr. Clark has refin'd upon the Arian scheme, but as his scheme is attended with many of the same difficulties with the Arian, it has this further incumbrance that it supposes a sort of intermediate being, that is neither God nor a creature, but something between both ; which is philosophising to a degree of subtilty above what common christians are capable of reaching. And how great a difficulty is it, in his scheme, to make a being, not the supreme God, to be possess'd of infinite perfections ; as omnipotency, omniscience, omnipresence, William Arthur. 200. 100 freeholders in all. Morpeth. B. and Newbiggin F. John Horsley [the author of Britannia Romana.] 200. 10> Hexham. M. Ralph Lasenby rem. 200. 27. 3 or 4 of good estates. Alnwick. M. Jonathan Harle, M.D. 400. 30. WooleiV M. James Baine died 1721. Edward Atkins. 300. 6. FramlingtOIl. Thomas Lake. Birdorp Craig, al Birdhop Craig, 10 miles west of Ellesden al Catchike al Reddesdale. f. Joseph Tait [rem]. John Chesholme. 300. 24. G. 1. Little Harle, or Bavington. between Ellesden and Hexham. Roger Stoddard [rem]. John Bosier. 300. 12. Etalj near Berwick. Aaron Wood. 500. 10. G. of good estate 2. Many substantial F. North Tyne. John Dean. 200. 14. North. Sheals, near Newcastle. John Turnbull died 1723. Cowden. 300. 8. 1 Justice, 5 or 6 of good estates, raised 100 men in the late rebellion. Swarland. Archibald, chaplain to Mr Haslerig. 150. 2. Rively. Timothy Puncheon died 1717. 300. 6. Minister £100 per annum, two of his hearers £400 per annum, the rest F. and L. This entry is struck through. Barmoor. Edward Arthur. 400. 8. Many substantial F., but none of an estate above £60 per annum. Coquet Water. James Bell. 250. 3. Belsay. Comberbatch Leech, Chaplain to Sir John Middleton. 300. 13. Brunton, near Newcastle, once a fortnight. Thomas Willis. 100. 3. Woodside. Nicholas Storey. 130. Aslington and Cowpan, fortnightly. 40* 1. N.B. — In the above account no allowance is made for persons absent, who would make a quarter part more. Tn the Northern congre- gations, where all that are capable of examination submit to it, the members that appear upon their lists are double the numbers of those present. 073 No voters are mentioned but such as could then be actually remem- bered, many are forgotten. Many have double votes, [i. e. for two counties. | Account received from Mr Nesbitt. NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. Nottingham. B. John Whitlock. John Hardy conformed 1727. colli Obadiah Hughes 1728. 1400. 335. E 4. widows of such 7. G 64., most of the rest T. and their apprentices, many servants, some L. Retford. B., and Kneesall. 4. 6. Kirkby Wilson. 11G. 9., most Y., some few L. Mansfield. M. 4. Isaac Thompson. 352.6. G 18. T 30. Y 10. some few L. Saudeacre. 5. Joseph Bird. Kilton and Wallingwell. John Button. 79. 8. E 1. E's widow 1. G2. Yand F 16. L 9. Nether Langworth, near Bolsover. Jonathan Butler. 40. 3. G 2. the rest Y. and F. Widmerpoole. John Hardy, and others occasionally. 210. 42. G 12. most of the rest Y. and F. Moor Green. 6. 5. Samuel Green, same as at Broughton, Leicestershire. 300. 3. G 5., the rest T. and F. &c. Willoughby. 6. disc. James Watson. 130. 15. G 4., most of the rest Y. and F. Coleorton. Once in three weeks, supplied by Messrs. Whitlock, Hardy, Alwood, and Ogle Radford. 251. 18. E's lady 1. widow lady 1. G. 11., the rest mostly Y. and F. Leek, occasionally. John Whitlock. Richard Bateson, I. John Hardy, &c. 113. 21. G 4., most of the rest Y. and F. Normanton. John Whitlock and others occasionally. 114. 7. G 5. the rest mostly Y. aud F. Bledworth. Isaac Thompson and James Huthwait of Alfreton, Der- byshire. 111. 7. G 5. the rest most Y. and F. Selston. 6. John Holland, sen. 200. 7. G 6., the rest Y T. and F. Baptist Chapel at Nottingham. Taken from Letter of Mr Hardy to Mr Robinson, 1717. OXFORDSHIRE. Oxford. C. William Roby. 10. 21. 150. 4. G 1., the rest T. [The Baptists have this chapel]. 84 ■ 674 Banbury. B. Stephen Davies. 600. 70. G. 35., the rest T. and F. Chipping Norton. M. 5. 10. John Thorley. 250. 22. G. 5., the rest T. and L. Bicester. 7. John Troughton. 350. 26. Dissenters the most substantial persons of the town. Thame. 8. 6. Matthew Leeson. 150. 9. G. 8., the rest T. F. and L. Witney. 6. disc. Samuel Mather. 450. 30. G. 30., rest T. F. and L. Bloxholm and Milton. 5. Andrew Durel dead. James Hancox. 1726. 500. 20. G. 20., the rest T. F. and L. Coomb. 6. Heniy Saunders. 150. 6. Some G., the rest T. F. and L. Baptist Chapels at Horley, Burford, Oxfoi'd, a lecture supplied by Mr Fuller, of Abingdon, and Mr Collet, of Cole, Witney, Coat, and Hook Norton. Account by Mr Barrington. RUTLANDSHIRE. Okeham M. 10. 6. Robert Ekins Ejected, died 1716. Jacob Floyd died 1727. John Halford. 110. 9. G. 2. Y. 6. T. 17. Uppingham. M. and Luftenham. 6. 5. John Pyott [rem]. Joseph France. 256. 17. G. 19. Y. 9. T. 36. L. 28. Baptist Chapels : Oakham, Uppingham, Braraston, and Empringham. Account by Mr Hardy. SALOP. Salop, or Shrewsbury. John Reynolds, rem. 1718. John Gyles, M.D. Coll. Charles Berry 1718. 440. 47. 49. G. 4. T. and F. 62. Bridgnorth. 10. 5. Samuel Taylor rem. Fowler Walker rem. to Abergavenny 1724. John Fleming. 120. 9. 26. G. 5. F. 9. T. 28. Oswestry. M. 6. 5. Leoline Edwards rem. to Painswick. Joshua Jones [rem]. Joseph Whit worth 1718-9. Joseph Venables. 120. 12. G. 1. Wem. M. 5. 4. Fisher [rem]. Thomas Holland. 180. 25. T. 24. F. 14. Y 10. Whitchurch. M. David Beynon died 1725. Culcheth. 300. 30. G. 6. T. 30. F. 44. Y. 20. Independent Secession founded chapel. 675 Newport. M. 5. 4. Peter Seddon rem. to Hereford. John King. 65. 6. Y. 4. T. 8. Clebury. M. John Perkins, Sparry, &c. Gnoshal. A lecture 2. Paul Russell. Horton. A lecture monthly, G disc, chiefly Mr Seddon. Wellington. Lecture monthly. 4 disc, chiefly by Mr Seddon. 42. 3. T. 6. Y. 2. Bragginton, near Leighton. Monthly lecture. 4 disc, chiefly by Seddon. 74. 3. Y. 2. T. G. F. 8. Oldbury. 6 disc, supplied by ministers of Warwickshire. 400. 20. G. 3. F. G. mostly Y. Shiflual. A lecture. 36. 6. G. 2. T. 4. Baptist Chapels at Salop and Bridgnorth. From Mr Reynolds, of Shrewsbury. SOMERSETSHIRE. Bristol. C. Michael Pope died 1718. Samuel Bury, coll. John Diaper. 1600. Ditto. John Catcott died 1720. Strickland Gough, dec. coll. Walter Furze, 1718, rem. to Exeter 1719. William Fisher 1721. Rainer 1722. 500. Some dissenters of the first congregation have been Sheriffs of the City, and put themselves out of the Council because of the Occasional Act. Several other persons of condition ; divers very rich, many more very substantial, few poor. The whole congregation computed worth near £400,000. Divers of the second congregation rich, and a considerable number sub- stantial. The whole congregation computed worth between £60,000 and £70,000. Total for 5 congregations, 2 Presbyterian, 1 Independent, and 2 Bap- tist 4,300 hearers, worth £270,000; [this sum seems to refer to the Ind. and Bap. congregations], voters for Bristol 700 or upwards, for Gloucestershire 72 or upwards. Low Church can hardly make up 30 ; voters for Somersetshire 50 or upwards, Low Church not near the number. N.B. That besides the number of about 700 voters or upwards for Bristol, many of these by their estates and interest in trade can make many hundred more votes upon an election in Bristol, Gloucester- shire, Somersetshire, Monmouthshire, Herefordshii-e, Wales, the Cities of Gloucester and Hereford, the town of Monmouth, r the son. The Christian names and the chapels are not in the original. 710 John Farmer, Fetter Lane. Jacob Fowler, New Court. Thomas Tingey, Rotherhithe. Jackson. Vowel. Reed. Shaen. The Independent ministers of London had previously no formal method of recognizing a minister as one of them, unless it were by his contribution to the Independent Fund. Yet the true Independent ministers, as distinguished from men who were known Antinomiana, or had set up churches differing from the principles or observances usual among Congregationalists, feeling that the body would be disgraced by such names appearing on their list, proposed a recognition of the Savoy Confession, though that document, as quoted at p. 30, contains a passage deprecating its being used as a test. That they did not purpose to have it subscribed is shewn by the phrase, " in some way or other." The more consistent plan of rejecting every human standard prevailed, but the wishes of the party thus overruled were met by not calling the residuary, and, as there was danger of its being, the heterogeneous body, by the name Congregational. That name however attached to it in spite of the arrangement, but it would seem that no unwelcome party claimed, or was proposed for insertion on the list; and no minister was added, after the list was once formed, without a vote of the body, and twenty yeai's had scarcely elapsed before names (added to the list after 1734) were removed from it by such a vote. It was, after the lapse of a few years, resolved that no minister should be proposed for addition to the Board unless on the recommendation of five members of the Board, expressed personally at the meeting, or signified in writing. These precautions shew the care taken to preserve the body from unworthy ineinbers, without the use of any test. The name of Dr. Lardnei", it will be noticed, does not appear on the second list; in 1727 he took the afternoon preachership at Crouched Friars. Mr Walter Wilson distinguishes the congregation from its chapel in Poor Jewry Lane. M r bowman's name was continued on the list until his death, and his successor, Mr, eventually Dr., Philip Furneaux, took his place. The only other name added during thirty years which appears to call for remark are those of Hugh Farmer of Walthamstow, and Dr. Zephaniah Marryatt then of Deadman's Place, who ranked as a Presbyterian at the time of the meeting at Halters' Hall. No doubt the formation of Dr. Evans's list of ministers, and the appointment of the Committee of the Three Denominations "to vote on political occasions," as the Congregational Board expresses it, were all 717 part of the same scheme of securing united action by the Dissenters ; and it was perfectly in accordance with the notions of the Presbyterians, who were then the leading denomination of Nonconformists, to leave all to be done by the ministers. It was however soon seen that the minis- ters were not fit persona to deal with political matters, and the Dissenting Deputies were organized, in 1 732, for the protection of Dissenters, and the redress of their grievances. They began by attacking the bye-law of the City of London, by which Dissenters were fined £500 for not serving as Sheriffs, although disqualified by the Test and Corporation Acts, an evil which, thanks to Lord Mansfield, they put down, but not until after sufficient fines had been received to pay in great part for the building of the Mansion House. The Three Denominations are often sneered at for only presenting addresses, but there is nothing else left for them to do, and the privilege is not without value ; and the union being for political purposes only, there was no ground for the horror which used to be affected by some persons at the association in the old Three Denominations of Trinitarians with Anti-Trinitarians. This is, perhaps, the place to remark that, notwithstanding the contrast drawn by the Scotch Presbyterians in the Hewley case, (and otherwise), between Presbyterian and Independent ministers in respect of their literary cmalifications, and their styling the Presbyterian ministry a learned ministry, Dr. Watts, Dr. Lardner (he was not only an Independent by birth, but on his return from Leyden he joined the church in Miles's Lane, though he .exercised his ministry among the Presbyterians, and joined their Board perhaps from the proposed recog- nition of the Savoy Confession,) Dr. Doddridge, Dr. Jennings, Mr Neal, Mr Jeremiah Jones, Mr Lowraan and Mr Hugh Farmer, all men of note in the present day, which is more than can be said of any Pres- byterian in Dr. Evans's list, except Dr. Calamy and Mr Benjamin Bennett. Dr. Evans himself, Dr. Benson, Dr. Chandler, Dr. Wright, Dr. Grosvenor, Dr. Fordyce, Mr Tong, Mr Grove, Dr. Latham, Dr. Rotheram, and Dr. Dickson, are not better known now than Dr. Hunt or Dr. Furneaux, nor is there any reason why they should be, since the two ministers last named were fully their ecpials, either as learned men or as able or attractive writers. No. 7. List given in "The Historical Proofs and Illustrations," of "ministers of Arian or other Anti-Trinitarian sentiments, who were in the course of their education before 1710." This li^t is to be found p. 71 ib., at the end of the section entitled, 718 " Particular cases, Exeter, «fco." and is introduced by the following sen- tences : "It may be of some interest to subjoin a list of a few names of eminent Presbyterian ministers, who were in course of education in Lady Hewley's day, and who became known as notoriously Unitarian, (as one of the divisions of that class of opinion.) It is formed on the most casual reference to books, but it in fact embraces almost all the Presbyterian names of much note in the period, and is distributed over every part of the kingdom, showing how general this tone of opinion was, and how little exclusive the instruction could have been that pro- duced such results." Gabriel Barber, of Brentwood, in Essex, where he settled in 1708, died 1750. [His successors seem to have been Arians.] Joseph Mottershead, born 1688, of Nantwich, and afterwards of Manchester, where he spent a long life. Entered the ministry in or about 1710 ; ordained 1713. [He spent a year during his preparation for the ministry in Matthew Henry's house, and received him into his own house to die, having without doubt at that period the reputation of being orthodox. He however no doubt afterwards became Arian, but resisted the arguments by which his son-in-law Seddon would have won him to Socinianism.j John Witter, of Hull, where he settled about 1 705 ; one of Lady Hewley's trustees to about 1757. [He was one of the third lot appointed in 1735. His congregation was orthodox until the end of the last century.] John Aldred, "Wakefield, and Timothy Aldred, Moi"ley, county of York, two brothers, who entered the ministry about 1707. [There is reason to suppose that Timothy was an Arian.] Thomas Dickson, M.D., Whitehaven, entered the ministry about 1700, died in 1729. Tutor of Benson, Taylor, Rotheram, &c. [See pp. 129, 82 ; he accompanied Dr. Calamy in his tour in Scotland.] Martin Toinkins, [Stoke] Newington. Mentioued by Winston as an Arian ; [he certainly was dismissed for stispicion of Arianism. See pp. 43, 97, 157.] Benjamin Bennet, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Entered the ministry about 1C97. See pp. 128, 630. Lemuel Latham, Sunderland. Entered the ministry about 1707. See pp. 129, 197, 198. Richard Rogerson, Newcastle, Josiah Rogerson, Derby, brothers, who entered the ministry about 1707. [Josiah Rogerson was no doubt an Arian in 1736. See pp. 35, 71.] Dr. Hemy Winder, Liverpool, born 1693. Entered the ministry about 1715. [His books will shew his views.] John Taylor, D.D., of Norwich, &c, born in 1694. Entered the ministry 1715. [He is designated in the Proofs an Arian. See pp. 14, 719 87, the authority for the statement in the last mentioned page is Mr Walter Wilson.]* Ambrose Rudsdale, Gainsborough, a York man, born about 1685, was in the ministry in 1707, a trustee of the Ilewley estate. Died 1754. [Mr Rudsdale's congregation was an Independent one, a fact which is not without weight ; he was appointed at the same time as Mr Witter.] John Platts, Ilkeston. Entered the ministry about 1705, died 1735. Samuel Bourn, Birmingham. Entered the ministry about 1709. [lie seems to have been orthodox at his outset in life. See pp. 35, 71.] There were three ministers of these names, father, son, and grandson ; this is the son.] Isaac Worthington, Durham. Entered Franklaud's Academy, 1G91 [see p. .84]. Joseph Dodson, Marlborough. Entered the ministry about 1708. [See pp. 97, 129, 197]. Bennet Stevenson, D.D., Bath. Entered the ministiy about 1704, died 1756. Samuel Bates, Warminster. Entered the ministry about 1703 ; resigned 1761, being then very old. Nicholas Billingsley, Ash wick. Entered the ministry about 1706. Benjamin Ascrigg, Shepton Mallet. Entered the ministry before 1710. Herbert Stogden, Somersetshire. Ordained 1718. Richard White, Somersetshire. James Foster, Somersetshire ; Barbican and Pinners' Hall, London. [No doubt he was a Socinian. See p. 80.J * Dr. Taylor cannot be removed from this list, but a quotation from one of his later works may be transferred here from Mr Palmer's preface to the Nonconformists' Memorial. It deserves a place in both works, and it will testify what the heterodox of the early part of the last century were. "The principles and worship of Dissenters are not formed upon such slight founda- tion as the unlearned and thoughtless may imagine ; they were thoroughly considered, and judiciously reduced to the standard of Scripture, and the writings of antiquity, by a great number of men of learning and integrity ; I mean the Bartholomew divines, or the ministers ejected in the year K>i>2 ; men prepared to lose all, and to suffer martyrdom itself, and who actually resigned their livings, (which with most of them were under God, all that they and their families had to subsist upon), rather than sin against God and desert the cause of civil and religious liberty ; which together with serious religion, would, I am persuaded, have sunk to a very low ebb in the nation, had it not been for the bold and noble stand these worthies made against imposition upon conscience profaneness, and arbitrary power. They had the best education England could afford ; most of them were excellent scholars, judicious divines, pious, faithful and laborious ministers ; of great zeal for God and religion ; undaunted and courageous in their Master's work ; keeping close to their people in the worst of times ; diligent in their studies ; solid, affectionate, powerful, lively, awakening preachers ; aiming at the advancement of real, vital religion in the hearts and lives of men, which, it cannot be denied, flourished greatly wherever they could influence. Particularly they were men 720 John Bowden, Frome. Entered the ministry about 1704. Henry Grove, of Taunton; (born 1683) entered the ministry about the same time. [Was an Arian. See p. 72]. Matthew Huddy, Penzance. Ordained 1704. James Pierce, Exeter. Entered the ministry about 1G96. [See pp. 23, 97, 104, 139.] Joseph Hallet. Ordained 1683. [See p. 23 and 97]. Thomas Jeffery succeeded Mr Pierce at the Mint Meeting, Exeter. [May be admitted to be an Arian.] John Cox, Kingsbridge. Ordained 1702. [See p. 97J. Isaac Gilling, Newton, ordained 1687. [The chapel is now Inde- pendent]. OTHER DEVONSHIRE MINISTERS ON THE ARIAN, OR ANTI-TRINITARIAN SIDE IN 1718-19. Roger Beadon, Budleigh, ordained 1709, [see p. 97]. Samuel Carkeet, Totness, ordained 1710. Samuel Adams. John Parr, Okehampton. Ordained 1715. Joseph Hallet, the younger; born 1692. James How. John Force, Bovey Tracy, died 1728. Nathaniel Cook, Biddeford. Thomas Hornbrook. George Jacomb. John Starr. of great devotion and eminent abilities in prayer uttered as God en aided them from the abundance of their hearts and affections ; men of divine eloquence in pleading at the throne of grace, raising and melting the affection of their hearers, and being happily instrumental in transfusing into their souls the same spirit and heavenly gift. And this was the ground of all their other qualifications ; they were excellent men because excellent, instant, and fervent in prayer. Such were the fathers, the first formers of the Dissenting interest. And you here in Lancashire had a large share of these burning and shining lights. Those who knew them not might despise them, but your forefathers, wiser and less prejudiced, esteemed them highly in love for their work's sake. You were once happy in your Newcombs, your Jollies, your Hey woods, &c. , who left all to follow Christ : but Providence cared for them, and they had great comfort in their ministerial services. The presence and blessing of God appeared in their assemblies, and attended their labours. But now alas ! we are pursuing measures which have a manifest tendency to extinguish the light which they kindled, to damp the spirit which they enlivened, and to dissipate and dissolve the societies which they raised and formed ! Let my soul for ever be with the souls of these men !" Scripture Account of Prayer, p. 51. These words were addressed to the "Presbyterians" of Lancashire, to dissuade them from the use of a liturgy, which however proved too much in accordance with the state of religion among them, for them to act upon his advice. The use of the liturgy by Socinians, and the extent of alteration necessary to adapt it to their purposes, arc worth notice and enquiry. 721 John Fox [see p. 74], Mark Jb'acey. Thomas Edgeley, Totness. Ordained 1700. IN LONDON. There were many. The leading names will most of them have appeared already, such as Mr Moses Lowman [Independent minister at Clapham, born 1680, died 1752. The charge of heterodoxy against him is grounded on three tracts by him published after his death, but which he intended to publish. 1. " Remarks upon the question whether the appearances under the Old Testament were the appearances of the true God himself, or some other spiritual being representing the true God, and acting in his name." 2. "An Essay on the Scheohina, or Considerations on the Divine Appearances mentioned in the Scriptures." 3. "Texts of Scripture relating to the Logos considered." They were edited by Dr. Lardner, Dr. Chand- ler, Dr. Ward, and Mr Sandercock. Mr W. Wilson says, " The object of this work was to overthrow the generally received opinions respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and it has been appealed to with great confidence by some writers in behalf of Socinian principles." No writing of his, published in his life, betrayed unsoundness. No other Independent appears to have contributed to the Occasional Papers.] Dr. [Nathaniel] Lardner [born 1681, died 1768, by 1758 he became a Socinian, having for some time previously been an Arian. In 1703 he joined the church in Miles's Lane, during Mr Matthew Clarke's ministry, who was an Independent of undoubted orthodoxy.] Dr. [Jeremiah] Hunt [minister of the Independent congregation at Pinners' Hall, born 1678, died 1741, was certainly vehemently suspected of heterodoxy on account of his associates. He is believed to have been the Mr H. of whom Dr. Watts thus spoke in 1708 (the year after his settlement in London) : " I believe with you that Mr H.'s insisting so much on the duties of morality, and pressing them upon the motive of Christ's example above and beyond all other motives, has been a reason why some persons have suspected him of Socinianizing, though he has several times in the pulpit and in converse, expressed his sentiments veiy plainly opposite to Socinus on the great points of controversy. I wish he had always done it, and talked with caution in all places on those subjects. He has raised many scruples among many persons ; but I quash them wherever I find them." Milner's Life of Watts, p. 228, 229. He is not set down as a Socinian by the anonymous classifier.] Dr. [Samuel] Wright, [of Blackfriars and Carter Lane chapels, born 1682, died 1716. Mr W. Wilson pronounces him a moderate Calvinis*, 00 . 722 and the following is an extract by Dr. Hoppus from his confession at his ordination, and his sermon on 2 Tim. 1, 13. "There ai'e three persons in the Godhead, distinct in their personal properties, but the same in all glorious perfections, each of them God, yet all but one God. * * The Father and the Son from eternity agreed upon articles or propositions every way becoming the infinite perfections of the divine nature, whereby to effect and bring about the salvation of a certain number of men. " "What is recorded concerning the fall of angels, and first formation of man, his apostacy and corruption, with everything that relates to our redemption and recovery by Christ ; and whatever concerns us in our transactions with Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in order to our eternal salvation : this faith must be held fast, pure, and entire, as it was at first delivered to the saints." Dr. Wright's sermon on opening Carter Lane chapel, (republished by Dr. Hoppus in 1825), also shows that his opinions were orthodox.] Mr Henry Read, [successively of Ratcliff Cross, Monkwell Street, and St. Thomas's, Southwark, born 1686, died 1774. Mr Walter Wil- son says, " Mr Read divided with the nonsubscribing ministers not from any doubts in his mind as to the generally received opinion on the subject, [of the Trinity,] but from a principle of opposition to the exacting a subscription to human articles of faith. Mr Wilcox being a zealous Calvinist, and judging Mr Read's discourses to be too much in the Arminian strain, he dismissed him from his situation in Monkwell Street, by his own authority, without consulting his church, which occasioned some of his hearers to leave him. Mr W. Wilson gives a list of Mr Read's works, five sermons and a catechism.] Mr James Read, [successively of the Weighhouse, Hand Alley, St. Thomas's, and New Broad Street, born 1684, died 1755. He was dismissed by the majority of the Weighhouse church, because he could not assert with the pastor, Mr Reynolds, "that he thought them guilty of idolatry, or that they had forfeited their claim to Christian communions who pay religious worship to our Lord Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and man; though they hold him to be subordinate to his Father, or (as Christ himself has told us,) that his Father is greater than he." He was a member of the society of ministers who met on Thursdays at Clew's -Coffee house, who were mostly heterodox. Mr W. Wilson says of him, "He seldom went directly into points of controversy, yet openly vindicated uncorrupted Christianity, giving what he took to be the true scripture doctrine, and earnestly recommending that charity of which he himself was so bright an example." His brother Henry, Dr. Evans, and Dr. Allen, were his colleagues in his three last chapels. Of Dr. Evans Mr Wilson says, " His opinions in general harmonized with the Confessions 723 of the Reformed Churches " ; of Dr. Allen, " His religious sentiments were in no extreme, and are said to have approached towards moderate Calvinism." Mr Caleb Fleming, [of Bartholomew Close and Pinners' Hall, born 1698, died 1779, who succeeded Dr. Foster at the latter chapel, as he followed Dr. Hunt, was a Socinian from early life, though it does not follow that his sermons were so from the first, as like most of his friends he might content himself for a time with being non- evangelical. He has the distinction of having destroyed two congre- gations, one Presbyterian and the other Independent, as he had no successor in either. He is recorded also as the first dissenting minis- ter who was ordained without a confession. He only said that "he believed the New Testament writings to contain a revelation worthy of God to give and of man to receive ; and that it should be his endeavour to recommend those teachings to the people in the sense in which he could from time to time understand them." The minsters who ordained him were Dr. Chandler, Dr. Hunt, Dr. Benson, Mr Mole, Mr Simmons, and Mr Sandercock. Dr. [George] Benson [born 1690, died 1762, of Crouched Friars. He was at first only an Arminian, but ended a Socinian]. Dr. Samuel Chandler, [of Peckham, and the Old Jewry, born 1693, died 1766. Mr W. Wilson says of him, " though Dr. Chandler was not a Calvinist, yet we are told that he often insisted on those topics which are usually esteemed evangelical, and that in a manner highly acceptable to many whose doctrinal sentiments were more Calvinistical than his own."] [The extract ends here.] Lady Hewley founded her charity in 1704, when very few of the ministers included in this list were even in course of education for the ministry. Notwithstanding the sentences, quoted above, with which this list is introduced in the Proofs, it will occur to persons acquainted with the subject that England has been well swept to yield this list, and that very few names could, with any plausible justification, have been added to it. Indeed it is submitted that enough has been stated here to shew that several ministers have been improperly included in it. Yet with all this undistinguishing zeal on the framer's part, he has not inserted Dr. Benjamin Grosvenor, Dr. John Evans, or Mr Simon Brown, although writers in the Occasional Paper, notwithstanding the remarks copied at p. 11 7, nor Mr Bury, though thrice referred to in the Proofs in the manner which we have seen at pp. 165, 82, 72. The remarks here added to the list admit the imputation of heterodoxy when known to be correct, but neither extensive nor accurate knowledge on the subject is pretended, and if that had been possessed by the author of 724 the Proofs, no remarks would have been ventured in answer to his assertions, but when so many ministers are here claimed as heterodox without any evidence other than that given in preceding pages, which will be found most inconclusive, there seemed no reason for withholding the small amount of information here supplied as to some of the names. 3STo. 8. Dr. Calamy's opinions, shown by extracts from his autobiography.* The autobiography of Dr. Calamy was relied on by the Socinians and the Scotch Presbyterians in turn, as proving their assertions as to the views of the English Presbyterians, and though the doctor would not be selected by persons of evangelical principles as the highest specimen of the English Presbyterian minister, yet it may be admitted that no man of his generation of whom we have a memoir, more fairly represents the general opinions of his brethren, especially those in the more influential positions. It has therefore been determined to give extracts from his life, as edited by Mr Putt. That gentleman however states : " I have endeavoured to exercise a discretion peculiarly requisite on a work of so much variety, and which concludes abruptly when the author's rapidly declining health forbade the obvious advan- tage of his revisal." These expressions must mean at the very least that passages and phrases have been omitted, and Mr Putt's notes, and his chief authorities, e. g. Major Cartwright for matters relating to the English constitution, and the Monthly Repository in ecclesiastical affaii's, do not inspire absolute confidence in his j udgment. The following paragraphs occur in the Proofs, after the quotation of the statement the Doctor makes as his views at his ordination. Addi- tions to them are enclosed within hooks. " In describing his ordination Dr. Calamy says, ' I wrote an account of our design, and what Mr Howe proposed about his father, and begged he would convey our request to him. But then I laid down the pi'inci- ples we went upon distinctly, to be ordained ministers of the Catholic Church of Christ without any confinement ; and begged he would expressly mention that, and signify that if any narrow, confining, cramping notions were intermixed in the management, I should drop the matter, and take the liberty to withdraw, even though the work of the day were begun or considerably advanced. [I thought it the more requisite to be thus particular, because I had been present at a day of * It should be particularly borne in mind that this autobiography was evidently not written from any diary or notes at the time, so that we fiud in it the cast of thought as well as the expressions of the last years of his life. 725 prayer, kept in Curriers' Hall upon Mr Shower's accepting (in 1G91) a call from the remainder of my father's congregation that had been, after his decease, under the care of Mr Samuel Borfct. At which time Mr Mead, to whom the chief management of the solemnity had been committed, as it were married Mr Shower to that congregation, and carried things so far as to represent it as a sort of spiritual adultery if upon any occasion he should leave them, and go to spend his pains statedly in another worshipping society ; a sort of management not at all to my edification.'*] Life I., 342, 343. " He continued to act in the same diffusive spirit. ' If it be possible as much as lieth in us, let us live peaceably with all men.' Though some slight, and others insult us, yet let us be Catholic-spirited. Let us love all, without exception, that have anything of God in them, anything of the image of Christ upon them. Let us strive to return to the Aposto- lical simplicity, and take care that our religion be that of the Bible." Calamy's Dedication of the Continuation of the account of Ejected Ministers, 1727, vol. I., p. lvii. " The period to which thist is to be referred is the year 1692, fifteen years before the perfecting of Lady Hewley's foundation. Dr. Calamy was a friend of Lady Hewley, encouraged by her in his ministry. He speaks of a ' noble mark of her bounty,' which he received from her after a journey which he had taken through York. It is not contended that Dr. Calamy was himself an unbeliever in the doctrine of the Trinity ; on the contraiy it is known that he preached and published in defence of his own views of that doctrine, which are however very moderate. ' We shall proceed to make some extracts from Dr. Calamy's account of his journey by York to Edinburgh in 1709, and we do so because they bear remarkably on the present questions in more ways than one. 1st. They bring him in direct contact with the founder [Lady Hewley], he participated in her bounty, and it may therefore reasonably be presumed that his character had her approval. 2nd. They illustrate the distinction even in those days between the Scotch and the English Presbyterians. "We know what the doctrinal views of the former were and are, namely, such as the relators would prescribe as * The complaint, p. 77 sup., relates to the omission in the Proofs of these sentences added here ; without them the first part of the paragraph might have any meaning a reader wished to extract from it. Mr Mead was an Independent. This was not Mr Shower's ordination, hut hi:, first settlement as pastor ; he had previously been assistant to Vincent Alsop at Tothill Fields, and John Howe at Silver Street, but he had no other pastorate, so that Matthew Mead's discourse may have had its effect. The Romish Church lias interpreted the one wife as the church ; a better interpretation (of that kind) would have been to make the one wife one church. But translations (or in Scotch phrase transportations) no doubt must be permitted, like Jewish divorces, for the hardness of the husbands' hearts. + i.e., what he says as to his ordination. 726 the standard of this charity ; but this was even then a widely different standard from that approved by the London divine and his brethren, according to his testimony. 3rd. The course he took is a specific affirmative proof of the liberality of the English leader, the more important because it was made under circumstances which would have induced him, out of courtesy, to make the distinction as little prominent as his conscience would allow." p. 146. 'We set forward in April on Monday, reached York Friday evening, and continued there until Monday morning following. Dr. Coul- ton, the worthy pastor of a congregation there, treated us with abundant respect and civility. But the good Lady Hewley, a person eminent for her piety and charity, was at that time so ill, that notwithstanding she was very desirous of a visit from me, yet she was not able to bear it, during the short time of my stay. At my return to Westminster, that generous lady was pleased to send me a noble mark of her bounty, on my part altogether unexpected, p. 147. [This paragraph is given only because the Proofs lay stress upon it.] p. 152. 'Monday I went into the Assembly, conducted by Mr Carstairs, the Earl of Glasgow sitting as the Queen's Commissioner, and Mr Curry of Haddington, Moderator. I was placed upon a bench at the foot of the throne, at the right hand of the Moderator, and had liberty to attend from day to day, and hear all that passed, making my remarks and observations. [To get the better insight into their affairs, I not only went into the "Committee of Overtures" and the "Committee of Bills," but had a meeting (every evening over a glass of wine) which had in it one out of each of their synods, who, by kindly giving me an account of what Lad passed in their respective synods, with regard to the several matters laid before the Genei'al Assembly, gave me a clear and distinct view of their proceedings. When I afterwards told Mr Carstairs of this aim and practice, he with his wonted frankness cried out, " Verily, to spy out our nakedness are you come; and had you spent ever so much time in contriving a way to discover all our defects at once, you could not have fixed on one more effectual." That which I take to have been more remarkable was that not one in all the company was for the jure Divino of the Presbyterian form of church government, though they freely submitted to it.] ' I took particular notice of two things brought before this Assembly. One the case of the parish of Crawford John, in Clydsdale ; the other of a minister in the north, by the Synod of Aberdeen. [In the former the minister recommended by the presbytery, though agreeable enough to many of the people, was one against whom the Earl of Selkirk, the chief heritor of the parish, had a particular distaste, on account of an affront received from him. Though he was to pay the fixed minister a 727 yearly salary, yet he utterly refused to pay it to this person, With whom he resolved to have nothing to do. ' When this matter was to come before the General Assembly most of the graver ministers were apprehensive of the consequence, and some persuaded me to argue with the younger members, in order to the convincing them of the need there was to act warily in such an affair. I did my endeavour, the day before and on the morning of the day when the matter was to come under consideration, but to little purpose. I told them freely that as far as I could perceive, they were far from consulting the interest of their church, by running the hazard of disgusting their nobility, when it lay in their power to oblige them, without heaping in upon their usual ecclesiastical methods in anything material. 1 That which they seemed to agree in was a formed resolution to put it to the trial whether their presbyteries had in reality any power. They said it was evident (whatever might be pretended) they had no power at all, if a nobleman was at liberty to control them at his pleasure. I told them I thought they might easily strain that string until it cracked, but there was no moving them. ' When the matter was before the Assembly, and an account had been given of past proceedings, it was declared, by an advocate that pleaded for Lord Selkirk, that let but the presbytery recall this minister, in whom he never could acquiesce, and send another, be he who he would, he should submit to him ; all Ins family should attend him and be catechized, and he would pay him the usual stipend. But the Assembly adhered to the Presbytery, and refused Lord Selkirk's motion. Whereupon my Lord's advocate entered an appeal to the Lords in the Parliament of Great Britain, took instruments of Ins so doing, and told the members they must thank themselves for the consequences. I heard more of this matter afterwards at Hamiltoun ; but it was at length happily made up ; and without that it might have set all their great men against their church.] ' In the other case the party, whose name I think was Lawson, was ordained in episcopal times, and was complained of as deficient in knowledge and unsound in his principles. Having some occasion to preach before the presbytery in whose bounds he lived, exceptions were taken against several passages in his sermon, and it was agreed to refer the matter to the Synod of Aberdeen. Upon his appearing there, a committee was appointed to draw up a considerable number of questions on the most noted heads of divinity, to which he was to give a direct answer. His answers were to be taken in writing, and a judgment formed from thence as to his fitness for the ministry. The majority of that Synod was against him ; but he appealed to the General Assembly, 728 where the exceptions were read and also the questions (above one hundred in number), together with his answers. Some of these answers, it must be confessed, were but weak. Others were as proper as would, I believe, have been returned off hand by many whose sufficiency was no way called in question. ' The Assembly seemed to be at a loss what to do with this man. The Moderator stooping down, and whispering me in the ear, as the questions were read over, asked me what my apprehensions were. I frankly answered that we in England should reckon this way of proceeding the Inquisition revived ; at which he could not help smiling. Lord Forbes who sat on the bench above me asked what passed between the Moderator and me, at which he smiled. I freely told him, and he immediately fell to laughing. The Lord President, who sat ou the seat above him, inquiring what he laughed at, and he giving him an account, joined also in the laugh. At last the Commissioner, who could not well help observing this, stooped down and whispered the Lord Presi- dent of the [Court of] Session and asked, what was the occasion of all this laughing 1 Being told, he could not forbear joining. In short it was whispered from one to another, till it went round the Assembly. I heard of it afterwards at Aberdeen ' This poor man's case being warmly debated, some were for his being wholly silenced ; others for his being warmly reprimanded and ordered to be more studious and cautious for the future. At length a committee being chosen of men of temper (of whom the Lord President was one), they were desired to discourse freely with him in private, and make a report of their opinion to the Assembly. When they had done they were against laying him wholly aside, and represented him as one that might be of use in the Church.' .... p. 199. [' I waited [at Aberdeen] on Mr Osborn, Professor of Divinity, a venerable old gentleman, at that time confined by illness. Discoursing of the proceedings of the late Assembly, he frankly told me it was not well taken among them that I should there represent the conduct of their Synod of Aberdeen as a revival of the Inquisition. I told him he was very sensible, that I, a mere stranger among them in North Britain, though much obliged for their great civility, had nothing to do to speak in their Assembly, nor did I pretend to or attempt it. But when the Moderator was pleased, in a free and familiar, but private way, to ask a question, I thought without just offence to any, I might be allowed to make him a free answer in the same way. And if I said anything at all to the Moderator, in return to his question, I thought it became me to signify my real apprehension of the matter, without any collusion. ' I thereupon freely owned to the professor, with whom I was 729 discoursing, that nothing appeared to me more like the method of the Inquisition than the way of procedure used by their Synod, wherein, by captious questions proposed, such persons as had fallen under suspicion were endeavoured to be drawn to drop somewhat, by which they might be ensnared and caught, and which might afterwards be a matter of accusation. Professor Osborn said that without some such method some men's errors would never be discovered. ' To which I replied, I conceived it was better to deal by thorn as our blessed Saviour did by Judas, whose treachery and baseness he knew, and was able with ease to have detected to the uncasing him and laying him open to others. Yet he suffered him to remain concealed, till by his carriage he discovered his own false-heartedness. I added that if what I had dropped was conveyed to others, it was not by me ; but was entirely owing to the inquisitiveness of the members of the Assembly, who gave it a quick conveyance from one to another, till it passed quite round, whereas I only told it to the Lord Forbes, to whom I could not, without downright rudeness, have refused to give an answer.'] p. 162. [Mr Wiley, ' that was looked upon as so wise a man,' having said that ' whatever might appear to others, he laboured under many infirmities that might well be allowed to give him his quietus from fatigues of this nature,' sitting in the Assembly, and that he had de- clared he would not sit if chosen, ' I took the liberty to query how this part of his conduct could be reconciled with their commonly avowed principle that the Presbyterian form of church government was most agreeable to the word of God. Whether upon that supposition a refusal to sit in one of their General Assemblies, if a man was chosen, and tolerably able to bear the fatigue of it, was not a refusal to comply with the call of God, and do him honour in his church 1 His reply was, that he defied them all ; and none must pretend to oblige him to what he was not of himself inclined to. Without pretending to press too close, I desired him to reconcile this to their professed principles. This led into abundance of discourse, during which I sat by as an auditor only, leaving it to the gentlemen present to argue the matter ; and I must own they did it pretty strenuously and closely till they made him warm and angry.'] p. 177. ' The second Lord's Day I was desired by Mr Carstairs to give them a sermon in the new church, p. 179. My discourse was from Acts xi, 26, 'And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.' i touched on the excellence and honourableness of that name, and showed what it imported and obliged those to that wore it. I afterwards pressed such as knew its value to be contented with it, and careful to answer it without pretending to make any addition, by attempting which they would in reality take from it. An account of this discourse being gives 91 730 to Mr Jatnes Webster, who was a man of great warmth but a narrow spirit, he took offence at it as latitudinarian, and after I had left Edinburgh censured me upon that account, publicly in the pulpit, making some peevish and angry reflections. Mr Carstairs with great mildness and prudence, afterwards replying in the same pulpit, I heard no more of the matter.' p. 179. ['Another Lord's day I preached at Libertoun, three miles from Edinburgh, in the church of Mr Samuel Semple, whom I had left behind me at Westminster, labouring hard there in the Cotton Library, in order to making collections for an Ecclesiastical History of North Britain, some time in hand, though I cannot hear it is finished to this day. Mr Semple and I had agreed that he should take the liberty of my house at Westminster (and I of his at Libertoun) and sometimes preach for me and I for him.] p. 168. The following conversation is reported by the Doctor with an old Lady, Mrs Yule, who was heartbroken because her son, a young preacher, was in no way to be satisfied without going into England, because, as she said, that 'they had not the gospel there.' 'Ah,' said she, 'he has given me a great deal of trouble by that unhappy fancy that no place would serve him but England. If he had but gone to where they had the gospel, I should not have been near so much concerned, whereas now I can have no rest in my spirit.' ... I thereupon made inquiry what led her to imagine that we had not the gospel in England, as well as they in Scotland. ' Ah ! sir,' said she, presently, ' I heartily wish you had it as well as we, for then I should be much more easy in my child's case than I either am, or have been, since he has been from me." 'Why really,' said I, 'I cannot be more assured of anything than I am of this, that we have the gospel as well as you, and the very same gospel too ; and I cannot allow myself to suppose that any of your ministers would offer to say anything to the contrary. I am at a loss to conceive where you have picked up this notion.' ' Ah ! sir,' said she, ' either I have all along been mistaken in the gospel (which I think I have not), or you in England (though you, in some other things, are many degrees beyond us) have not the gospel.' ' My surprise continuing, I cried out, ' Prithee, good woman, let me know what this gospel is, that you have, and we have not. Let us a little carefully examine this matter, that we may understand one another rightly. I can give you the utmost assurance that our Bible in England is word for word the same with yours in Scotland, not only as to the Old Testament, of which some have too mean thoughts, but also as to the New, which is peculiarly styled the Gospel. From thence our ministers fetch the matter of the sermons they preach, as well as yours ; nor dare we urge those that sit under our ministry to believe anything necessary 731 to salvation but what can be proved and confirmed from thence. That is the standard of truth with us as well as with you. In this you may very safely believe me.' ' Oh ! sir,' said she, ' now you are upon faith ; and I must own myself very sensible that your faith and ours is the very same.' I then said, ' That neither among them nor us did all that pretended to take the word of God for the rule of faith and life, conform to it, and follow it as they ought' ' That though I was heartily glad to hear there were so many in North Britain that backed their Christian profession with a suitable practice, the number of whom I prayed God to increase, yet if that were taken to be the case of all such as made a noise and stir about religion, and attended upon ordinances with an appearance of diligence, and pre- tended to be zealous for faith and purity, it would prove in the issue a gross mistake. On the other hand, though the number of serious Christians among us in England was far from being so large as were to be desired, and might, indeed, have been expected, considering the great advantages with which we had long been favoured. Yet there was reason to hope that a good number did sincerely fall in with God and his interest, and show the truth of their piety by its genuine fruits and effects.' 'Oh! sir,' said she, by way of reply, 'now you are fallen upon good works. As to them I must own that by the report I have heai'd I am inclined to believe you have .more of them with you than we have among us.' ' Well then,' said I, (in order to a yet further trial), 'if the belief of what God has revealed, and the fruits and effects of that belief, where it is sincere and hearty, are the same with us and you, how can it be that you should have the gospel with you, and not we also among us V ' Oh ! sir,' said she, ' you have with you no Kirk Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies, and therefore have not the gospel.' ' And is that then,' said I, ' the gospel ? I am sure it is a poor, meagre, and despicable gospel, if you rest there and cany the matter no further.' I could not help smiling at the woman's simplicity, and have often tempted others to do so, by relating this passage. Yet there is too much reason to be apprehensive that multi- tudes in all countries inwardly think what this poor woman did not stick to express, that they who have not among them those religious formalities and appendages they have been trained up in the use of, and been long accustomed to and taught to lay stress upon, are strangers to the gospel, notwithstanding they are hearty lovers of God and true godliness ; the more is the pity.' "] [Here the extracts end]. The Doctor wrote this dialogue after it had long been, as he tells us, one of his stock tales, and no doubt had been gradually elabora- ted, as all such tales are. If we had the account from the old lady's pen, it may be she would not appear to have been so easily con- vinced of the Doctors soundness when he ignored her church's standard, 732 and to have volunteered the admission that the heretical south surpassed the north in good works ; and perhaps her trust in Kirk Sessions, &c, would have been otherwise expressed ; and above all it may be doubted whether the Doctor, in 1709, speaking to a Scotch woman in Scotland, would not have been a little more definite in stating the nature of the gospel which the Presbyterians of England possessed. But the story must be taken as conveying the teller's notions correctly; and it is submitted that if his views on church government had been at all similar to those then prevalent in Scotland, the whole dialogue would have been very different on his part ; certainly if he and his brethren at home had Kirk Sessions and the other Presbyterian institu- tions, he would have told the old lady as much : for while he might have taught her that the gospel was something better, he would have guarded himself from being supposed to undervalue the church order and discipline which he himself observed. The Doctor's tone in all these extracts is anything but that of a Presbyterian ; his remonstrance with Mr Wylie was in the spirit of a person of another denomination, and just such as an Independent would make ; he is anxious that the rights of ministers, presby- teries and synods, when all agreed in their conviction of what was right, should be sacrificed to please a lord ; the inquisition he complained of was ascertaining a minister's opinions ; his sermon at Edinburgh seems to have been an attack on the Scotch standards ; and his remarks to Mrs. Yule had the same tendency, and must have seemed to her in dis- paragement of orthodoxy. On the other hand his language cannot fairly be relied on as proving his heterodoxy, for it is in the style of the time, and his trinitarianism is again and again admitted in the Proofs ; though it may be admitted if we had to judge of his sentiments only from his Scotch tour, our inferences would not be favourable. The sermon at Libberton is made the very most of in the Scotch- men's answers, by being referred to thus: 'In the year 1709 the minister of the Church of Libertoun, in Scotland, supplied with sermons the Church of Dr. Calamy, a well-known Presbyterian preacher in London at that time, and an intimate friend of Lady Hewley, while the said Dr. Calamy was on a visit to Scotland, and preached in the Church of Libberton for the said clergyman of that parish.' 733 No. 9. A PLAIN AND SHORT CATECHISM BY THE REV. EDWARD BOWLES. " I have fed you with milk, and not with strong drink." 1 Cor. iii. 2. " Ye have need that one teach you which be the first principles of the oracles of God." Heb. v. 12. Question. Who made you 1 Answer. God the Creator of heaven and earth. Acts xvii. 24, 25, 26. Gen. i. 1. Q. To what end did he make you 1 A. He made me and all things for his glory. Prov. xvi. 4. Q. In what condition did he make man 1 A. Righteous and happy. Eccles. vii. 29. Gen. i. 27. Q. Did man continue in that estate 1 A. No : he fell from it by sin. Gen. iii. Q. What is sin ? A. Transgression of the law of God. 1 John iii. 4. Q. What was the sin of our first parents 1 A. Eating the forbidden fruit. Gen. iii. 6. Q. What was the fruit of that eating 1 A. It filled the world with sin and sorrow. Gen. iii. 14, 16, 17. Rom. vi. 12. Q. In what condition is the posterity of our first parents born ] A. In a sinful and miserable condition. Rom. v. 17, 18, 19, and iii. 23. Q. Wast thou born in that condition 1 A. Yes : I was conceived in sin, and am by nature a child of wrath as well as others. Psalm li. 5. Ephes. ii. 3. Q. Hath thy life been better than thy birth 1 A. No : I have added sin to sin, and made myself above measure sinful. Rom. iii. 10. Col. i. 21. Q. What if thou shouldest die in the condition thou wast born and bred in 1 A. I should perish everlastingly. John iii. 3. 2 Thess. i. 8. Q. Is there no way to get out of this sinful and miserable estate 1 A. Yes. 2 Tim. i. 9, 10. Q. Is it to be done by any power or righteousness of thy own ? A. No : but God in his rich mercy hath appointed a way. Tit. iii. 4, 5. Q. What way hath God appointed 1 A. Only by Jesus Christ. John xiv. 6. Acts iv. 2. Q. What is Jesus Christ] A. The Son of God manifest in the flesh. Gal. iv. 4. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 734 Q. What hath Jesus Christ done for man 1 A. He hath laid down his life for our redemption. Matt. xx. 28. Col. i. 14. Q. What further benefit have we by him 1 A. Life and Salvation. John vi. 27, 48. Heb. v. 9. Q. Shall all men partake of this redemption and salvation 1 A. No : there are many who perish notwithstanding. Matt. vii. 13, 14. Phil. iii. 18, 19. Q. By what means may a sinner obtain a part in this redemption '( A. By faith in Christ. Eph. ii. 8. John iii. 16. Q. What is it to believe 1 A. To rely on Jesus Christ, and him alone, for pardon and salvation according to the Gospel. John iii. 36. Acts xvi. 31. Isa. 1. 10. John v. 24. Q. How doth the Gospel teach us to rely on Christ ] A. So to cast our burden upon him as to take his yoke upon its. Matt. xi. 28, 29. Q. Why hath God appointed faith to this excellent use 1 A. Because faith gives him what he looks for, the whole glory of our salvation. Ephes. ii. 8, 9. Q. How is faith wrought in the soul 1 A. By the word and spirit of God. Bom. x. 1 4, 1 7. 2 Cor. iii. 6. John xvi. 7, 9, 10. Q. What call you the word of God 1 A. The holy scriptures, the Old and New Testament. 2 Tim. iii. 16. Q. Doth God work faith by the word read or preached 1 A. Ordinarily, by the word preached. Bom. x. 14. Ephes. i. 13. 1 Cor. i. 18. Q. In what order doth God work faith by the word 1 A. First he shews men their sins, and then their Saviour. Acts ii. 37. John xvi. 9. Q. Why doth he observe this order 1 A. That Christ may be the more precious to the soul. 1 Peter ii. 7. Luke vii. 47. Q. Doth not repentance go along with faith 1 A. Yes. Mark i. 15. Heb. vi. 1. Acts xvii. 30. Q. What is repentance 1 A. It is a sorrowful sense of sin, with a turning from it unto God. Acts xxvi. 20. 2 Cor. vii. 10. 1 Thess. i. 6. Q. How is true faith further discerned 1 A. By its fruits. Gal. v. 6. Bom. v. 1. James ii. 18. Heb. xi. 39. Q. What are the fruits of faith 1 A. Love in the heart, peace in the conscience, holiness in the life. Gal. v. 6. Bom. v. 1. Acts xv. 9. 1 Peter i. 22. /'■>■> Q. How doth faith work love 1 A. It lays hold upon the infinite love of Christ, and works a mutual love in ns. 1 John iv. 19. Luke vii. 47. Q. How must we express our love to Christ 1 A. By our love to Christians, and keeping his commandments. John xiv. 15. 1 John v. 1, 2. Q. Are not the ten commandments the commandments of Christ 1 A. Yes : they are a special part of God's word, which is a rule of life. Psalm xix. 7. Matt. v. 17. Q. What doth God look for from his redeemed people 1 A. That they should walk before him in holiness and righteousness. Luke i. 74, 15. Tit. ii. 12, 14. Q. Have we strength of ourselves so to walk 1 A. No : without Christ we can do nothing. John xv. 5. Q. How shall we obtain strength from Christ"? A. By a diligent and right use of his ordinances. Isaiah xl. 31. Psalm ciii. 5. Q. What are the ordinances of Christ to this purpose 1 A. The word preached, the administration of the sacraments, and prayer. Rom. x. 14, 15. 1 Cor. xi. 23. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 1 Thess. v. 17. Q. When do we use the ordinances aright 1 A. When we mingle them with faith. Heb. iv. 2. James i. G. Q. How may it appear that Christ hath left such an ordinance as preaching 1 A. The Scripture tells me so. Ephes. iv. 11, 12. 2 Tim. iv. 2. Q. What are the sacraments which Christ hath left to his church 'I A. Two : baptism and the supper of the Lord. Q. What is baptism 1 A. It is dipping or sprinkling with water, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matt, xxviii. 19. Acts x. 47. Q. What is the nature of this sacrament ] A. It represents, and (through faith) seals the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, and the washing of the Holy Ghost. Acts xxii. 10. Tit. iii. 5. Acts viii, 37. Ephes. v. 26. Q. What is done in baptism on our part 1 A. By it our names are given up to the profession of the gospel, and we are bound to walk according to it. Gal. iii. 27. Col. iii. 1. 1 Cor. vi. 11. Q. What is the supper of the Lord 1 A. It is a solemn eating of bread, and drinking of wine, in remem- brance of the death and bloodshed of Jesus Christ. Luke xxii. 19. 20. 736 Q. What is the end of this sacrament 1 A. One main end is to shew forth the Lord's death till he come. 1 Cor. xi. 26. Q. What is the benefit of this sacrament to a worthy receiver ? A. It strengthens his faith, and confirms his love to Christ and all his members. 1 Cor. x. 16, 17. Q. Who is the worthy receiver1? A. He who discerneth the body and blood of Christ, partaking thereof with faith and love. 1 Cor. xi. 28, 29. John vi. 56. Q. What is the danger of unworthy receiving ] A. The unworthy receiver becomes guilty of the body and blood of Christ, eating and drinking judgment to himself. 1 Cor. xi. 28, 29. Q. What is prayer 1 A. It is a making our request unto God, according to his will, in the name of Christ. Phil. iv. 6. 1 John v. 14. John xvi. 23. Q. Wherein lieth the strength of prayer 1 A. In faith and fervency. Matt. xxi. 22. James i. 6, & v. 16. Q. What other duties are especially required in a holy life 1 A. Watchfulness and Christian communion. Matt. xxvi. 41. 1 Cor. xvi. 13. Heb. x. 24. Col. iii. 16. Q. Why must we watch 1 A. For two reasons : First, because we walk in the midst of our enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil. Matt. x. 16, 17. 1 Peter v. 8. Secondly, lest the day of death or judgment come upon us unawares. 2 Peter iii. 10, 12. Q. Shall death come upon all men 1 A. It is appointed for me and all men once to die, and it is good to remember it oft. Heb. ix. 27. Eccles. xii. 1. Psalm xc. 12. Q. What is death 1 A. A separation of the soul from the body. Acts v. 5. Eccles. xii. 7. Q. What remaineth after death ] A. The general resurrection and the day of judgment. 1 Cor. xv. 12, &c. John v. 29. Acts xvii. 18. Q. What is the work of that day ? A To render to eveiy man according to his works. Matt. xvi. 27. Rom. ii. 6. Q. What shall be the condition of the godly after this life 1 A. They shall be ever with the Lord. 1 Thess. iv. 17. John xvii. 24. Q. What shall be the condition of the unbelievers and wicked men 1 A. They shall perish with everlasting destruction fi'om the presence of the Lord. 2 Thess. i. 8, 9. Matt. xxv. 41, 46. 737 No. 10. The List of Recipients of the Hewley Fund on the last half yearly distribution by the Socinian Trustees 13th May, 1830, as returned in the Attorney-General v. Shore. The denominations are not distinguished in the original, but great trouble has been taken to ascertain them. Initials are used to express denominations, and occasionally counties : P. Presbyterian (Scotch), K. Kirk, S. Secession, R. Relief, Soc. Socinian, I. Independent, B. Baptist, G. General. The old Presbyterian chapels are marked with * the old Independent ones with t. The spelling is corrected. *Penrith, Cumberland *Birdhope Craig, Northumb. Parkhead, Cumberland *Wooler, Northumberland Falston, Northumberland Berwick Haltwistle, Northumberland *Hexham, Northumberland *Alston Moor, Cumberland *Bavington Northumberland Newcastle, Northumberland Blythe, Northumberland *Morpeth, Northumberland Stamfordham, Northumberland 4 Workington, Cumberland Long Framlington, Northumb. *Blennerhasset, Cumberland Harbottle, Northumberland Mary Port, Cumberland Thropton, Northumberland Alnwick, Northumberland Spittle, Northumberland *Carlisle, Cumberland Tweedmouth, Durham Gateshead, Durham Warnford, Northumberland Cold Rowley, Yorkshire Carlisle, Cumberland Glanton, Northumberland Widdrington, Northumberland ,tNewcastle, Northumberland 92 P. S. H. Thompson, p. K. George McFie, I. John Scott, p. K. James Mitchell, p. K. Hugh Miller, p. K. J. R. Brown, p. K. James Stevenson, p. K. James Richardson, I. Jonathan Harper, p. K. Alexander Trotter, B. R. Pengelly, I. W. Robei'ton, P. K. Matthew Brown, P. K. James Bryce, P. K. Cole Turner, P. K. Andrew Richardson, I. John Walton, P. K. James Patterson, P. K. William Riutone, P. K. George Gibb, P. K. William Goldie, P. K. William Whitehouse, P. S. R. Hunter, P. K. James Laurie, P. K. Hamilton Murray, P. Andrew Hutchinson, B. William Fisher, I. Thomas Woodrow, P. K. James Kirkton, P. K. George Boag, P. William Beattie Smitli £ s. d. 8 0 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 2 10 0 2 10 0 2 10 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 .4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 2 10 0 4 0 0 3 10 0 4 0 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 2 10 0 2 10 0 4 0 0 3 10 0 3 10 0 4 10 0 4 0 (1 2 10 0 738 B. P. P. I. P. P. I. P. P. P. K. K. S. s. s. K. P. K. P. K. S. R. K. P. P. Soc. P. P. P. I. B. I. I. P. K. B. P. K. I. I. Soc. q. I. Soc. I. I. I. I. Soc. I. Soc. . I. I. Soc. Soc. T. Soc. Samuel Ruston, William Lander, John Slate, Josh. Mather, Timothy Nelson, John Smith, R. H. Bonner, John Thompson, James Ferguson, Newton Blythe, Daniel Aitken, James Paton, John Young, John Anderton, John Wright, Thomas Young, Robert Arthur, Alexander Hoy, John Capper, Alexander Kirkwood, William Nichol, Ralph Davison, James Laurie, James Douglas, Walter Fairlie, William Furguson, George Nettleship, Oulton, Cumberland Bewcastle, Cumberland Wark, Northumberland ■fCockermouth, Cumberland *Salkeld and Plumpton, Cumb. *Newcastle, Northumberland fRavenstonedale, Westmoreland Belford, Northumberland Thorney Ford *Branton, Northumberland *Etall, Northumberland Longtown, Cumberland Bellingham, Northumberland North Sunderland, North umb. *Alnwick, Northumberland Norham, Durham *Castle Garth, Newcastle, Nor. Felton, Northumberland Kirkby Stephen, Westmoreland Berwick Chester le Street, Durham Newcastle, Northumberland *Brampton, Cumberland Hamsterley, Durham *Whitehaven, Cumberland Haydon Bridge & Corbridge N. Penrith, Cumberland James Walter Lourie, *Sunderland and Shields, Dur. James Rawson, John Beattie, John Rheeder, Abraham Clarkson, James Hatton, John Preston, William Turner, Thomas Hawkins, James Hawkins, William Tylor, John White, f Pontefract, Yorkshire *Elland, Yorkshire *Ossett, Yorkshire *Bingley, Yorkshire Sowerby, Yorkshire *Mixenden, Yorkshire *Halifax, Yorkshire Warley, Yorkshire *Nantwich, Cheshire Keighley, Yorkshire L2 *Northowram, Yorkshire Nicholas T. Heinekin,*Bradford, Yorkshire J. C. Wallace, *Preston, Lancashire T. H. Crisp, Brighouse, Yorkshire Henry Green, *Knutsford, Cheshire 2 10 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 2 10 0 4 0 0 3 10 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 2 10 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 2 10 0 2 10 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 2 10 0 2 10 0 2 10 0 4 0 0 2 10 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 2 10 0 5 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 5 10 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 8 o- 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 7 10 0 739 Soc. I. I. I. I. I. Soc. Soc. Soc. I. P. I. Soc. B. B. I. I. B. B. I. I. Soc. I. I. B. Soc. Soc. Soc. Soc. B. Soc. B. Soc. Soc. I. I. Soc. Soc. I. Soc. Soc. Sue. William Fillingham, *Congleton, Cheshire James Hensley, Amos Blackburn, John Newell, Thomas Bennett, William Gibson, James Taylor, William Tate, Robert Smitlmrst, John Battley, William Dinwiddie, James Stewart, George Buckland, Charles Thompson, 8 0 Wharton, Lancashire 2 10 *Eastwood, Yorkshire 3 (J Booth, Lancashire :> |() *Hatherlow, Cheshire 3 0 Hallfold, Lancashire 3 10 :! Kivington, Lancashire 6 0 Chorley, Lancashire G 0 *Monton, Lancashire G 0 Marple Bridge, Glossopdalr 1 >er. 2 10 Wigan, Lancashire G 0 *Partlington, Cheshire 3 0 *Dob Lane, Fails worth, Lan. 6 0 G. Halifax, Yorkshire 5 0 Charles Hollingdrake, Birchcliff, Hebdenbridge, York. 2 10 S. Baines, Wilsden, near Bradford, Lan. 4 0 J. Crossley, *Horwich,nr Bolton-le-Moors L. 3 0 James Shuttleworth, Cowling Hill, Kilwick Craven Y. 2 10 G. John Pilling, John Galland, Solomon Ashton, James Brookes, John Adamson, Thomas Jackson, Thomas Hudson, Goodshaw Chapel, RossendaleL. 3 0 *Green Aci^es, near Oldham L. 2 10 Stockport, Cheshire 2 10 *Hyde, Cheshire G 0 Charles worth, Glossopdale, Der. 2 10 Bamford, Derbyshire 2 10 Queenshead, near Halifax, Y. 2 10 John Williams Morris,*Dean Row, Cheshire John Marriott, William Harrison, F. M. Williams, John Jackson, William Dnffield, H. Ashton, Samuel Parker, William Probert, John Holker, Job Wilson, William Whiteleg, B. R. Davies, Thomas Sharp, Chas. D. Hort, Arthur Dean, William Allard, *Risley, near Warrington, L. *Blackley, Lancashire * Macclesfield, Cheshire Hebden Bridge, Yorkshire Thorne and Statfield, York, Burnley, Lancashire *Stockport, Cheshire tWalmsley, Lancashire 3 10 G 0 4 0 7 0 0 6 Netherfield, near Penistone, Y. 2 10 *Northwich, Cheshire 3 10 *Platt, Lancashire G 0 *Chowbent, Lancashire G 0 Skipton, Yorkshire ~> 0 *Gorton, Lancashire *Bury, Lancashire G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 740 Soc. John Bayland, I. Peter Ramsey, Soc. William Johns, Soc. Franklin Howarth, Soc. Charles Wallace, I. Daniel Calvert, Soc. John Ashworth, I. William Brewis, I. Robert Bell, I. Ralph Howgate, I. Robert Martin, I. Jo. Dyson, George Dean, I. Jo. Wadsworth, Soc. James Taylor, B. J. Midgley, Soc. John Gaskell, B. Thomas Mellor, Soc. John Ingham, B. Mark Holroyd, Edward Hawkes, J. James Wright, I. One Student at I. Samuel Rhodes, I. Thomas Barker, I. Thomas Hutton, B. Robert Hyde, Soc. q. Henry Clarke, I. R. M. Griffiths, Soc. William Worsley, John Cropper, I. J. S. Hastie, I. R. Aspinall, B. S. Winterbottom, B. John Spooner, B. Joseph Shaw, Soc. J. C. Meeke, I. William Himmers, P. K. Charles Toshach, Soc. Josh. Ketley, P. John Wood, I. Edward Stillman, P. John Matthews, *Hindley, Lancashire 6 0 0 Haslingdon, Lancashire 4 0 0 *Cross Street, Cheshire 5 0 0 *Rochdale, Lancashire 6 0 0 Altringham, Cheshire 6 0 0 Sandyryke, Gisburn Forest, Y. 2 10 0 New Church, Rossendale Lan. 6 0 0 Kirby Moorside, Yorkshire 2 10 0 Stainland, near Halifax, York. 2 10 0 Pateley Bridge, Yorkshire 2 10 0 fHeckmondwicke, Yorkshire 2 10 0 Hallshaw, near Bolton, Lan. 2 10 0 Lidgate, Yorkshire 2 10 0 Clitheroe, Lancashire 2 10 0 Rochdale, Lancashire 5 0 0 Shore, Yorkshire 2 10 0 *Ducken£ield, Cheshire 6 0 0 Risth worth, Yorkshire 2 10 0 Rawtonstall, Westmoreland 2 10 0 Wainsgate, near Halifax, Y. 2 10 0 Pendlebury, Lancashire 2 10 0 Settle, Yorkshire 2 10 0 Airedale College, Yorkshire 10 0 0 Smallbridge, Lancashire 3 10 0 Eccleshill, near Bradford, Y. 2 10 0 Allerton, ditto ditto, York. 2 10 0 Celandine Nook, near Hud- dersfield, Yorkshire 2 10 0 *Newcastle-under-Lyne, Staff. 2 10 0 Kirkham, Yorkshire 2 10 0 tGainsborough, Lincolnshire 5 0 0 *Moor Lane, Bolton, Yorkshire 3 0 0 Otley, Yorkshire 2 10 0 Bury, Lancashire 2 10 0 Howarth, near Halifax, York. 2 10 0 Heaton, near Bradford, York. 2 10 0 Steep Lane, near Halifax, Y. 2 TO 0 *Stockton, Durham 6 10 0 *Great Ay ton, Yorkshire 5 0 0 *South Shields, Durham 2 10 0 *Whitby, Yorkshire 6 0 0 Monkwearmouth, Durham 3 0 0 Keld, in Swaledale, Yorkshire 6 10 0 South Shields, Durham 6 0 0 711 I. Gabriel Croft, B. B. I. James Williamson William Hague, John Allason, I. P. James Buckley, William Lietch, P. S. Robert Niel, I, George Brookes, I. Andrew Carnson, P. s. I. P. s. Thomas Gil more, Samuel Blair, John Morris, Soc. G. W. Elliott, I. Soc. I. Abraham Kudswell, John Naylor, William Eccles, I. James Scott, B. William Scarlett, I. Soc. Thomas Laird, George Lee, I. John Cockin, I. J. T. Malidano, Soc. Francis Knowles, I. John Toothill, B. Thomas Frearson, I. Robert Ellis, B. Soc. John Rigby, Richard Shawcross, P. James Ashton, Soc. Henry Fogg, I. James Potter, Soc. Niel Walker, I. James Bond, I. C. Witworth, 1. I. Joseph Davis, Jeremiah Aubi-ey Thomas, W. Lethom, I. Soc. William Lees, Thomas Johnston, Soc. B. H. Anderson, John Underbill, B. William Muckley, t Pickering, Yorkshire North Shields, Northum. Scarborough, Yorkshire ■ Feetham, Swaledale, York. tThirsk, Yorkshire Hartley, Northumberland Wallsend, IS orthumbcrland Leyburne, Yorkshire Cotherstone, Yorkshire *North Shields, Northumb. Guisborough, Yorkshire Hough ton-le-Spring, Durham Prescot, Lancashire *Morley, Yorkshire Lydiate, Lancashire Hopton, Derbyshire *Clackheaton, Yorkshire Gildersome, Yorkshire *Pudsey, Yorkshire *Lancaster, Lancashire Holmefirth, Yorkshire *Wem, Salop *Park Lane, Wigan, Lancashire *Raiuford, near Prescot, Lan. Tottlebank, nr. Ulverstone, L. Barnsley, Yorkshire Blakeley, Lancashire Whitchurch, Salop Lockwood, Huddersfield, Y. *Ormskirk, Lancashire Houley, near Huddersfield, Y. *Wisbeach, Cambridgeshire Marsden, Yorkshire Shelly, Yorkshire Ulverstone, Lancashire 10 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 Domgay 4 0 0 Lutton 3 10 0 Dogley Lane, Huddersfield, Y. 2 10 0 •Wakefield, Yorkshire 10 0 0 ♦[Toxteth] Park, Lancashire 6 0 0 Edge Hill, Liverpool, Lan. 2 10 0 Thornhill, Yorkshire 3 10 0 742 I. George Greatbatch, Southport, Lancashire 2 10 0 I. William Scott, *South Cave and Elloughton Y . 4 0 0 I. Thomas Hicks, *Cottingham, Yorkshire 2 10 0 Soc. Edward Higginson, *Hull, Yorkshire 6 0 0 I. J. Haydon, *Swanland, Yorkshire 4 0 0 R Abi'aham Bury, Bishop's Burton, Yorkshire 3 10 0 I. William Hudswell, Great Driffield, Yorkshire 2 10 0 B. Robert Harness, Bridlington, Yorkshire 4 0 0 I. J. Wilkinson, *Howden, Yorkshire 2 10 0 John Collins, Barrow, near Barton, Lincoln 2 10 0 I. J. Flocker, Mai'ket Weighton, Yorkshire 2 10 0 I. John Winterbottom, Barton-upon-Humber, Lincoln .2 10 0 Soc. Charles Wellbeloved, *York, Yorkshire 40 0 0 I. William Howell, *Knai'esborough, Yorkshire 9 10 0 B. James Edwards, Shipley, Yorkshire 4 0 0 B. John Moss, Burton-upon -Trent, Sta ffordsh . 4 0 0 Soc. Thomas Smith, *Selby, Yorkshire 8 10 0 B. John Yeadon, Horsforth, Yorkshire 2 10 0 Soc. Four Students £12 10s. each, York. 50 0 0 B. William Colcroft, Bramley, near Leeds, York. 4 0 0 I. William Norris, *Ellenthorpe, Yorkshire 2 10 0 I. Richard Jessop Pocklington, Yorkshire 2 10 0 B. Jonas Foster, Farsley, Yorkshire 2 10 0 I. R. L. Armstrong, Wortley, Yorkshire 2 10 0 I. Hugh Garside Rhodes, Fulwood, Lancashire 3 0 0 Soc. Peter Wright, fStannington, Yorkshire 6 0 0 Soc. John Williams, *Mansfield, Notts, 6 0 0 Soc. Jacob Brettell, tRotherham, Yorkshire 8 10 0 I. Jonathan Bencliff, *Alfreton, Derbyshire 4 0 0 Soc. John Piatt, *Doncaster, Yorkshire 10 10 0 I. George Wright, *Stamford, Lincolnshire 5 0 0 Soc. Richard Naylor, Hucklow, Bradwell, *Middleton, and *Ashford, Derbyshire 8 0 0 I. C. Glossop, *Chinley, Derbyshire 2 10 0 Soc. Evans Jones, Ripley and *Duffield, Derbysh. 7 0 0 Soc. R. K. Philp, *Lincoln, Lincolnshire 6 0- 0 Soc. Griffith Roberts, *Boston, Lincolnshire 6 0 0 I. D. Dunkley, Loxley, near Sheffield, York. 2 10 0 Soc. I. C. Holland, *Loughborough, Leicestershire 5 0 0 Soc. Ed. Higginson, *Derby, Derbyshire 6 0 0 Soc. M. Whitehouse, *Ilkeston and *Findern, Derby. 8 0 0 Soc. Robert Wallace, *Chesterfield, Derbyshire 6 0 0 I. Thomas R. Gawthorn i, Hedge, Derbyshire 2 10 0 Soc. D. P. Davis, Lea 3 10 0 743 An account of the distribution of Lady Kewley'a charity in .Mas. 1830, is given in the Congregational Magazine for L832, from three lists published in the fourth number of the Dissenter's Magazine. The first of these lists contains 171 orthodox ministers, the second -V.) Unitarian ministers, and the third 12 ministers of unascertained sentiments. The names are the same as those which we have printed, except that George Dean, Ledgate, and William Lethom, Lutton, are omitted, and instead we have J. Miller, Penruddock, P. £10, and G. Dean, Kitsou Wood, York, B. £10. There are 244 items. Our list shows 64 Soc, 30 K., 11 S., 6 P., not assigned to any sect, 93 I., and 34 B. The greatest trouble has been taken to ascertain the denominations, but uncertainty is felt as to some names. In one of Mr Thomas Wilson's affidavits in A. G. v. Shore, the number of ministers recipients at the same division is stated at 238,divided as Q$ Soc, 5 English P., 25 K., 13 Sec, 90 I., and 27 B., some no doubt being unknown. No. 11. Extracts from the Answer of the Defendants in Dill v. Watson, the Clough Chapel case. 2 Jones, 55-60. That the trust deed of 1736 was for the use and benefit of the Protestant Dissenting Congregation of Clough for the time being, and of every succeeding congregation of Protestant Dissenters or Presbyterians, who from time to time should assemble at the said meetingdiouse to worship God. That the distinguishing characteristics of Presbyterians, in this country, had been a certain form of church government under Presb}rteries ; and the free exercise of private judgment in matters of religion, unrestricted by creeds, confessions, or articles of faith formed or composed by fallible men. That Presbyterianism means merely a form of church government, whereby the supreme power of the church is vested in Presbyteries as to certain matters of discipline and regula- tion, but not as to matters of faith ; and that it never has been used in this country to designate the belief in any particular doctrine, or subscription to any particular creed ; but only to designate such religious societies as are governed by that peculiar discipline; and that it include i the Presbytery of Antrim and the Synod of Minister, as well as the Synod of Ulster; that the Presbytery of Antrim and Synod of Ulster are, within their respective limits, co-ordinate bodies, of distinct, inde- pendent, and equal authority, and that from the time of their separation until the year 1829, they continued closely connected, and on term- of friendly correspondence ; the ministers licensed or ordained by the one being recognized as regular Presbyterian ministers, and ordained and installed freely into the congregations of the other ; that from 1726 to 1829 the con^reirations under the care of each had been in the habit of 744 changing from the one body to the other, without their right to do so being ever called in question ; and that such changes were recognized both by the Synod of Ulster and Presbytery of Antrim ; and that every congregation so changing retained its identity and discipline as a congre- gation of Protestant Dissenters or Presbyterians, without forfeiting its rights or privileges, or having its title to its meeting-house, or to the royal bounty, disputed : that both amongst the members of the Synod of Ulster and the Presbytery of Antrim there have always existed, and still do exist, various differences of opinion on points of doctrine ; but that nevertheless they agreed in confessing the general principles of Presbyterianism, and in continuing to be Protestant Dissenters, whose distinguishing characteristic did not so much consist in any particular article of faith, as in asserting the right of every professor of Christianity to form his own judgment on its divine truths, unrestricted by subscrip- tion to any specific confession of faith ; and they denied that there was any difference in doctrine or discipline between the Synod of Ulster and the Presbytery of Antrim, as bodies, save that the Synod of Ulster had left subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith optional, whereas the Presbytery of Antrim had invariably declined to enforce such subscription. That they did not believe that the Rev. H. Williamson conformed to the discipline of the Synod of Ulster, with respect to subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith, if such subscription was then any part of its discipline; and alleged that from 1611, which was the commencement of the Presbyterian settlement in Ulster, until 1705, no subscription whatever to any articles of faith was required from any of the members of the Synod; that the law of 1705, mentioned in the bill, was not invariably observed from the period of its enactment until the separation of the Presbytery of Antrim from the Synod of Ulster of 1726 ; and from thence to the present time, subscription to the West- minster Confession of Faith has been called for or not, according to the pleasure of the Presbytery whose license to preach was required, and that it is not now the rule of the Synod. That the members who afterwards composed the Presbytery of Antrim did not separate from the Synod of Ulster, on account of any difference in their doctrines, but because the former were of opinion that to require subscription to any creed was inconsistent with the right of private judgment, and the principles of Presbyterianism ; and that in the proceedings which took place in the Synod of Ulster in 1723, 1724, and 1726, the Rev. H. Williamson joined the non-subscribing members in protesting against the right of that Synod to enforce such sub- scription. That they believed that the Rev. H. Williamson preached the same 7 i:> doctrines generally as those of the seceding non-subscribing members; and that his opinion agreed with their own; and that he was a deter- mined opponent to subscription ; that the doctrines of the Rev. Mr Porter and the Rev. Mr Campbell were the aame us those of the defendants in all important points, and more particularly that they were both determined opponents to subscription ; and that nearly during the whole time from 1736 to 1829 the congregation of Clough, though in connection with the Synod of Ulster, was a non-subscribing congre- gation. That they were unable to state the particular religious tenets of the majority of the congregation of Clough ; but that the one great leading principle in which, and in which alone, all were unanimous, and which they avow is their distinguishing one, is the principle of taking their Bibles only as the rule of faith and practice, unrestricted by creeds, confessions, or tenets, and that they believe this to have been the distinguishing tenet of that congregation for upwards of a century ; but that in other points they vaiy according to their private judgment, some holding the leading doctrines of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and some not ; and that they believed that the ministers and a majority of the congregation, since 1772, have been of the latter class; and they further said, that the Rev. David Watson held the same doctrines as he held when he was in connection with the Presbytery of Dromore, which was a Presbytery in connection with the Synod of Ulster. That in a Presbyterian congregation a simple majority is sufficient to decide in all cases except two, namely, the choice of a minister and the choice of a singing clerk; in which cases, by express laws of the Presbyterian church, a majority of two-thirds both of voters ami stipends is necessary; and in justification of their transferring themselves to the Presbytery of Antrim, they set forth in their answer some examples of such transferences from the Synod of Ulster to the Presbytery of Antrim, et vice versa ; and submitted, that, independent of any positive law on the subject, constant usage had established the right of the con- gregation to make such transitions. * * * That in this country, from the earliest times, Presbyterian worship- ping societies were separated from the Established Church on the ground of a difference as to church government, and on the ground of claiming and exercising the unrestricted right of private judgment on matters ..t faith, and not on the ground of holding peculiar religious doctrines ; and that while the Presbyterian discipline continued in the congregation of Clough, the congregation, however the religious principles of its indivi- dual members might vary, was still the same congregation ; and that tin- majority of regular seatholders qualified to vote according t" i resbyterian rules was to be considered as the congregation ; that a connection with 93 746 the Synod of Ulster was not mentioned in the trusts of the grant of 1736, nor under the circumstances set forth was such connection to be implied as necessary to give a right to the use of the premises thereby granted for Presbyterian worship ; and that usage and example fully authorized the change of the congregation from the Synod of Ulster to the Presbytery of Antrim without any forfeiture of rights or sacrifice of congregational identity thereby; and that although the defendants as individuals, did not believe in many of the doctrines which the Synod of Ulster now seeks to account orthodox, while some of the hearers of the defendant Watson do believe in such doctrines, yet that the only distinguishing and professed tenet of his congregation is the same which distinguished and was professed in Olough, in and before the year 1736, namely, non-subscription, and the absence of restraints on private judgment in matters of religious opinion. No. 12. Extracts from the chief Answer in Anderson v. Watson, the Killin- chy chapel case, as to the general question between the Synod of Ulster and Seceders from it to the Presbytery of Antrim, or the Remonstrant Synod. Contractions are used : K. Killinchey, U. Ulstei*, G. General, R. Remonstrant, S. Synod, C. of S. Church of Scotland, C. in I. Church in Ireland, S. of M. Synod of Munster, P. of A. Presby- tery of Antrim, P. Presbyterian, M. Minister or Ministers, W. Westminster, C. Confession, F. Faith. * * * * The trusts in the said indenture are not for the use of the said P. congregation of K. for ever, in connection with the General S. of U. or with any other S. Presbytery or religious body whatsoever other than such P. bodies as should from time to time for ever be adhered to, selected, chosen, and approved of by the major part of the heads of families, who should from time to time assemble and meet together for the public worship of God at the said meeting-house ; and it evidently was the meaning and intention of the said parties to the said indenture of release, to maintain their con- gregation, and the property belonging to it, independently for the worship of God, according to the conscientious belief of the majority of the P. worshipping therein, without being subjected to the changes of discipline of any S., Presbytery, or other ecclesiastical body, and without being required to subscribe the said W. or any other C. of F., or in any manner to express or declare their adherence to the same. For many years previous to the said year 1740, and more especially 717 from the year 1720 to 1726, the P. body in the north of [reland was much distracted by contest and discussions concerning the enforcement of subscription to the W. C. of F., and the doctrine of the Trinity, and several measures were taken by certain members in the S. of U., against such M. as refused to subscribe to the said C, and Janus Reid, the then M. of the congregation of K., as a member of the S. of U., recorded his protest on two several occasions against the measures so taken by the subscribing members of said S. against the non-subscribers to the said C. of F. In or about the said year 172G, a number of congregations theretofore belonging to the said S., did, in consequence of the attempts so made as aforesaid to enforce subscription to the said W. C, withdraw from the said S., and formed themselves into a non-subscribing P. body, then and hitherto called and known by the name of the P. of A. ; and if it had been the intention of the said parties to the said release of 1740, that the premises thereby granted should for ever thereafter be solely for the vise and accommodation of such M. of the said congregation as should subscribe to said C, and conform to every future alteration of the laws of the S. of U., and for the use of such members of said congregation as should adhere to such subscribing and conforming M., and under all circumstances remain in connection with the said S., without any power of withdrawing from the same, as other congregations theretofore had done, the same would have been fnlly, plainly, and unequivocally set forth among the trusts contained in and declared by the said indenture. The omission of any such declaration of trust is evidence that it was not the meaning and intention of the parties that any such trust should be declared thereby, or implied therefrom, and since the sepa- ration of the said body of Remonstrants from the said S. of U., in new leases or grants of land for similar purposes, obtained by congregations in connection with the said S. of U., an express declaration of trust has been inserted demising or granting the same to such congregation only, so long as they shall continue in connection with said 8. of U. The S. of U. did not, from the earliest period of its history till the present time, regard as an essential doctrine of Christian Faith, or a necessaiy condition of membership the doctrine of the Trinity, as main tained by the aforesaid C. of S., or as explained and embodied in certain articles of the book commonly called and known by the name of the W. C. of F. ; but on the contrary there has been, since the earliest period of the history of the said S., a great diversity of opinion among the members of the said EL, as to the said doctrine of the Trinity ; and whether the majority of the members of the said 8. adhered to the Baid doctrine, and conscientiously believed therein, defts. cannol se1 forth, for 748 the reason, among others, that during all the time of the early history of the said S., it was by statute made unlawful publicly to impugn the said doctrine, and persons impugning the same were thereby subjected to grievous temporal punishment, in consequence whereof, the opinions of such members of S. as did not believe in the said doctrine have not been preserved in public and authentic records ; but whilst sub- scription to the W. C. of F. was rigorously enforced on all intrants to the ministry of the C. of S., no such universal practice was acted on by the several presbyteries constituting the S. of IT., or the M. thereof, some of which absolutely refused to subscribe any Creed or Confession framed by fallible men, whilst others subscribed said W. C. with such qualifications, provisoes, and omissions as suited the particular opinions of each M. ; so that at all times up till a very recent period of the history of the P. C. in I., the free exercise and right of private judgment in matters of religion, unrestricted by Creeds or Confessions, were respected and permitted by the said S. of U., and the several presby- teries constituting the same, notwithstanding frequent attempts by many intolerant and exclusive M., who from time to time endeavoured to enforce their own individual opinions as an unerring test of true religious belief, by which the consciences of their fellow Christians and brethren of the ministry should be guided and controlled. In or about the year 1705, it was declared by the said S., or by such M. as happened at the time to be present and acting as the S. of U., that "such as are to be licensed to preach the Gospel should subscribe the W. C. of F. to be the confession of their faith, and promise to adhere to the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the said church, as also those who had been licensed, and had not subscribed, should be obliged to subscribe before they be ordained amongst them ;" but notwithstanding said declaration, the several presbyteries of the S. continued to ordain M. without any subscription to said confession, or with such qualified subscription as permitted the exercise of private judgment by the persons entering upon the ministry, and such changes of opinion upon speculative doctrines, as might from time to time occur in the exercise of such judgment ; that in or about the year 1720, the Rev. Samuel Halliday was installed in the old congregation of Belfast, in connection with the S. of IT., upon a declaration in the words follow- ing : '■* I sincerely believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the only rule of revealed religion, a sufficient test of orthodoxy or soundness in the faith, and that they settle all the terms of ministerial and Christian communion, to which nothing may be added by any S., Assembly, or Council whatever ; and I find all the essential articles of the Christian doctrine to be contained in the W. C. of F., which articles i, receive upon the sole authority of the Holy Scriptures." 749 The conduct of the Presbyteries in ordaining the said Samuel Halliday having been brought before the S. in the year 1721, for the purpose of censuring, or preventing the ordination of a M. on such a subscription, the persons who were favourable to unqualified subscrip- tion were defeated in their attempt. The said S. hath not always considered and particularly enjoined, as an essential part of the duties of all M. in connection with such B. to preach the said doctrine of the Trinity, and the other doctrines in the said \V. C. of F. contained, and to teach the same to their respective congregations ; nor was it ever the practice of the M. in con- nection with the S. of XL, or the majority of them, to preach all the doctrines in the said C, or to teach them to their congregations ; for, on the contrary, several most important doctrines taught and contained in the said C, are now, and always have been, either openly disavowed, or else kept completely in abeyance by a great number of the M composing the said S., particularly the entire 3rd chap, of the said C, entitled, "of God's eternal decree," and that part of section 3, chap. 10, touching elect infants dying in infancy, and that part of section 4, of the same chap, which teaches "that men not professing the Christian religion cannot be saved in any other way whatever, be they ever so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess, and that to assert and maintain that they may, is very per- nicious and to be detested ;" and the entire 17th chap, which inculcates the doctrine commonly called the perseverance of the saints, and section 3, chap. 23, touching the authority of the civil magisti-ates in spiritual things, and section 2, chap. 30, which asserts the power of church offi- cers, as persons to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, respectively to retain and remit sins. The said S. did, in or about the year 1721, declare it to be their resolution, that if any person or persons should thereafter deny the said doctrine of the Trinity, they should proceed against such person accord- ing to the laws of the Gospel, and the known practice of the church, and not to own him or them as M. of the said church ; but the said S. did not carry their said resolutions into practice or effect; nor was the denial of the Trinity prevented thereby. Many persons who do not believe the Trinity to be a doctrine of revelation, or founded on the Word of God, and who have always disavowed that dodrine, have freely assented to much of the said C. of F., and been willing to express their assent to the said G, so far as they considered it agreeable to the Word of God. And such was the meaning of the qualified subscription which most of the presbyteries in the S. formerly accepted, and the giving of such qualified subscrip- tion was always understood t" Bave to the persons giving it a right to 750 form such opinions on speculative doctrines, and alter those opinions as in their consciences they might from time to time think right. Defendant Watson, before being licensed, gave a qualified assent and subscription to the W. C. of F., so far as the same was agreeable to the word of God, and to that qualified assent he has always adhered, and still does adhere ; but never did give an unqualified subscription to the said C, nor believe, nor profess to believe, in all the doctrines therein contained. Defendants Watson, Hay, Reid, Osborne, and Clark, although fully receiving the many passages of Scripture which ascribe the most exalted dignity to the character of our Blessed Lord ; though reverently believing that he is the brightness of his Fathers glory, and the express image of His person, and that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself ; yet, after an anxious, and as they hope and believe an unprejudiced, investigation of the sacred Scriptures, have not been able to discover any satisfactory evidence of the Supreme Deity of the Saviour, and his perfect equality in power with the Fatlier of all ; and therefore they are not believers in the doctrine of the Trinity, as the said doctrine is defined in the said W. C, and in other creeds and con- fessions popularly received. Defendant Barry is now, and always has been, a believer in the said doctrine of the Trinity, and he and other Trinitarian members of the congregation of K. agreed with the other defendants in this cause in separating from the said S. of U., because they considered their P. privileges to have been invaded by the said S. in the measures herein- after set forth. Previously to defendant Watson being licensed by the presbytery of Dromore in said bill mentioned, he examined attentively the said W. C. and having been unable upon scriptural grounds to satisfy his mind of the truth not only of the Trinity, but of some other doctrines therein contained, he communicated his said difficulty to a member of the said presbytery, who thereupon intimated to him that a qualified subscription to the said C. would be sufficient ; and accordingly he, before being so licensed, signed the said C, but only in a qualified form, as above men- tioned ; at this distance of time he is unable to set forth the precise form in which he so subscribed as aforesaid, but he believes it to have been a declaration that he subscribed the said C. so far as the same was agreeable to and founded upon the Word of God. He never did subscribe the said C. except upon the said occasion, in any manner or form whatsoever ; and with the said qualification which he thought it necessaiy to insert, in consequence of his conscien- tious scruples, he cheerfully subscribed the said C, inasmuch as he conceives that the said C. contains, over and beyond all disputed articles, all the important doctrines of the Christian faith. 751 He believes that he never did, at the period of his being licensed, or at the time of his ordination, or at any other time whatsoever, profess to believe the said doctrine of the Trinity; but having always conscien- tiously regarded the said doctrine as one of great doubt and difficulty, as one not essential or practically important to salvation, and being at the same time of opinion that the discussion of disputed speculative tenets generally produces angry feeling and little practical advantage in a Christian congregation, he, during all the period of bis ministry, both before and since the separation of himself and his said congregation from the S. of U., has avoided preaching on or discussing the subject of the Trinity ; and he does not recollect that he did, either before or since the said separation, either in private conversation or public discourse, declare opinions opposed to the said doctrine ; but not assenting to the said doctrine, he may possibly have done so. Defendants, both immediately and since their said separation from the said S. of U. have held the same views respectively, in regard to the said doctrine of the Trinity, which they respectively held during the whole time of their connection with the said S. ; and in so separating from the said S., they were in no way influenced by any regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, or any other disputed doctrine, but acted solely from a conscientious desire to defend and preserve their P. rights and privileges, which were violated by the said S., and the committee of said S. Defendant Watson has always conformed to the discipline, and submitted to the authority and jurisdiction of the said S. of U. in all matters of ecclesiastical government, until the said S. of U. made essential and important changes and alterations in their church govern- ment and discipline, as hereinafter more particularly set forth. Although a subscription to the W. C. of F. either with or without qualification and modifications, appears in several of the proceedings of the said S. to be recommended and required, said C. of F. never was in all its parts and with all its doctrines the bona fide standard of religious faith of the said S., or of a majority thereof, up to the time of a separation of a large body of the M. and people, who afterwards associated themselves together as the R. S. of U. So far was the said S. from requiring assent to all the doctrines of the W. C, that the practice of subscribing it fell rapidly into disuse, so that in and previous to the year 1814, out of fourteen presbyteries which at that time constituted the S. of U., eleven presbyteries did not require any form of subscription to the said C, and the three remaining pres- byteries only required a modified and qualified subscripts n ; in like manner the said congregation of K. has, during all the time aforesaid, from the earliest period of the S. of U., been in connection with the 752 said 3., and adhered to the principles of Protestant dissenters whereon it was founded, and submitted to its discipline and government, until radical and fundamental changes were made in the discipline and church government of the said S., and a new system of church government and discipline introduced therein ; inconsistent with and in violation of the ancient and established discipline of said S., and contrary to all its for- mer laws and regulations; uniformity of religious faith, as to the doctrine of the Trinity, never at any time prevailed in the said congregation of K. ; and the said congregation of K. doth not now continue to adhere to the said S. of XL, but hath by the voice of the major part of the heads of families worshipping within the said congregation, placed itself under the jurisdiction of the presbytery of Bangor, one of the presbyteries of the R. S. of U., which said R. S. consists of a number of ministers and congregations, formerly a part of the S. of U., and which separated therefrom in consequence of the fundamental changes introduced in the government and discipline thereof, together with certain new congrega- tions which have since sprung up in connection with the said S., and which said R. S. still retains the ancient code of discipline, laws, and regu- lations of the S. of IT., and is governed thereby ; in the year 1814, at which time great difference of practice as to subscription prevailed among the presbyteries of the S., a number of old and influential mem- bers of the said S. were appointed to prepare a code of discipline of the P. church for the consideration and approbation of the said S., as declaratory of its constitution and discipline, for the direction and guidance of the several presbyteries of the said S. ; and in pursuance thereof, a code of the discipline of the said church was, after the labour of various bodies appointed by the said S. for a period of about ten years, finally completed in the year 1824, and was printed and distri- buted among all the M. and congregations of the said S. previous to the geueral meeting of S. of the said year 1824. And at the regular annual meeting of the said S. of U., for the said year 1824, the said code of discipline was solemnly adopted as the constitution and discipline of the P. church, only two M. dissenting therefrom, and was afterwards pub- lished by authority of the said S. of U. The said code of discipline contains, among other things, directions for the licensing of candidates for the ministry, whereby presbyteries, so far from being compelled to exact even a qualified subscription to the W. C. on the doctrines therein contained, were left at liberty to ascer- tain the religious sentiments of candidates, and the soundness of their faith, by such questions as the particular presbytery should think necessary. Soundness in the peculiar doctrines of the W. C. of F. was not prescribed or required by the said code from candidates for license ; and 753 the latitude of expression in that respect, in the said code, was designed, among other things, for the purpose of embracing those who did not believe in the peculiar doctrines of that C. ; and defendants rely upon the said code of discipline as declaratory of the previous practice and discipline of the said S., prior to the publication thereof, and as contra- dicting the allegation that subscription to the W. C. of P. was a funda- mental principle of the government and discipline of the said S. of U., and of the terms of communion thereby imposed. Under the laws, usages, and discipline of the said S. of XL, M. were licensed and ordained to the different congregations of the said S., who entertained views of the Christian doctrine different from each other, some being Calvinists, some Arminians, other Trinitarians, and others avowed Unitarians, without any subscription to the W. C. of F. ; and the highest and most confidential situations in the church were from time to time held by said M., without any distinction as to the peculiar tenets of their religious belief, some being moderators, others clerks of S. and of presbyteries with the custody of the records and documents of the church. And the said S., down to the year 1828, was always accustomed freely to receive and ordain in its congregations licentiates from the P. of A. and S. of M., though the individual members of these bodies were reputed to entertain and avow anti-trinitarian principles. The said S. of U continued to be governed according to its ancient laws and discipline, declared and confirmed by the said code of discipline, approved of by the said S. in the year 1824, without any interference with the exercise of private judgment, until some time in the year 1827, when a number of M., disregarding the right of private judgment, sought to remove the Rev. Wm. Porter from their clerkship, on the ground of his having avowed Arian opinions. But it being admitted that his anti-trinitarian sentiments were known at the time of his appointment, the said attempt failed. At the meeting of the S. in the year 1827, a majority of the members then present, several of whom had previously combined for the purpose, did, from an intention to check the exercise of private judgment in matters of faith, carry a motion by which it was declared that the said S. did firmly hold and believe the doctrine concerning the nature of I rod contained in these words of the W. Shorter Cateehisni : " That there air three persons in the Godhead, the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost, and that these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory," and that the members then absent should be directed to attend the next meeting of S., to express their belief concerning the foregoing doctrines; and that such of them as did not attend, should send to the said meeting an explicit declaration of their sentiments on that point. 9i 754 A protest was entered into by several M. and elders then present, against the said resolutions, as unscriptural, and inconsistent with the principles and laws of the P. C. in I. ; and afterwards at the general meeting of said S., in 1828, about sixty M. and seventy-seven ruling elders, either disavowed the said doctrine, or expressed their disapproba- tion of the proceedings of the S., and refused to declare their assent to the doctrine. In 1827, the defendant Watson opposed the said proceedings, and refused to take the test so put forward by said 3. Although a majority of the M. of the said S. may have professed belief in the said doctrines in the said years 1827 and 1828, still every M. and elder of the said church was by the constitution, discipline, and long established praotice thereof, left to the free exercise of his private judgment with regard to the said doctrine, and had no practical accre- dited standard of faith except the common Protestant standard, the Scriptures of divine truth, in the interpretation of which the M. and people enjoyed unrestricted liberty, as was testified by the numerous and acknowledged differences of doctrinal opinions amongst its members. In the said year 1828 the said S. passed a certain series of enactments for the purpose of more effectually preventing the admission into the S. of M. holding doctrines opposed to those of the W. C. of F. But the said enactments were passed in opposition to, and in direct contravention of, the principles and long established usages of the said S., under which the then existing M. thereof had entered upon the ministry, in the several congregations of the said S., in disregard of the powers and rights of the presbyteries, also in direct violation of the enactments of the said code of discipline of 1824, and without observing even the forms of procedures enjoined thereby. The said enactments are null and void, and should have no effect or operation in the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the said P. church. The said overtures were not even permitted to be for a year on the books of the said S., as prescribed by the said code, but were introduced and passed under the influence of popular excitement, without being submitted, as required by the said code of discipline, either to the S. or the sevei-al presbyteries thereof, to be publicly discussed and deliberately considered and reported upon. About sixty M. and elders of the said S. opposed and voted against the said enactments, and a protest was entered against the same, in which defendant Watson joined, on the grounds, among others, that the imposition or adoption of human tests, or creeds, was unnecessary, unwise, unscriptural, and contrary to the principles and practice of the P. C. in I., and could not produce uniformity of religious faith, and tended to interfere with the rights of congregations to choose pastors of such religious sentiments as they thought proper. 755 In the year 1829, the S. having disregarded a written remonstrance against the said proceedings, which had been widely circulated through Ulster, and was signed by eighteen M., fifteen licentiates, and one hundred and ninety-seven ruling elders, and very many individual members of congregations, appointed a committee to meet with the said remonstrants and settle the terms of separation; which committee accordingly met them in September 182(J, and matters being put in train for a peaceable separation, seventeen M., with the major parts of their congregations, retired from the said S. of XL, and formed them- selves into the E. S. of XJ. ; and in May, 1830, put forth a declaration of the principles of their constitution, containing among others the following passages, namely : " 1st. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the only infallible rule of faith and duty, and contain all knowledge necessary to salvation. 2nd. That it is the inalienable right of every Christian to search these records of Divine truth for his own instruction and guidance, to form his own opinions with regard to what they teach, and to worship God in sincerity, agreeably to the dictates of his own conscience, without privation, penalty, or inconvenience inflicted by his fellow men. That the over- tures of the G. S. of XL, passed in the year 1828, imposed submission to human interpretations of the Word of God, in a form more objectionable than has ever been attempted in any other church, by subjecting M. to deposition at any time, however acceptable and useful to their people, and by submitting students and licentiates to the absolute control of a secret committee, of whose principal proceedings no records are kept, and who must necessarily be liable to act under the influence of personal partiality or prejudice,, selfish interest, or local connections. That these overtures not only subject students, licentiates, and M., to possible injustice and dangerous temptations, but likewise trench upon the most valuable privileges of the people in the free election of their own pastor, inasmuch as their choice is restricted to persons professing to hold opinions approved by the committee of examinators, although such opinions maybe directly opposed to the views of sacred truth entertained by the congregations. That we consider these enactments as a violation of the fundamental principles of Protestantism, subversive of the liberal laws and usages of our church, and a direct breach of the solemn compact uuder which those of us who are M. entered the S. of U. That we adopt the code of discipline sanctioned by the G. S. of U. in 1825, as the law of discipline in this church. And to show that we are not guided in pursuing this course by any view to promote the advancement of any set of doctrinal opinions to the exclusion of others, we hereby publicly and solemnly guarantee to the congregations which are under our care, and to those who may hereafter form a portion of our church, tin; 756 full, free, and unrestricted exercise of their unquestionable right to elect, in all cases of vacancy, M. entertaining such views of divine truth as the congregations may themselves approve ; that to secure the exercise of this great privilege in the fullest extent, the M. and licentiates of the C. of S., of the S. of U., the S. of M., and the P. of A., together with the M. and licentiates of any other Protestant churches, who may be sufficiently recommended to ns by their character and talent, their education, and their aptness to teach, shall be eligible to the vacant congregations under our care." Amongst the persons who so formed the R. body, there was not a uniformity of faith as to speculative doctrines ; but some held Trinitarian opinions, and others held opinions contrary to the said doctrine of the Trinity, and some other doctrines in the said W. C. of F. ; and they so retired with the full assent of the remaining members of the S. of U. They cannot be said, by such their separation, to have become wholly distinct and separate in doctrine and discipline from the said G. S. of XL, although they ceased to be under their jurisdiction, or to have since so continued distinct and separate in doctrine and discipline. But, on the contrary, the general principles and discipline of the said R. Si., are the same as were originally maintained by the said S. of U., and have been generally maintained from the earliest period of its history, until the said year, 1827 ; and any distinction or difference which now exists arises from the departure of the S. of XL, in 1827, from the ancient discipline of the P. C, and those M. and con- gregations who now constitute the R. S. of XJ., have at all times heretofore, and still do faithfully adhere to the original principles of the long established usages and salutary customs of the said P. G, and have continued to retain and steadily observe the provisions of the said code of discipline, in all its parts. Whatever may be the opinions of individuals in the R. body, it is not true that the said R. S. has always professed, or has ever professed, religious doctrines directly or at all opposed to the said doctrines of the Trinity, or to any other doctrine or doctrines regarded by the G S. of U. as essential doctrines of the Christian faith. For, on the contrary, the said R. S., in a collective capacity, and as an ecclesiastical body, professes no distinctive opinions upon the Trinity, or any other specula- tive doctrine in controversy amongst Christians, the said R. S. having been expressly and bona fide formed for the purpose of asserting those liberal principles of Irish Presbyterianism from which the G S. of U. had departed as aforesaid, and, having adopted as its code of discipline the code of discipline aforesaid, so solemnly adopted as aforesaid by the S. of IT. in 182-4. The said R. S., as a religious association, is founded solely and 757 exclusively upon the basis of unrestricted liberty of conscience in the interpretation of sacred Scripture, and Leaving all M. and congregations in connection with the S. perfectly free to form and promulgate their own views of divine truth. The true reason why the said R. S. is at present composed of indi- vidual M. who dissent from the doctrine of the Trinity and certain other doctrines of the W. C. (which these defendants admit is reputed to be the case,) is contained in the fact already stated, that the innova- tion by a majority of the G. S. of U., at the time aforesaid, upon the old and established discipline and usage of that body, operated, ami was avowedly intended to operate, against M. dissenting from the said doctrines, who were thereby compelled to withdraw from the said S., not for the purpose of professing any peculiar sentiments whatsoever, but solely for the purpose of perpetuating the ancient rights of Presbyterians and the discipline of Presbyterianism, which the said S. of U. had recently laid aside. At no time from the first formation of the said S. of U. did there prevail any uniformity of doctrine among the M. and members thereof, as to the doctrine of the Trinity, and several of the other doctrines in the W. 0. of F. And in support of this opinion defendants refer to the evidence of many members of the G. S., the records of their late pro- tracted proceedings and repeated discussions as to uniformity of doctrine, and to the publication and avowed opinions of several members of the said S., and to the licensing of young men who were declared by the S. itself to have made unfounded exceptions to the phraseology of the W. C. of F., and to have given erroneous explanations of the worship of Christ. Up to the present time several of the M. of the said S. held opposite opinions as to several of the doctrines of the said C. of F., and have not yet practically agreed on any acknowledged standard of doctrine ; and although, in August, 1836, a majority of that body adopted unqualified subscription to the W. C. as their rule, yet the said resolution was opposed by a large minority of the S. Defendants rely upon the facts stated in the history of the I. P. C, a part of which have been put forward in the present answer, as afford- ing abundant evidence, that whatever rules and resolutions may have been from time to time adopted at particular meetings of S., still the distinguishing principle of the said S. from its original formation until the said year 1828, ami (A' the I. P. body generally, was, not the doctrine of the Trinity, or the doctrines of the W. 0. of F., but the free exercise of private judgment in matters of religious faith, unfettered and unrestricted by Creeds, C, or Articles of F., framed and composed by fallible men, and the adoption of the Holy .Scriptures as the only unerring guide of F. and practice. 758 That the S. of IT. was not, until the said change in its constitution, similar to the said C. of S. in doctrine or discipline, inasmuch as the said C. of S., at all times since their adoption of the W. C, required unquali- fied subscription thereunto from all persons entering upon the ministry. Whereas the said S. of U. had been, during the greater part at all events of its existence, practically and essentially a non-subscribing body ; in consequence whereof the C. of S., up to the 27th day of May, 1836, declined to admit into ministerial communion any M. of the S. of U. ; and at that time the said C. of S. agreed to admit to such com- munion such M. only of the said S. of U. as should produce an extract minute of their ordination, setting forth that they have given an unqualified subscription to the W. C. of F. The B. S., in associating themselves togethei', have adopted no new creed, and they have renounced no old opinions, but stand now as they did under the S. of U., until its late departure from its long estab- ished laws, principles, and practice. Although defendant Watson and a large portion of the said congre- gation of K. always pai'ticipated in the sentiments maintained by the remonstrants, yet as the said congregation was not unanimous in their views, and as the said enactments of the S. of U. requiring M. to preach Calvinistic doctrines, on pain of deposition, were expressly confined to M. thereafter to be ordained, and did not profess to have any retrospec- tive opei'atiou, defendant Watson, for the sake of peace, and confiding in the solemn guarantee of the said S. of U., continued with his congre- gation under the jurisdiction of the said S. of U., and would willingly have continued to do so, had it not been for the unlawful, unjust, and persecuting measures adopted towards him, in the first place, by the presbytery of Belfast, and afterwards by the S. of U. itself. [Instances of ordination by the Presbytery of Bangor, two in 1764 and two in 1776, " without the exaction of absolute subscription, are alleged, and three cases of licensing to preach granted by the same presbytery in 1767 "upon such modified subscription as suited the particular religious view" of the parties licensed. And it is averred that " the same practice prevailed in a great number, if not in the great majority of other instances, and would so appear if the defendants had access to the records of the several presbyteries of the Synod ; and that the asking and giving assent to the doctrines of the said confession was during by far the greater portion of the existence of the Synod optional. Three of these seven instances of unqualified subscription seem to have been reported.] [Objections within the last two or three years to the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son by one ordained minister in a book, and three candidates for licenses, are mentioned, and it is added, "that there ":.!> are at the present time members of the Synod who do not believe in the Trinity, nor preach the doctrine thereof and thai uniformity of religions opinion never practically prevailed in the Synod, nor was it consistent with the principles of Presbyterianism to seek to enforce such."] [It is to be understood that various assert inns in these extracts are stated in the answer as matters of information and belief only. ) No. 13. PETITIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE BILL. From Members of the Presbytery of Antrim and Remonstrant Synod of Ulster, on behalf of themselves and other Non-subscribing Presby terians of Ireland. Your petitionei-s have been gratified to learn that a bill has been introduced into your right honourable House, entitled, " A Bill for the Regulation of Suits relating to Meeting-houses and other Property held for religious purposes by persons dissenting from the Church of England." Your petitioners observe that this bill is confined in its operation to England and Wales. There are in Ireland many meeting-houses occupied by the ministers and congregations forming the two above-mentioned bodies, called the "Presbytery of Antrim" and "Remonstrant Synod of Ulster," and several by ministers and congregations comprised in the Synod of Minister, in every respect similarly circumstanced with those meeting- houses in England and Wales which will be affected by the said bill. The said meeting-houses in Ireland have in many instances burial grounds attached to them, and in some cases the congregations are in possession of schools and other properties for educational and religious purposes. These meeting-houses and other properties have for a long series of years been held and enjoyed by ministers and congregations holding the religious views which have for more than a century been designated in Ireland "New-Light," or, as they are now called, " Anti-Calvinistic and Unitarian;" and that during the period that such opinions have been entertained by these ministers and congregations, they have in m6s( instances rebuilt their meeting-houses, and in all cases have largely augmented their value, besides creating or greatly increasing other congregational properties, never having entertained the slightest doubt of the validity of their titles to properties which, without the disturbance of any other parties, have descended to them from their ancestors in uninterrupted congregational succession. 760 Certain decisions have lately been made in the Courts of Equity, both in England and Ireland, respecting religious trusts, in consequence of which decisions these ministers and congregations are threatened with deprivation of their meeting-houses and other properties. That two suits are now actually pending in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, in one of which (that of the Eustace Street congregation) the cause has been heard, but no decree pronounced ; and the other (that of the Strand Street con- gregation) is now ready for hearing; and that in these suits it is sought to deprive the ministers and congregations of meeting-houses and other properties to the value of at least two thousand pounds a year, of which they were in unquestioned and undisputed enjoyment for a long period of time, and a very large portion of which has been created or accumu- lated during the ministry of the present ministers, or of predecessors who are admitted to have held the same religious opinions as the present possessors. Your petitioners humbly submit that the cases of the several ministers and congregations in the three bodies above referred to, in relation to their meeting-houses and other properties, are cases of pecu- liar hardship. According to the law, as declared in the cases referred to, a large number of ministers and congregations are liable to be harassed by tedious and expensive litigation in separate Chancery suits. That in many cases the whole fee-simple of the property held for religious purposes by these ministers and congregations would be insuffi- cient to meet the costs of the enquiry which would be necessary to discover that party who (among numerous classes of claimauts that might arise) were best entitled to that property : whilst wherever the value of the property would be sufficient to bear the costs, some specula- tive attorney (as has heretofore been known with regard to other chari- ties) might make a wholesale business of filing informations. Your petitioners further humbly and respectfully submit, that if at the time of passing the Act 57 Geo. III., any doubt had existed as to the validity of the titles of any of the ministers or congregations holding the religious opinions thereby tolerated, to the meeting-houses or proper- ties they then held and enjoyed, it can hardly be doubted but that that Act would have contained a clause having for its object the quieting of the congregations in the possession of their meeting-houses and other properties. Your petitioners further respectfully and humbly submit, that wherever there is no express declaration of trust as to any particular doctrine or form of religious faith respecting any of their meeting-houses, burial grounds, school houses, or other congregational properties in Ireland, the usage of a series of years should, by analogy to the statutes of limitation relative to private property, and in conformity with the 761 intent of the bill introduced into your right honourable house as afore- said, be conclusive evidence of the doctrinal opinions for the promotion whereof the same were founded. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your lordships will be pleased to remedy these grievances of the classes of Irish Protestant Dissenters herein mentioned, as by the said bill it is proposed to remove those of certain Dissenters in England and Wales, either by including them in the bill now pending in your lordships' House, or by passing a special Act for their protection. From the Minister and Member respectively of the Protestant Dissent ing Congregations of Strand Street and Eustace Street, in the city of Dublin, on behalf of themselves and of the said two congre- gations. Your petitioners have been gratified to learn that a bill has been introduced into your right honourable house, intituled, " An Act for the regulation of suits relating to meeting-houses and other property held for religious purposes by persons dissenting from the Church of England." Your petitioners observe that this bill is confined in its operation to England and Wales, and that it is therein provided that it shall not affect any property, the right or title to which was in question in any action or suit pending on the first day of March in the present year. The said two congregations of Strand Street and Eustace Street were originally founded by English Nonconformists, and formed consti- tuent parts of the southern presbytery of Dublin, which having from its formation agreed in the same fundamental principles with the Presbytery of Munster, became incorporated with that body in the year 1809, under the name of the Southern Association or Synod of Munster j and the fundamental principles of the said presbyteries previous to such union, and of the said Synod since, have ever been, the taking the Bible alone as the rule of faith and practice, the rejection of all creeds and articles drawn up by uninspired men, the recognition of the right of private judgment, guaranteeing to every congregation and individual in communion with the said Synod the right from time to time to change their opinion on controverted points of doctrine, as often as conscience and conviction may dictate, and, notwithstanding such change, to continue in full communion with the said Synod, and in possession of all their Presbyterian and Congregational rights and properties. In the exercise of the right so guaranteed as aforesaid, these two congregations have, for a very long series of years, entertained theologi cal views at variance with the doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in tlio 95 762 thirty-nine articles of the Church of England, and in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Informations have recently been filed in Her Majesty's Court of Chancery in Ireland, against the ministers and members of these con- gregations, at the suit of Her Majesty's Attorney-General, upon the relation of three individuals, natives of Scotland, who are not, and have never been, in any manner connected with them or either of them, pray- ing that they may be deprived of their meeting-houses and all other their congregational endowments, upon the ground of an alleged diversity between the doctrinal opinions they at present profess, and those held by their predecessors at their original formation, a period considerably upwards of a century ago. In none of their grants, gifts, or instruments of endowment, from the very earliest period, is there contained any clause binding these con- gregations to the profession of any peculiar doctrines, or in any wise interfering with the enlarged principles of liberty and the right of private judgment, the maintenance of which these congregations have at all times recognized as their sole bond of congregational union. Many of these endowments, of which they are now sought to be deprived, were created by members of these congregations (some of whom are still living) at a time when these congregations entertained, and were known to entertain, opinions similar to those which they at present profess. Of the said two suits which are so pending in the Court of Chancery in Ireland one has been heard, but not yet finally disposed of, and the other is now ready for hearing. Your petitioners would humbly represent to your right honourable House, that inasmuch as no division exists in these congregations or either of them, and inasmuch as the relators at whose instance these informations have been filed are total strangers to, and in no way interested in, the property of which they seek to deprive them, there is no party in whom there exists any vested right which would be inter- fered with by the extension of the bill now before your right honourable House to the cases of these congregations respectively ; and in further- ance of this view, your petitioners would humbly remind your lordships of an Act passed during the present session of Parliament, and which originated with your right honourable House, for staying certain actions which had been theretofore commenced for the recovery of penalties incurred for offences against the Horse-racing Acts. And inasmuch as your lordships did not consider it unjust to put an end to the suits so pending, upon the terms of indemnifying the informers against the costs they had theretofore incurred in such actions, your petitioners humbly hope that, where the object is to quiet the possession of religious socie_ 763 ties, which has continued undisturbed for so long a series of years, your right honourable House will not deem it inequitable to extend relief to these two congregations, notwithstanding the existing suits, upon the terms of the relators being indemnified in respect of costs in such manner as to your lordships may seem just. Your petitioners further humbly and respectfully submit, that inas- much as there is no express declaration of trust as to any particular doctrine or form of religious faith respecting their meeting-houses, school-houses, endowments, or other congregational properties, the usage of a series of years, recognizing in these congregations the right of private judgment in the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, authorizing a change of doctrinal opinion on their part from time to time, as conviction and conscience may dictate, should by analogy to the statutes of limitation for the protection of private property, and in con- formity with the intent of the bill now introduced into your right honourable House, be received as conclusive evidence that such endow- ments were created for the support and advancement of such principles. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your lordships will be pleased to remedy the grievances of the two Protestant Dissenting Con- gregations hei'ein named, as by the said bill it is proposed to remove those of certain Dissenters in England and Wales, either by including them in the bill now pending in your lordships' House, or by passing a special act for their protection. From Mary Armstrong, widow, a Member of the Protestant Dissenting Congregation of Strand Street, in the City of Dublin. Your petitioner's husband, the late Rev. James Armstrong, Doctor of Divinity, was elected pastor of the said congregation of Strand Street, in the year 1806, at which time the said congregation held opinions identical with those it at present professes. Some years subsequently to the election of her said husband, a large fund was contributed by the members of said congregation (several of the contributors being still alive, and members of said congregation), for the support of the widows of the ministers thereof; of which fund your petitioner's said husband, since deceased, was appointed one of the first trustees. Nearly one-third of the said fund was contributed by the sisters of the present Lord Plunket, who were personally much attached to your petitioner's said husband ; and your petitioner is confident, that in the creation of such fund, they and the other contributors were greatly 764 actuated by a desire to promote the personal interest of himself and his family. Since her said husband's decease, in the year 1839, your petitioner has, in accordance with the intentions of the originators of said fund, been in the receipt of the annuity, payable to her, from the same, as his widow. Your petitioner is a widow, with four daughters resident with her, and the said annuity forms a very important portion of her means of subsistence. An information has recently been hied in the Irish Court of Chancery, at the relation of three persons, not even natives of Ireland, and two of whom are in low ch'cumstances of life, and reside more than one hundred and twenty miles from Dublin, and all of whom are total strangers to said congregation, and have never been, in any way, connec- ted therewith, seeking to deprive the said congregation of their house of worship, and all the funds and endowments connected therewith, on the ground of an alleged diversity between their religious opinions and those of their predecessors, upwards of one hundred years ago, and that said cause is now ready for hearing. The above-stated facts as to the said annuity were first disclosed by the answer of the defendants in the said suit, and such facts were sworn to by the said defendants, and there is no controversy respecting the same. Notwithstanding the strong moral title of your petitioner to the said annuity, the relators in the said information, after the said answer was put in, deliberately amended the said information, so as to make it particularly embrace and claim the said annuity and fund ; and one of the results of the said information as now amended, in case there should be a decree against the defendants, would be, to deprive your petitioner of that annuity which the originators of said fund (many of them her intimate friends) intended for her support. The said suit is, on the part of the relators, under the management of Mr Macrory, who is solicitor to the General Assembly of the Presby- terian Church in Ireland, and also one of the deputation in England conducting the opposition to the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, and the said amendment of the information, claiming said annuity, was made by his direction. The Right Honourable the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has of his own accord been graciously pleased to postpone the hearing of said cause, till the result should be known of a bill, then before the right honourable the House of Lords, intituled, " An Act for the regulation of suits relating to meeting-houses and other property held for religious purposes by persons dissenting from the Church of England." 765 Your petitioner presented a petition to the House of Lords praying to have the said bill extended to Ireland, and to the said pending suit affecting your petitioner's said annuity, and such bill was amended accordingly, and the third clause of the said bill as it now stands before your honourable House, was introduced for the accomplishment of that purpose. Although your petitioner has already presented a petition on this subject to your honourable House, yet as the same did not fully state the facts with respect to the said annuity, she now begs leave to present this further petition. A.nd your petitioner prays that the said bill, as it now stands, and especially the third clause thereof, may be speedily passed into a law, and your petitioner thereby secured in the enjoyment of that maintenance which was provided for her by the congregation of her said late husband, and as to which they never could have believed it possible that any question could ever arise as to your petitioner being entitled, as his widow, to receive the same. From the General Assembly of General Baptist Churches, by their Messengers, Elders, and Representatives, holden on Whit-Tuesday, the 28th day of May, 1844. Your petitioners, having taken into consideration a bill now pending before your honourable House, "for the regulation of suits relating to meeting-houses and other property held for religious purposes by persons dissenting from the United Church of England and Ireland," are so convinced of the importance of that measure, as to lay before your honourable House not only their request that it may be finally adopted by the legislature, but also those views which they hold respecting the same, which impress them with confident assurance of its justice and necessity, and with ardent wishes for its success. Your petition ers constitute a body of Protestant Dissenters which hath maintained a separate and independent character ever since the passing of the memorable Act of Toleration in the year 1G89, and which had previously holden its assemblies at such opportunities as the state of the times permitted, particularly in the month of March, 1G60, when a Declaration of Faith was set forth and presented to King Charles the Second at his restoration, and in the year 16G3 ; in which declaration it was asserted, that the Holy Scriptures only were their rule of faith and pi-actice, and "that it is the will of God that men should have the free liberty of their own consciences in matters of religion.'' Conformably to which rule, it came to pass that those matters which are usually under- 766 stood to make up, or to be involved in, the Trinitarian question, were iii such declaration expressed in plain scriptural terms only ; the common doctrine of the Trinity as taught in creeds of human composition being carefully avoided, and the explication of Holy Scripture concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, being left to every man's conscience, and to the judgment of each particular congregation. In order the more effectually to preserve due liberty of conscience, and freedom in the interpretation of Holy Scripture on this and other points of doctrine, the communion of the ancient churches constituting this assembly was established on the fundamental principles of faith and practice contained in the second verse of the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which prescribe " faith in God," without any mention of a Trinity of names or persons ; and that the said fundamen- tal principles were recognized as the ground of union in this assembly itself, in the year 1731. Before the end of the seventeenth century considerable discussion took place in this assembly, arising out of a departure from the pre- valent modes of expression concerning the nature of our Lord Jesus Christ, which had been made by an eminent minister and member thereof, named Matthew Caffyn, who insisted on adhering most rigidly to the language of scripture only in this matter. The result of such discussion was the continuance of the said Matthew Caffyn in this assembly, and the separation of his opponents ; who, in order to establish a greater conformity to human creeds, withdrew, and formed a separate association, which merged again into this assembly after Caffyn's death. In the celebrated discussion among the dissenting ministers at Salter's Hall, in the year 1719, the London ministers of this assembly, being the predecessors of elders now comprised in the same, took the part of non-subscription to human articles, and were a portion of the majority which decided that important question (when, as expressed by Sir Joseph Jekyll, "the Bible carried it by four") ; the remainder of such majority consisting mainly of English Presbyterians, by whom a similar opposition to human creeds has been made, and in whose congregations, in the long interval which has since intervened, a similar variety of interpretation on many points of theology has prevailed. Your petitioners believe that the genuine principles of Protestantism, and the due cultivation of sacred literature, have greatly flourished in these circumstances. The objections to the pending bill proceed mainly on the unfounded assumption that, as to the places of worship to be protected, there was originally a specific intent in favour of certain doctrines, and of which intent the present occupants are perverters ; whereas your petitioners conceive, that a dispassionate reference to the early history of dissent will 767 establish the conclusion, that in the instances, whether among the Baptists or the Presbyterians, in which doctrinal trusts are absent, the omission is attributable neither to accident, nor to a reliance on the then exclusive state of the law, but was in designed accordance with the great principles of Protestantism and of consistent Nonconformity, viz., the sufficiency of Scripture and the right of private judgment ; and that the gradual change of opinion in the congregations (which throughout maintained their respective identity) is the legitimate result of the spiritual liberty thus assured to their members, and the real perverters of the founder's intent are therefore those who would now import into the trust a restriction which the founder had so studiously avoided. In those instances in which the courts have inferred or implied such a doctrinal restriction, they have done so from a supposed necessity of judicially presuming an intention in the founder to confine the trust within the actual limits of the law at the time, a presumption little applicable to the early Nonconformists, whose very name and origin implied resistance to the law, and among whom the progress of opinion was continually outgrowing the law ; as strikingly evinced by the successive enlargements of the legal bounds of toleration, the printed case of the dissenting ministers issued previously to the act of 1779, declaring (and which is confirmed by the preamble to that act) " that the far gi'eater part of the dissenting ministers had not complied, and could not in conscience comply, with the subscription required by the Act of Toleration ;" and your petitioners, therefore, without presuming to impugn the legal correctness of the judicial decisions on the subject, regard the present case as that of occupants having a good inoral title endangei'ed by a technical rule of law, for which anomaly the legislature will be doing no moi'e than justice in providing a remedy. Your petitioners in consequence believe that the operation of the bill now before your honourable House will be to quiet a variety of dissenting congregations, thus following out the right of free inquiry, in the peaceable possession of their places of worship and other founda- tions which have belonged to them, in many instances, for more than a century, and to prevent the interference of other classes of religionists devoted to subscription to human articles and the consequent violation of the liberal principle on which your petitioners and other like-minded Christians are associated. Your petitioners therefore pray your honourable House that the said bill may be forthwith passed into a law. 768 ANALYSIS OF SEVENTY-SIX PETITIONS. Most of the Socinian congregations in England petitioned in favour of the bill, and according to the analysis of their petition given in the appendix to the debates, they urged on the legislature, in addition to their dissent from the founders of the old chapels and from several generations of attendants there, and from persons interred in the burial grounds, the length of time during which the chapels had been alienated from orthodox worship, and expenditure by persons of their opinions in rebuilding or repairing them, or adding to them parsonages, schools, or burial grounds. The following is a condensed account of the allegations of these petitions, containing the date of the foundation, or an approximation to it, the period of the prevalence of heterodox sentiments in the words of the petition, and improvements or additions, with their cost. All mention of repairs is omitted here. Comments or references are enclosed within [ ]. WESTMORELAND. 1720. Kendal. No trace of orthodox doctrines ever having been preached. Vestry built and great improvements made by the present generation. DURHAM. 1688. Stockton-on-Tees. Anti-Trinitarian for a long period. YORKSHIRE. 1692. York. Anti-Trinitarian since the settlement of the present minister's predecessor. [See page 126.] 1674. Leeds (Mill Hill). Present opinions traceable at least eighty years back. School rooms built by petitioners. 1719. Bradford. Considerable accretions in modern times. 1700. Sheffield. Anti-Trinitarian for the last hundred years. Schools built by present generation. 1662. Hull. Rebuilt 1803. [See page 684.] 1706. Rotherham. School built within the last three years. LANCASHIRE. 1693. Manchester (Cross Street). Anti-Trinitarian for at least 130 years. 1707. Gorton (near Manchester). Minister's house built in last generation. 1706. Dob Lane (Failsworth). The present opinion can be traced through ministers and people for nearly a century. Grave yard recently enlarged. 709 Liverpool. About Paradise Street. It is impossible to reach by evi- 1700. dence a time when Anti-Trinitarian doctrines did not prevail in the congregation. Chapel rebuilt 1791 and schools. No endowment. 1811. Renshaw Street. Chapel rebuilt by last generation. Before Toxteth Park. For generations past, as far as peti- 1650. tioners can trace, the meeting-house has been occupied by a congregation abjuring doctrinal tests. Gateacre. The congregation for nearly a century have held the Unitarian faith. Early Lancaster. Anti-Trinitarian opinions traceable upwards of 100 in 18th years. Chapel rebuilt 1786. Minister's house century built 1782. 1735. Warrington. Anti-Trinitarian in all living memory. Burial ground enlarged 1797. Schools now erecting. 1757. Prescot. The doctrines preached within the recollection of the oldest attendants have been uniform with the same. About Preston. Second minister strictly Unitarian, and first minister 1720. his hearer. Burial ground enlarged by present congregation. 1719. Bury. Rebuilt with schoolrooms 1837 (£4000). 1703. Rivington. The opinions have always been Anti-Trinitarian. In 1742 the Rev. Samuel Bourn avowed Unitarian doctrines. In 1786 minister's house built on site given. In 1844 schools built. Bolton. Ministers since 1754 avowed Unitarians. First minis- ter, Rev. Samuel Bourn, left Cambridge without a degree from unwillingness to subscribe. His son and grandson Anti- Trinitarians. Minister's house built 1740. Chapel enlarged 1760. Schools built 1797. Improvements (£1000) 1835. Suit threatened in April last by Scotch Presbyterian Congre- gation. Commenced in 1838 as branch of the Kirk. 1715. AinsWorth (near Bolton). Minister in 1732 Anti-Trinitarian. Present opinions taught for upwards of 100 years. Sunday School lately built (£400). Chowbent. £800 recently expended. Schoolroom built within ten years. 1727. Ciiorley. Improvements within last twenty years (£700). CHESHIRE. 1700. Chester. Second minister appointed 1713. Anti-Trinitarian. Burial ground enlarged 1811. Endowed by Unitarians. 1694. Knutsford. The petition as to this chapel was by the Rev. Will. Turner, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. His gi'andfather, 96 ■ 770 John Turner, educated by Mr James Conningham, of Man- chester, died in 1737. Minister at Knutsford, having pre- viously been settled at Preston and Rivington. It is not pretended that he became heterodox. 1704. Dean Row. Fallen into decay. 1723. Hale. A minister who died thirty-nine years ago, after a forty- five years' pastorate, was a Unitarian. Gallery and school- rooms recently built. 1714. Congleton. The early opinions of the congregation Anti-Trini- tarian. Galleries built within last fifty years. Nantwich. Anti-Trinitarian, at least since living memory. 150 years ago no evidence of change of opinion. [This place was originally Independent.] Kirkstead, (near Horncastle). The doctrinal opinions taught About are believed to be unchanged from those originally preached. 1G80. Mr Disney, founder. Dr. John Taylor ordained here 1714. New chapel built 1821. SHROPSHIRE. Shrewsbury. Anti-Trinitarian at least 100 years. Minister's About house built 1791. Chapel nearly rebuilt 1840. In 1741 1673. Independents joined this congregation, but left in 1766, having by deed renounced all claim and Presbyterian endowments. NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. Before Nottingham. Rebuilt 1804 (£7200). 1704. LEICESTERSHIRE. 1708. Leicester. Anti-Trinitarian opinions held by ministers and members at least a century. Schools lately built. Endow- ments by Anti-Trinitai'ians. DERBYSHIRE. Chesterfield. Anti-Trinitarian as far back as living- testi- About inony or tradition can go. 1823 chapel enlarged. 1831 1695. schools built and burial ground enlarged. 1697. Derby. The first minister, Ferdinando Shaw, published a cate- chism, and in 1730 a larger work, evidencing a declension from orthodoxy. His colleague, Josiah Rogerson, signed recommendatory preface to Arian work. Unitarian for at least fifty years. 771 NORFOLK. Norwich. Opinions Anti-Trinitarian as far back as living About testimony or tradition can extend. Rebuilt (£7000) in 1754, 1687. during the ministry of Dr. John Taylor and the Rev. Samuel Bourn. Schools built by Unitarians. Middle Great Yarmouth. In 1730 Trinitarian minorities seceded, 17th dividing the property, century. Lynn. Built or rebuilt 1811. SUFFOLK. 1700. Ipswich. Trinitarian never taught within memory of oldest inhabitant. 1711. Bury St. Edmund's. Founded by parties abjuring subscription. WARWICKSHIRE. Birmingham. 1732. New Meeting rebuilt 1802, after destruction by Church and King mob, by £1000 subscription, in addition to parliamentary grant. Old Meeting, Schools built by this and preceding generation. 1700. Coventry. Auti-Trinitarian opinions traceable as far back as the foundation. [This statement must be incorrect ; Mr Tong was minister here till 1702, Mr Warren till 1730, and there can be no question of their orthodoxy. The Assembly's Cate- chism was taught to the grandmother of a gentleman now living. Some of Baxter's works were kept on a reading desk.] Warwick. Unitarian doctrines preached for upwards of eighty- six years. Schoolrooms built four years ago (£200). The present chapel built in 1780 by the Earl of Warwick, and given in exchange for the old place. Tamworth. The Rev. John Byng, the second minister, whose pastorate lasted fifty-two years, was a Unitarian. Endow- ment by his daughter in 1713. [Mr Byng was settled there in 1768.] WORCESTERSHIRE. Dudley. Burial ground recently added. £1000 endowment About for education lately founded by a Unitarian. Large recent 1700. accretions. Evesham. First minister, R. P. Cardell, [he was not the tir>t About minister, see p. 683], avowed Anti-Trinitarian. Schoolroom 1740. built. Endowment by Unitarians. 772 Cradley. The doctrines now taught same as those inculcated by the first ministers. Chapel rebuilt with schools a few years ago. OXFORDSHIRE. 1716. Banbury. The second minister, who held office for fifty-seven years, believed to have been an Arian. GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 1699. Gloucester. At least 1Q0 years ministers and congregations Anti-Trinitai'ian. 1730. Cirencester. The opinions of the present congregation the same as were held by their ancestors. WILTSHIRE. Trowbridge. The same opinions have been uniformly held by About the congregation since its origin. Schooh*ooms built within 1700. twenty years; SOMERSETSHIRE. Taunton. Anti-Trinitarian opinions preached as far as living testimony extends. Soon Bath. Anti-Trinitarian at least from date of rebuilding : rebuilt after 1792, £,2500. In 1819 cemetery given. No congregational 1662. property derived from Trinitarians. End of Bristol. Unitarian opinions have been held beyond living 17th memory. Burial ground added 1768. Schoolrooms built, century. Considerable gifts and bequests by Unitarians. Bridgewater. The minister in 1717, son of the first minister, and all his successors, have held Anti-Trinitarian principles. Rebuilt 1788. Vestry and school added by present congre- gation, 1733. Crewkerne. Present opinions of congregation traceable through a considerable period. Chapel nearly rebuilt in 1811. Endow- ments by Anti-Trinitarians. More Ilminster. Anti-Trinitarian opinions have been long held than 100 yrs. ago. DEVONSHIRE. 1700. Exeter Arian from foundation. Schools lately built (£2000). [1720]. See p. 24. 1662. Plymouth. Minister elected 1743. Anti-Trinitarians rebuilt 1832 (£1000). Vestry and Schoolroom built 1827. Burial 773 ground enlarged 1833. All endowments expressly given for support of Unitarian principles. 1695. Collumpton. Same doctrines preached for the last 100 years. Rebuilt 1814. About Colyton. The founders avowed Anti-Trinitarians. The first 100 minister, Mr Samuel Slater, for sixteen years advocated yrs. ago. Unitarianism. Burial ground given about fifty years ago. About Moreton Hampstead. Anti-Trinitarian opinions preached as 1680. far back as living testimony or tradition can go. Chapel rebuilt 1801. DORSETSHIRE. 1705. Poole. Same opinions traceable for the last ninety years. Enlarged 1721. Endowment since 1817. 1720. Dorchester. Anti-Trinitarian as far back as living testimony extends. Chapel enlarged 1808. 1791. Bridport. Chapel built by Unitarians. Schools built 1841. HAMPSHIRE. Before Portsmouth. Unitarian at least fifty years : nearly rebuilt in 1687. 1822 (£1200). School built 1823, and £500 since expended on it. 1774. Newport, Isle of "Wight. Founders held Anti-Trinitarian opinions, as evidenced by ministers' written discourses. The opinions traceable even to an earlier date. Chapel enlarged recently and schools built (£400). In 1821 or 1838 endow- ments for Unitarian worship. 1727. Ringwood. Built by non subscribers. SUSSEX. More Chichester. Considerable improvements by petitioners and than 100 their predecessoi's. yrs. ago. 1720. Horsham. Opinions of the founders believed to have been Anti- Trinitarian, and the opinions of the congregation can, by living testimony, be proved to have been so since 1740. Burial ground enlarged in 1816. SURREY. 1786. Godalming. First minister Anti-Trinitarian. KENT. Tenterden. Anti-Trinitarian upwards of 100 years. Chapel and burial ground enlarged. School built. 774 1736. Maidstone. No discussions have ever occurred in the congre- gation, on doctrinal or other opinions. [There was a Trini- tarian secession from it about 1740]. CAERMARTHENSHIRE. Swansea. Unitarian doctrines preached for upwards of ninety years. Gallery built 1788. MIDDLESEX. 1774. London. Essex Street. Built for Unitarian worship. Hackney. Original chapel sold, and present chapel built 1809. It is stated that at Leeds, Sheffield, Yarmouth, Ipswich, and Gloucester, improvements or repairs would have been made but for the state of the law. The following notices occur of deeds or usages : Stockton. No limitation of doctrine in the trust deed. Leeds. At no period has the holding of any particular religious doctrines been required as the qualification for communion of the Lord's Supper, for trusteeship or membership. Hull. No trace of any creed being used or subscribed by the minister or people. Kotherham. Founded and always maintained on principles of non- subscription. Manchester. The trust deeds from the foundation to the present time do not require any particular opinions to be taught by the minister. Chester. The trust of the chapel is for the public worship of God by persons dissenting from the Church of England, without any doctrinal limitation whatever. Gainsborough and Bury St. Edmunds. See above. Chesterfield. The endowment, 1760, is simply for the benefit of the congregation. Lynn. There is no creed in the trust deed : the framers following the general custom of English Presbyterians and Unitarians, and having merely defined the use of the chapel for public religious worship. Banbury. The right of private judgment has been the fundamental principle of the religious union of the society. Trowbridge. The only profession of faith required of the members has been belief in the gospel, and by it to govern their lives and conduct. 775 Bristol. The distinctive feature of the society is that it repudiated every subscription to religious creeds and declai-ation of faith. Hackney. Though the congregation is avowedly Unitarian, they inserted no creed in their trust deed, leaving the property to the operation of the English Presbyterian principle of the right of private judgment. Rotherham, Sheffield, and Gainsborough were originally congrega- tional chapels, according to Dr. Evans's list. Liverpool, Paradise Street. The notion of partnership in a chapel, see p. 495, was brought forward in the petition from this congregation. It is said, "The present chapel was built 1791, by contributions of the members who became proprietors in partnership of the building, holding pews which they occupy, or let to yearly tenants." It is not stated that the new chapel was built on a new site ; if it was built on the old one, or the money received on sale of the old meeting was expended in part payment for the new site or new building there, proprietary rights could not be reserved. It must be a very remarkable deed which would give a valid title to the lessee of a pew. Similar vagueness with that complained of at p. 199 will be noticed in the phraseology transcribed. It is assumed that non-subscription and the rejection of creeds implies heterodoxy, and long periods are mentioned, during which there had been no change of opinion, in cases in which it is certain that at the commencement of those periods the ministers were Arians, and at the end of them the ministers were Socinians. The chapels in Exeter, Godalming, Bridport, and Essex Sti'eet, London, may be admitted to have been founded, the first two by Arians, and the last by Socinians, but those in ftenshaw Street Liverpool, Lynn, Bath, Newport, and Hackney, seem to have replaced Presbyterian places, which in some cases at least were sold. No. 14. Reasons in favour of a Bill for the regulation of suits relating to pro- perty held for religious purposes by persons dissenting from the Church of England, submitted to Sir Robert Peel's administration.* The decision in the Wolverhampton Chapel case, following that in the Lady Hewley case, has recently declared that the woi-d "worship,"' or any equivalent expression in a chapel deed, must be taken to mean such worship as was permitted by the law at the date of the deed ; and that therefore any statute, although utterly obsolete, which prohibited * It is right to mention that Sir E. Sugden's judgment in Attorney-General v. Drummond, which rendered the second clause of the Bill more imperathely necessary, was not known when this document was prepared. [Note in original.] 776 any particular opinions, would govern, for all time to come, the legal meaning of all deeds of this nature which might happen to be executed before the day of its repeal. The statutes unrepealed at the date of every deed, though immediately afterwards repealed, are for all future time to be imported into, and to be read as part of the intents expressed in the deed. [In contradiction to this for what was really decided see pp. 224,5.] To apply this rule to a particular case. Until the year 1813, (53 Geo. III. c. 160,) there were statutory penalties unrepealed, though notoriously obsolete, against teaching or preaching Anti-Trinitarian doctrines. There is a chapel in Essex Street, London, the history of which is particularly well known. It was built about the year 1783, and the deed enrolled in chancery as required by law. It took its first rise from the secession of the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey from the Church of England, solely on the ground of disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity. The trusts were to permit the chapel to be used for public worship, and to procure public worship to be celebrated there every Lord's Day in the manner the same as was then being celebrated. Among the early trustees were Mr Attorney-General Lee, Mr Sergeant Hey wood, and several other distinguished lawyers, and also Sir George Saville, Mr Brand Hollis, and other persons of station and distinction. The late Duke of Grafton and other noblemen were among the first contributors and constant attendants. None of these could have thought they were breaking the law. By the operation of the above-stated rule of law, the trust deed of the above chapel must be interpreted by the courts as expressing an intention on the part of the founders, that the chapel was only to be used for the benefit of persons believing in the doctrinal articles of the Church of England ; and the Courts will, if called on, declare that the trustees of that chapel, from the day of its foundation to the present day, have been, from week to week, committing a breach of trust, in not having procured the preaching therein of doctrines which it is a matter of notoriety none of them, nor any of their congregation believed, and the repudiation of which was the sole ground for seceding from the church and for the erection of the chapel. It cannot, of course, be stated to what extent religious dissenting property will be affected by these decisions. Though probably it affects the property of Dissenters only, it must widely affect such. It is well known that the Roman Catholics held a great number of chapels and schools before the date of the Roman Catholic Relief Act. Though no doubt they carefully avoided expressing in their deeds the trusts to which it was meant they should be devoted, yet the mere use of such, words as " chapel," " religious teaching," or the like, coupled with the rule of law as now laid down, would be held to express an intention to 777 devote these buildings to Protestant purposes. The present statement, however, is submitted on behalf of Dissenters belonging to the denomi- nations of the English Presbyterians and the General Baptists, and now holding Anti-Trinitarian doctrines, and most of whom have held such opinions for nearly, if not quite, a century. Of these there are 250 congregations in England and Wales. It will be distinctly understood that these parties are not in the least seeking to impugn the legal correctness of the doctrine laid down against them. The late decisions having first pointed attention to the existence of the rule of law above stated, the holders of all property affected by it find themselves placed in a situation of the most painful embarrassment ; and it is proposed next to show, that it is one which imperatively requires some legislative interfei'ence. If there be no interference by act of Parliament, there must either be suits to remove the present holders and to appoint others having better legal qualifications, or the property must fall to ruin for want of upholding and repair. The pi'esent possessors have hitherto rebuilt and repaired their chapels as occasion required ; but of course they cannot longer do so, now that they know they have no legal title, and can make no such title to them. To continue to use them will be for the trustees to incur the personal responsibility of having to refund the rents or value in any suit which may be instituted against them. Since the decisions above mentioned were pronounced, the posses- sors, indeed, have even been afraid to bury their dead in their family graves for fear of their burial grounds passing into the hands of strangers, or becoming waste for want of protection. Cruel as they cannot but feel the bearings on them, of the law as now laid down, the present possessors would probably endeavour to conform to its requirements, and would yield possession of the property, rather than witness this abandon- ment, desecration, and ruin of places they have been brought up to reverence. But however desirous they might be, the law, as it now stands, will not allow them to yield up their chapels without a separate chancery suit for each. They have neither power to decide who should in future be the possessors, nor to appoint trustees for such future possessors, nor to execute conveyances to them. The Court of Chancery alone can do this. On the other hand, the Court of Chancery is utterly incapable of dealing with such cases as these. The property in question is, in the great majority of cases, far too small to pay the expenses of the suit out of its fee simple. Wheu the value is enough to pay the cost, some speculative attorney (as has heretofore been known with regard to other charities), resident probably in London, and an entire stranger to the place, will make a wholesale business of filing informations, as expen- 97 . 778 sive, of course, in their character, as the property can endure ; or there will be a general scramble and fight for it among all the different and numerous sects of Dissenters able to establish before the Master (who may himself be of any faith, and who necessarily is altogether unfit to exercise judgment on such subjects) a sufficient amount of orthodoxy to qualify them to comply with the requisitions of the laws on the statute- book at the date of its purchase and first conveyance. As to a great number of chapels, the trusts will be found to have failed. There is in many of these deeds a clause to this effect, that " if such worship shall have ceased for ( ) years they shall be sold," &c. But by the decisions "such worship" has ceased for near a century ; and, as to these chapels, all future worship must therefore be put an end to. Many other chapels again have lost all trace of their trust deeds. These will give rise to other questions. Again, some fluctuation of opinion, some departure of doctrine, must have taken place in almost every ancient chapel, by whatever denomination it was founded. The courts may therefore, with regard to every such chapel, be called on to investigate the importance of such a departure, to take up the old dissenting disputes of the time of the Act of Uniformity, and to go into the question of the essentials and non- essentials of dissenting faith ; and they must do this for every one of the numerous sects separately, for what in those times were held by some as non-essentials were certainly held as essentials by others. If, in a few cases, there should turn out to be sufficient property to bear the expense and leave a surplus, how is the court to decide between contending sects % In the Lady Hewley case it might attempt to divide the funds among many sects ; as to a chapel, such a course could not be taken. The judges, in the Lady Hewley case, held it clear (what is still clearer as to a chapel) that the Church of England could, by no possibi- lity, have any claim to the trust property. Dissenters therefore must be appointed. One sect must be selected to the exclusion of all others. Besides, therefore, the theological odium and warfare which would arise, and the great indecorum of having to bandy about the sacred dogmas of the Christian faith in such a place, of all others, as the mastei-'s office, and by attorneys and their clerks, the law, or in other words the state, heretofore careful to confine itself to a toleration of all Dissenters, would have to draw distinctions between them, to measure the different degrees of their errors, and to hold some as more deserving than othei's. Where trustees are taken from various sects, as has been lately done in the Lady Hewley case, new suits and new causes of quarrel will necessarily arise after a brief period. As the chances of survivorship determine, one sect will come to have a majority in the trust; a majority 779 in the trust will affect, or be supposed to affect, the course of distribution of the funds ; and the minorities will file new suits for new removals of trustees and a new application of the funds among the beneficiaries. Many more such diiKculties might be suggested ; and altogether it is asserted with the utmost confidence that every person acquainted with the working and expense of equity suits must confirm the statements above made, and bear witness to the utter incapacity of the equity courts to deid with the subject-matter under consideration. Even if the property is to be diverted from its present channels, it is an urgent case for aid, remediless except by the legislature, and full of public and moral mischief if let alone. It never can be the policy of a community that an entire class of property should be abandoned to waste merely because there is no law applicable to its protection. Some legislative interference, therefore, it is submitted, must be afforded. Assuming that some legislative interference is necessary, what should it be ? The State might seize to itself all these chapels. This would be better than to leave them to the chances of law. But of what value could they be, diverted from their present use "? The only way, it is conceived, in which the legislature could usefully interfere, would be, by extending to this class of property the priuciple of limitation of suits, now so generally adopted as a rule of public policy. This principle has been greatly extended of late years. New subjects, many of them of a public nature, have very lately been brought within its operation ; for example, tithes, rights of way, &c., and some cases of trust, as mortgages, legacies, &,c. It is submitted that the present is a case peculiarly calling for the application of such a principle. The property, in the first instance, was not often what would strictly be called a foundation. It was a chapel built by subscription for the use of the subscribers, and conveyed to some few of them, for the use of themselves and the rest. The trustees wei*e in fact, and have all along been, the principal beneficiai'ies. It was an attempt at a sort of copartnership, or quasi-corporate mode of holding i-eal estate. So little of a public nature was there considered to be in these trusts, that they were excluded from the operation of the charity commission. The possession has been of a more strict and unbroken nature thau that of any other kind of private property. It has been that of a con- gregation meeting from Sunday to Sunday, from the day of the original erection to the present time ; the children not so much succeeding to the possession of their parents, as uniting with them and becoming joint owners with them and joint contributors to the maintenance of the chapel. And where there lias been a decided and undeniable change "1 doctrinal opinion, it must not be forgotten that it was a change of 782 things unavoidable. Such a law would obviate in a great degree the very serious difficulty and embarrassment necessarily arising out of these changes, both to the congregation and to the courts that may be called upon to decide thereon. [This memorial is dated March, 1843, and refers to the English cases only, and shows that the suits respecting the Dublin chapels and the hardship of Mrs Armstrong's situation did not influence the ministry in taking up the case of the English Socinians. The first paragraph conveys the notion that the Wolverhampton case was decided upon the presumption of law, that where there is no speci- fication of doctrines legal ones are intended ; but the reason given for the decision by Lord Cottenham was that as a matter of fact legal worship was designed, so that the intention of the founders only was regarded. This declaration of the law could not affect the chapel in Essex Street. It is however fairly admitted afterwards that the congregations occupy- ing the old chapels held different views from the founders, so that the ground for the bill urged by the ministry, viz., that the vagueness of the trust deeds was intended to permit a change of opinion, or to conceal the purpose of establishing illegal worship, was brought forward by them after it had been given up by the Socinians. The asser- tion that the administration of 1813 would have sanctioned the views of the memorial shows that the memorialists were confident they were addressing friends. Lord Eldon's opinion would have governed his colleagues, and he had in the Scotch case laid down the rule that the chapel must remain dedicated to the principles of the founders, expressly shutting out the notion of its being property either held in partnership or transmissible to descendants, although the trust deed might be said to give some countenance to both those notions. The chief reason urged in the memoi'ial is the necessity for future litigation, occasioned by the uncertainty what sect would be entitled to the chapels when vacated, but it is submitted that convincing reasons have been shown that the Independents, who hold more than half of the old meeting- houses still in existence, should have them all. The necessity of a separate suit for each of the 250* chapels, if it had existed, and the possibility that the expense of a regular suit would exceed the value of most of the chapels and all property connected with them, on the one hand showed the duty of the government to establish a new method of pi-ocedure to meet such a defect of justice, and on the other, deprived of all force any argument for the limitation proposed grounded on remissness in appealing to the Court of Chancery. But Sir Samuel Ilomilly's act was in force, and the Socinians had petitioned under it in * Of the old Presbyterian chapels in England and "Wales not 130 were in heterodox hands, and the heterodox General Baptist chapels do not exceed twenty-five. 783 the Wolverhampton case, even during the pendency of the information before Lord Eldon.* The question of fraud (as remarked by Mr Gladstone, p. 522), is the main consideration. Was Arianism introduced by the ministers, after due warning to their congregations, or merely by the perfectly efficient method of keeping silence with respect to all the subjects on which it bears, so that all in their congregations really attached to the teaching of the apostle Paul, (who is to us the great expounder of the religion of Christ), were driven away, and a generation raised up which did not complain of such preaching, because not acquainted with any other ? The orthodox of the period referred to complained of deficiency' and want of explicitness in the Arians, not of their preaching positive error, and all the phrases used respecting these Arians by their friends admit or imply an entire reserve as to all testing doctrines. Socinianism might occasionally be more outspoken, but this would scarcely be inferred from the depositions of its supporters noticed in pp. 282-4. The allusion to the case of Romanists was most politic but not correct, as they were satisfied with their position. The Socinians did not seek to retain only chapels the trust deeds of which were silent as to doctrine. Yet their advocates in the courts and from the press had based their case on the assertion that no Presbyterian deed gave any intimation as to the nature of the worship intended, and their friends in parliament seem to have confined the bill to chapels thus circumstanced, in order to give it even a chance of passing. This ground would no doubt have been taken here if prudent, but the framers of the memorial apparently desired to shun all inquiry into particulars. There were many other reasons for this, but one can be readily given : most of the deeds provided for the case of the worship intended being again made illegal by statute, and it was owing to the force of such expressions that their friend Lord Cottenham restored the Wolver- hampton chapel. It might have been expected that an application for a change of the law would have told the number of the chapels put in peril by the * It is amusing now to notice the hatred which Lord Eldon and Lord Redcsdalc bore to this attempt at reform in Chancery see 1 Bligh N.K., 17. The objections which they made are disposed of by the remark that the Judge before whom the petition first came should have directed it to be amended until it was sufficiently full and clear. The chief fault in proceedings under this act is the necessity for making tin A.G. a party, for the Judge might direct him to intervene when necessary, and the only result now is his solicitor's costs. Sir 3amuel was no doubt obliged to submit to this evil to legalize, for the benefit of the charities, and as a general precedent, a suit apt n petition and affidavits. This improvement in the method of taking the direction of the court as to a charity was so great that the act is a worthy commemoration of Sir Samuels name; and it might have indicated the nature of any new method of procedure needed to determine all questions as to the old meeting-houses. 784 decisions, and the proportion of them to which ministers' houses, schools or burial grounds had been added since the change of opinion in the congregations, but no details whatever are given, and this is to be accounted for only by the memorialists' belief that the ministry were so hearty in the cause that they did not care to know the exact facts con- nected with the subject, and that opponents might make use of parti- culars if given. The digest of the petitions from the congregations to be affected by the measure at p. 768, will give all the information possessed as to the chapels. The cases of rebuilding were not numerous, and most persons, it is supposed, will think that the permanent occupants of a chapel should uot take credit for repairs done to it ; under this view of the matter all mention of repairs was omitted in the summary of the contents of the petitions. Attachment to graves and monuments did not operate in more than a few cases, for the descendants of those whose monuments or tombs would have passed into other keeping were holding very lightly by the chapels, if they had not altogether forsaken them. Anyone accpiainted with the congregations could give a list of the desertions during the last and present generations, which would justify the opinion that all feeling in this respect would soon pass away. The Heywoods and Lord Houghton will between them illustrate the relation of the old families to the chapels, not to speak of the descendants of Sir John Lee, Sir George Saville and Mr Brand Hollis, mentioned in the memorial with respect to the Essex Street Chapel ; or those of Lords Ashburton and Gifford, Mr Commissioner Merivale, Sir John Kenna- way, and Sir John Duntze, whose ancestors are mentioned in the petition from Exeter, as among the largest contributors to George's Meeting in that city. Such temporary considerations should have had no weight when the question was as to the perversion of a perpetual foundation, and they were out-weighed by the fact that the mortal remains and memories of the men who built the chapels and raised the congregations, would be held in greater veneration by men of their own faith than by their own descendants of alien notions. But l'ights denied to the founders of the chapels were recognized in those who had usurped the control and benefit of them. The reader will find all the arguments of this memorial reproduced by the speakers in the debate as if their own. This memorial did not afford sufficient information on any point to warrant its either being presented or received with a view to a change in the law regulating matters so delicate and important as places of worship and charities connected with religion, but we may be sure that any supplement to it would also have been reprinted with the debates. We may take it, therefore, that the government showed themselves willing to act upon this meagre and indefinite state- 785 merit. None of the real Tories spoke for the bill, though they voted for it, and Lord Derby, although in the ministry, did not vote for it. The measure seems to have been Sir Robert Peel's own \ he consistently supported change of principles, and his zeal in the cause was shown by the series of misrepresentations constituting his speech, which must heve been of his own invention. No. 15. PETITIONS IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. From Dr. Cooke, Moderator of the General Synod of Ulster. Your petitioner has read a bill now before your honourable House for the regulation of suits relating to Dissenting chapels, and most heartily approves of the first clause, inasmuch as he is, and always has been, of opinion that the effect of every penal exception from the Toleration Act should be unequivocally removed ; but to the remaining clauses of said bill your petitioner most decidedly objects, and humbly craves permission to submit the following reasons why these clauses should not pass into a law. First. Because the bill supersedes the immemorial principle of equity, namely, that in regard to public charities every lawful trust should be administered according to the intentions of the founder. Secondly. Because it supersedes the immemorial rule of equity for ascertaining the intentions of the founders of trust property, a rule which has hitherto never required the existence of any deed whatever, or demanded the production of " the express terms " of any positive wri tings, but allowed these intentions to be established by collatei'al proofs, by the testimony of historic facts, and other circumstances, which in many cases furnish a body of irresistible evidence, exceeding in force the conclusions dei'ived from deeds and writings exposed to all the mutations of time and phraseology. Thirdly. Because it appears to contravene the principle of limitation on which, in the case of ordinary property, length of possession is allowed to quiet titles, inasmuch as the present bill does not legislate against the claims of parties guilty, or presumed to have been guilty, of an aban- donment of a I'ight or some neglect of incumbent duty, but in favour of the wrong-doers themselves, who have unrighteously availed themselves of their lawful possession to abandon the rights they were bound to up- hold, to neglect their own duties, and to violate the confidence reposed in them by the original founders. Fourthly. Because, under the prospective operation of this bill, all confidence will be shaken in the stability of property devoted to cbari- 98 786 table or religious purposes, inasmuch as, the legislature having interfered to supersede the principles of equity in regard to charitable trusts ; principles which the present Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain has judicially pronounced to be founded "on common sense and justice;" there will henceforth be no limit to the extension of this dangerous pre- cedent, and persons disposed to allocate their property to the purposes of charity or religion will see the means provided whereby their endow- ments may hereafter be employed in direct opposition to the objects for which alone they were originally bestowed and intended. Fifthly. Your petitioner further objects to this bill, because it not only enables parties to frustrate the intentions of the dead, but also to abstract and misappropriate the property of the living ; for your peti- tioner is prepared to prove to your honourable House that, within the last sixteen years, the Trinitarian Presbyterians in Ireland have been violently expelled from several of their houses of worship, and that from othei's they have been compelled to withdraw, in some cases slowly, as the Unitarianism of their ministers began to be suspected, and in other cases en masse when Unitarianism was openly professed, being thus sub- jected, not only to the loss of their own and their fathers' property, but to the heavy expense of erecting new buildings for themselves ; while every attempt at obtaining restoration or amicable compensation having hitherto been evaded or denied, the present bill will perpetuate the wrong and legalize the usurpation. Sixthly. Your petitioner further objects to this bill, not only on the ground of what he believes to be present injustice, but on account of its prospective effects upon the ecclesiastical property and discipline of the Trinitarian Presbyterians of Ireland, who constitute, as petitioner be- lieves, ninety-nine of every hundred Presbyterians in that part of the United Kingdom. Your petitioner is prepared to prove to your honour- able house that previous to the year one thousand seven hundred and tln'ee, Unitarianism was totally unknown among the Presbyterians of Ireland, and never, except in one instance, so far as petitioner knows and believes, acknowledged in the Synod of Ulster before the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven. Hence it has come to pass that a departure from Trinitarianism being neither anticipated nor dreaded, Presbyterian trust-deeds in Ireland have until lately been framed without any guard against a system of doctrine comparatively unknown, and in fact without any express specification of the doctrines to be taught. Your petitioner also believes that for a great number of Pres- byterian chapel-properties there never have been either deeds or trustees, but a mere possession, founded on the generosity of landlords to their tenantry, whereby the occupiers are absolutely barred from any defence of their rights arising from the provision of " express terms,'' as set forth in the bill now before your honourable House. 787 To the third clause of the bill your petitioner begs leave still further to object — First, because it contains a retrospective enactment forming no part of the bill as originally printed before it came to your honourable House, and one which bears the marks of its hasty origin by actually contradicting the marginal note of its contents, which still remain* unchanged ; secondly, because the parties interested in pending suits were hilled into security by the original form of the clause, and were ignorant of the alteration affecting their rights until it was printed by your honourable House, and consequently were prevented from petition- ing to be heard against it by counsel in the House of Lords ; and thirdly, because it appears to petitioner that to give to an Act of Parliament such retrospective effect as to reverse, at the request of interested parties, the judgment, not indeed technically pronounced, but yet arrived at and publicly declared, and that under the most solemn of obligations, and in the highest court of equity in Ireland, cannot be intended to prevent litigation, seeing that litigation had already terminated. But, while your petitioner thus humbly objects as aforesaid, he would rejoice to see a bill pass into a law whereby the property of Unitarians should be unquestionably set free from all the penal excep- tions of the Toleration Act, whereby the ancient and well-tried law of religious trust should be preserved inviolate, whereby the courts of law or equity should be euabled to distinguish in every case what proportion of Unitarian property had accrued to any Trinitarian foundation, or what proportion of Trinitarian property had accrued to any Unitarian foundation, to allot to each party, as the case might be, their just and respective shares, and even to invest such courts with a discretionary power of continuing all annuities during the incumbency of living possessors. In the way of such a measure of impartial justice, and respect for personal interests, your petitioner can discover no practical difficulty, while he humbly suggests that it is founded on the principles of the purest equity, provides for the' exercise of a considerate but measured generosity, would extend undue favour to none, and afford substantial justice to all parties in every religious trust. Your petitioner therefore prays that your honourable House will be pleased to reject the aforesaid bill, and, if necessary, introduce another which shall not supersede the established principles of equitable jurisdic- tion, or contravene the ancient and righteous maxim of English law. that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong. From the same. In and since the year 1829, several congregations of said 9 amounting, as petitioner believes, to not less than 10,000 individuals, 788 were, or have been, deprived of their houses of worship ; some having been violently expelled, and others necessitated to withdraw in conse- quence of their ministers having for the first time known to them, openly avowed themselves to be Anti-Trinitarians; and by the opera- tion of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, now before your honourable House, said congregations will be totally deprived of legal redress. The prospective operation of the said bill would, in the opinion of petitioner, be ruinous to the peace and discipline of said Synod, and to the religious trust properties of many of their congregations. Wherefore petitioner prays, that he may be heard by himself, his counsel, or agent, at the bar of your honourable House, against said bill, or against the second and third clauses thereof, as your honourable House may direct. From the Committee for the protection of the civil and religious privi- leges of the Wesleyan Methodists. Your petitioners, after a careful consideration of a bill introduced into your honourable House, intituled, "An Act for the regulation of suits relating to meeting-houses and other property held for religious purposes by persons dissenting from the United Church of England and Ireland," cannot but view it with the deepest regret, dissatisfaction, and alarm, and express their most decided opposition to such an enactment, for the following reasons : Because it appears to your petitioners that the law of trusts as interpi-eted and acted upon by the courts in this kingdom is most obviously equitable and safe, as it righteously seeks the fulfilment of the intentions of the founders of such trusts, and the appropriation of the property so intrusted to the purposes which they in the trusts affected by this bill religiously contemplated. No inconvenience has arisen nor is likely to arise from its continuance to parties in rightful possession, and, in the opinion of your petitioners, it cannot be departed from as proposed, but by a violation of justice, and by a sacrifice, as uncalled for as it is alarming, of the principles of equity which have been repeatedly affirmed by the Courts of Chancery and the House of Lords ; and which have been depended and acted on by parties to such trusts as invaluable and indispensable guarantees of security. Any interference of the nature proposed, your petitionei's cannot, therefore, too strongly deprecate. Because the Wesleyan Methodists, in whose name your petitioners act, hold property to a very large amount by various forms of trusts, consisting of chapels, schools, and ministers' houses, as well as numerous charitable foundations, which might be in various ways dangerously interfered with by any departure like the one proposed from the usual 789 course of long-established and satisfactory law. These trusts have been formed with the belief and under the firm impression, which has been confirmed by the decisions of the courts, that the before- mentioned principle of interpretation with refereuce to trust property would continue to guide the administration of justice and be undisturbed by parliamentary interference. With the law as it stands your petitioners are satisfied, they are content to abide by its operation, and are decidedly opposed to any alteration, and much more to its being, as proposed by the bill now before your honourable House, practically superseded. Because the bill proposes, in the opinion of your petitioners, in reality, by an arrest of the course of justice, to quiet Arians, Socinians, and Unitarians in the possession of property held in the same way as that to which the courts have declared they have no right, and which the founders of the trusts relating to such property never intended persona of their peculiar theological opinions to possess and enjoy. No length of time during which possession has been had of the property in question can, in the opinion of your petitioners, create a right which did not originally exist; but is a powerful argument why injustice, aggra- vated by lengthened continuance, should cease, aud justice be now done in the legitimate execution of the trusts, and in the appropriation of the property so intrusted. Because, as it appears to your petitioners, such alteration of the law would operate as a powerful discouragement to the formation of religious trusts for the future, as with a precedent sanctioning the infringement of trusts of this nature, no person could have security that his most cherished and conscientious intentions might not be defeated by some future act or acts of parliament, the principle of legislative interference with the solemnly declared objects of trusts like those with which the bill proposes to interfere being such as may with ease be made applicable in future to other cases of trust, in which parties may be interested in perverting property to objects dissimilar or opposed to those for which it was originally intrusted. Because the alteration contemplated has not been preceded, as such an important change affecting such large interests, in the opinion of your petitioners, imperatively demands, by any parliamentary inquiry, but lias been proposed without having been desired or sought by any con- siderable number of persons dissenting from the United Church of England and Ireland, and is calculated to benefit exclusively those who hold Anti-Trinitarian opinions, and that in a way which cannot but be eventually injurious to those religious bodies which constitute so large :i proportion of the whole population. In addition to the injustice of the measure, on which your petitioners found their chief objection, it would be neither wise nor safe so to alter the law in favour of one party only 790 as to destroy or even endanger the acknowledged legal and equitable claims of the orthodox religious bodies in the kingdom. Because in Ireland, property consisting of chapels, parsonages, school buildings, and other charitable foundations, to a much lai'ger amount than in England, has been diverted from its right use; the alien- ation of which would be perpetuated by the proposed bill, and that under circumstances of peculiar aggravation, inasmuch as it would sanction and confirm the usurpations of parties holding doctrines and teaching religious peculiarities considered not only by the churches of England, Ireland and Scotland, but by all other branches of the Catholic Church, in all ages, to be opposed to " the faith once delivered to the saints," and therefore endangering in the most fearful and fatal manner the best pre- sent and everlasting interests of the community. Your petitioners therefore, in the discharge of their imperative duty, object to the enactment of the proposed bill, and respectfully but firmly protest against its further progress. That, while your petitioners think that Arians, Socinians, and Unita- rians are protected in the enjoyment of trusts which they founded prior to the repeal of the penal clause in the Toleration Act, it having been ruled in the courts that such repeal was retrospective as well as prospective, they would offer no objection to a specific legislative declaration of such pi'o- tection. Your petitioners therefore, respectfully and earnestly pray that your honourable House will not allow the bill to become law. From the Congregational Union of England and Wales, at their Annual Meeting. This meeting, having had its attention called to the Religious Trusts and Dissenters' Chapels Bill, feels called upon to enter its decided protest against the passing of any such measure, deeming it a flagrant violation of long-established and acknowledged rights, and forming a most dangerous precedent for future interference by the legislature with religious trust. The proposition now made to pass a statute of limitation, in refer- ence to trust property, by which an adverse usage for twenty -five years shall be allowed to supersede the well-ascertained intentions of the founders, is, in every respect, contrary to common sense and common justice ; the adoption of such a rule would give a legal sanction to the most profane use of places of public worship, intended by the pious founders for the worship of Almighty God, and the faithful ministration of Christian truth; as this bill, limited in effect to those cases where the doctrines to be taught are not laid down in "express terms," has been 791 declared by its author to be a " very scanty measure of justice," and a wish has been expressed by a noble and learned lord, its most zealous advocate, that the test of usage should be still further extended, there is every reason to believe that, if the bill be allowed to pass into a law, it will soon be followed by other measures of a still more fatal tendency, and thus the interest of religious truth will be most fatally compromised. The property to be affected by the bill having been put in trust for the maintenance of Trinitarian sentiments, under the authority and sanction of the law, a solemn compact was entered into between the legislature and the founders, that so long as the maintenance of such sentiments should be regarded by the state as consistent with public policy, and not injurious to the common weal, the inteutions of such founders should be sacredly and permanently regarded ; such compact has been uniformly and faithfully observed by the state for the past one hundred and fifty years, and on every appeal which has been had to the courts of equity and to the House of* Lords — that supreme tribunal of our courts of judicature — this just and righteous principle has been vindicated and established, and the intentions of the founders declared to be the sole guide for the administration of trust property. For the state now to interpose and to legalize the breach of this sacred obligation without any reason being pretended that the mainten- ance of Trinitarian opinions is contrary to public policy, or prejudicial to the common weal, is such a breach of constitutional obligation as must tend materially to shake all confidence in the stability of legal and constitutional rights, aud by exposing all religious trusts to the con- stant interference of the legislature, must place the interest of all religious bodies in the empire in a condition of the greatest insecurity and danger. This meeting earnestly protests against the principle that, because certain parties are found in the enjoyment of trust property to which they have no title either in law or equity, therefore the law must be subverted in order that such parties may be screened from the judicial consequences of their own acts, and may be confirmed in the unlawful enjoyment of such property ; such a principle, if acted upon and adopted by the legislature, would establish a most pernicious and fatal precedent, the distinction between right and wrong would be confounded, and the foundation of all law would be overthrown, when it is once determined that the law is to be conformed not to the immutable and unerring prin- ciples of moral rectitude but to the practice of its acknowledged violaters. The alarm naturally excited among all religious bodies by this un- precedented interference with religious trusts is greatly aggravated by the fact that the bill has taken its rise in, and been already passed by, the House of Lords, a branch of the legislature to which the nation lias 792 always looked up as the constitutional guardian of the rights of property, and as the final court of appeal upon all questions arising out of disputes concerning the rights to property, especially bound to maintain inviolate the long-established and universally-approved principles upon which the law of charitable trusts is founded. The proposition now made to endow Unitarianism with the chapels and other property in trust for the maintenance of Trinitarian sentiments is an additional aggravation of the unjust principles involved in the said bill ; if it be thought desirable by the legislature to establish and endow the Unitarian form of faith, this meeting is of opinion that such a proposition should be made openly ; as this meeting would feel itself bound to oppose any such proposition, it feels itself doubly bound to enter its solemn protest against the proposition now made to transfer the property of Trinitarians to Unitarians, and thus to apply the property of the pious dead to the subversion of that faith which they cherished and supported while alive, and for the maintenance of which after their deaths they founded these charitable trusts. The ground upon which it is attempted to justify so entire an over- throw of constitutional principles, namely, in order to save the party the expenses of litigation, is, in the opinion of this meeting, utterly fallacious and untenable ; that, if carried out to its illegitimate extent, it would cause the abolition of all our courts of judicature which have been established with a view to the recovery of lost rights by means of litigation ; if the process of the courts of equity be too dilatory or expensive, the proper remedy for those evils would be a wise and well- digested reform of these establishments, and not the abolition of one of the most important branches of their jurisdiction ; in the opinion of this meeting, the most fruitful source of litigation is the uncertain state of the law ; but, as the law of religious trusts is now indisputably settled by repeated decisions of the courts of equity, confirmed on appeal by the House of Lords, there can be no ground for apprehending that any expensive litigation could arise upon these points, whereas the bill, by unsettling the law which is now clearly ascertained and established, will render legal investigations in many cases imperative, and will thus introduce the very evil which it professes to avert. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House that the Dissenters' Chapels bill may not pass into a law. From the United Synod of Original Seceders now convened. Your petitioners understand with deep concern that a bill is about to be proposed to your honourable House, which may have the effect of securing those calling themselves Unitarians in the possession of chapels 793 and other property found by law to have been bequeathed by orthodox or Trinitarian Presbyterians for the special behoof of those who hold orthodox or Trinitarian sentiments, and your petitioners, regarding these sentiments as essentially and diametrically opposed to those held by Unitarians, would earnestly depi*ecate such a measure, as not only an act of injustice, implying the alienation of funds to a purpose which was never contemplated by the original donors, and which they would have shrunk with horror at the idea of promoting, but as virtually involving, if sanctioned by Parliament, a national abandonment of the most sacred and fundamental principles of our holy religion. May it therefore please your honourable House to refuse every measure of such a character which may have the effect of securing to Unitarians the possession of property which has been thus bequeathed. No. 1G. Protest of the Bishop of Exeter against the bill as it passed the Lords. Dissentient. 1. Because usage has, with the best reason, never before been suffered to prevail against the purposes of a charitable trust, inasmuch as in such a case adverse usage is only a series of malversations of the trustees ; and to give not only impunity but triumph to such proceedings, is to encourage by act of parliament the violation of all public trusts, and the perversion of all charities. 2. Because the bill in its main provision proceeds on the principle of disregarding the intentions of the founders of the charities in question. It is only in cases where these intentions can be ascertained that the measure will have any effect. For in other cases-, where the intention cannot be ascertained, usage would of course prevail, and so the bill must be altogether nugatory, except to defeat the ascertained intentions of founders. 3. Because the distinction drawn between those cases in which the particular purposes of the trust are declared in express terms, and others in which, being ambiguous, they can be ascei'tained by the aid of external evidence, is contrary to the principle which has been declared by the present Lord Chancellor not only to be " uniformly acted upon in our courts of equity," but also to be " founded in common sense and common justice." To introduce an opposite rule, and apply it to existing trusts, is to make an ex post facto law, subverting the rights of the proper beneficiaries, as well as violating the intentions of founders. 4. Because the alleged grievance may be redressed by a much less extensive enactment. If there be any meeting-houses which can be shown to have been founded for religious worship not tolerated by law 99 794 at the time of their foundation, but which have since been admitted to toleration, and if it be deemed right to quiet the titles of the possessors of such meeting-houses, it cannot be difficult to devise a measure which shall secure that object, without violating principles which have hitherto been deemed inviolable. 5. Because the alleged reason for this measure (a wish to prevent litigation) ill accords with the provision for effecting it. " The usage of the congregations frequenting the meeting-house" during years, is to " be taken as conclusive evidence of the religious doctrines or opinions for the preaching or promotion of which such meeting-house was founded." Yet of all conceivable incitements to litigation, none more stimulating can be devised than the uncertainty of such usage, and the facility of shaking the proof of it. Neither can such a provision be satisfactory to those who demand an alteration of the present state of the law ; for, to fix the religious doctrines to be taught in such meeting-houses by the usage of years past, which is, in effect, mere tradition, the tradition of a brief number of years, and the authority, it may be, of a single preach er, is not only unreasonable in itself, but contradicts the principle claimed by a large portion of the petitioners, that they shall use their meeting-houses according to the free exercise of their private judgment and the right of free enquiry in all matters of religion, unshackled by any rule of faith or worship. It is, moreover, irreconcileable with the allegations of fact set forth by the soberest advocates of the measure, that "in such bodies as Dissenting congregations, with no effective church government, and no power to law down binding rules of faith, fluctuations of doctrinal opinion in long periods of years are in the nature of things unavoidable." 6. Because this measure, thus contrary to the established principles of law and equity, is notoriously introduced to quiet the titles of parties who have usurped meeting-houses built for the worship of the true God, and have perverted them to an use which their founders could not but have deprecated as profane and impious. 7. Because in avowed favour to a class of persons who deny the Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, a construction is by implication put on the 53rd George III. c. 160, which that statute never received in a court of justice, and which is contrary both to high legal authorities and to the known intention of at least one of the two Houses of Parliament which passed it, namely, that "to deny any one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity to be God," being " unlawful prior to the passing of that act," was thereby " made to be no longer unlawful." Whereas the statute 9 and 10 William II I. c. 32, the provisions of which were then in part repealed, a statute enacted at a time when Lord 795 Somers, the most ardent and enlightened advocate of true and just toleration, was Lord High Chancellor of England, did not constitute, but solemnly recognize the previous criminality of such a denial. It is an act entitled " An Act for the more effectual Suppression of Blasphemy and Profaneness." Its preamble characterizes the opinions against which it is directed as "blasphemous and impious opinions, contrary to the doctrines and principles of the Christian religion, greatly tending to the dishonour of Almighty God, and which may prove destructive to the peace and welfare of this kingdom." It proceeds to enact, that "for the more effectual suppressing of the said detestable crimes, (thus manifestly implying that they were before, and if that act had never passed, unlaw- ful,) whosoever, having made profession of the Christian religion within this realm, shall, by writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking, deny any one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity to be God," &c, shall incur certain heavy penalties which have been subsequently repealed. 8. Because, even if with all statutory penalties, all liability to indictment was removed by the 53rd Geoi'ge III. c. 160, yet the denial in question is notoriously a heresy of the gravest and most malignant character, and, as such, is contrary to the common ecclesiastical law, which, according to every authoi'ity which can be cited, is as truly a part of the law of the land as the common temporal or statute law. 9. And, lastly, because the violation of such principles for such an object, can hardly fail to excite in the people an apprehension of the readiness of the legislature to sacrifice the most approved rules of law, and the most sacred interests of religious truth, to a temporary and fancied expediency. It not only wounds the conscience and outrages the feelings of those who adhere to the true faith, as it has in all ages been held by the law of every one of the three realms comprised in this united kingdom and empire, but it also contradicts the fundamental and hitherto unquestioned principle, that the Christian religion is the basis of the law of England ; for this Christian religion is declared in the Act of Toleration itself to be the faith of the Holy Trinity. That act, in substituting a declaration in lieu of oaths to those who scruple the use of oaths, requires them to " subscribe a profession of their Christian belief in these words : ' I, A. B., profess faith in God the Fathei', and in Jesus Christ his eternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God, blessed for evermore.' " H. EXETER. No. 17. The Bill as it finally passed, with explanatory notes. The alterations are in italics. For bill as introduced see p. 497. Recital of 1 W. and M., sess. 1, c. 18 ; 19 G. 3, c. 44 ; 53 G. 3, c. 160; 6G. 1 (I.); 57 G. 3, c. 70 (I). 796 And whereas prior to the passing of the said recited acts respec- tively, as well as subsequently thereto, certain meeting-houses for the worship of God, and Sunday or day schools (not being grammar schools), and other charitable foundations, were founded or used in England and Wales and Ireland respectively for purposes beneficial to persons dissenting from the Church of England and the Church of Ireland and the United Church of England and Ireland respectively, which were unlawful prior to the passing of those acts respectively, but which by those acts respectively were made no longer unlawful. It is enacted I. That with respect to the meeting-houses, schools and other charitable foundations so founded or used as aforesaid, and the persons holding or enjoying the benefit thereof respectively, such acts, and all deeds or documents relating to such charitable foundations, shall be construed as if the said acts had been in force respectively at the respective times of founding or using such meeting-houses, schools and other charitable foundations as aforesaid. 2. That x so far as no particular religious doctrines or opinions, or mode of2 regulating worship, shall3 on the face of the will,3 deed, or other instrument declaring the trusts of any meeting-house4 for the worship of God by persons dissenting as aforesaid, either in express terms, 3 or by reference to some book or other document as containing such doctrines or opinions or mode of regulating worship, be required to be taught 5 or observed or be forbidden to be taught or observed therein, the usage for twenty-five years 6 immediately preceding any suit relating to such meeting-house of the congregation frequenting the same, shall be taken as conclusive evidence 7 that such religious doctrines or opinions or mode of worship as have for such period been taught or observed in such meeting-house, may properly be taught or observed in such 'meeting- house, 8 and the right or title of the congregation to hold such meeting- 1 "So far as." To meet cases like the General Baptists, who have in their deed one provision, i.e., for the observance of adult baptism, and no other. They asked for this alteration. 2 " Regulating." At the request of the Wesleyans. They have no mode of worship expressed in their deeds, but a reference to their Conference as regulating it. 3 "Will" or "other instrument," "or by refei-ence to some book." Also at the request of the Wesleyans. In their deeds doctrines are not set out, but there is a reference inserted to four volumes of Mr Wesley's sermons as containing them. " WU1" was in deference to a criticism on the bill in the Jurist. 4 "Meeting-house for worship of God," instead of "such meeting-house." _To make it clear that all chapels built after 1813 are to be within the clause. 5 "Forbidden to be taught," added at the request of the Wesleyans. 6 "Twenty-five years immediately before suit." To obviate objections made in the Commons of uncertainty as to what period usage was to relate. ' "That such religious doctrines as have been taught," &c, may be taught. To meet an objection made particularly by Lord Sandon and Mr Cardwell (whose amend- ment this is), that otherwise the present opinion of a congregation might be imposed on the chapel in perpetuity. 8 To carry out more fully the same object. 797 house, together with any burial-ground, Sunday or day school or minister's house attached thereto ; and any fund for the benefit of such congregation, or of the minister or other officer of such congregation, or of the widow of any such minister, shall not be called in question on account of the doctrines or opinions or mode of worship so taught or observed in such meeting-house : 9 Provided nevertheless, That where any such minister s house, school or fund as aforesaid shall be given or created by any will, deed or other instrument, which shall declare in express terms, or by such reference as aforesaid, the particular religious doctrines or opinions, for the promotion of which such ministers house, school or fund is intended, then and in every such case such ministers house, school or fund shall be applied to the promoting of the doctrines or opinions so specified, any usage of the congregation to the contrary notwithstanding. 3. Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect 10 any judgment, order or decree already pronounced by any court of law or equity ; but that in any suit which shall be n a suit by information only, and not by bill, and wherein no decree shall have been pronounced, and which may be pending at the time of the passing of this act, it shall be lawful for any defendant or defendants for whom the provisions of this act would have afforded a valid defence if such suit had been commenced ajter the passing of this act, to apply to the court wherein such suit shall be pending ; and such court is hereby authorized and required, upon being satisfied by affidavit or otherwise that such suit is so within the operation of this act, to make such order therein as shall give such defendant or defendants the benefit of this act ; and in all cases in which any suit noio pending shall be stayed or dismissed in consequence of this act, the costs thereof shall be paid by the defendants, or out of the pro- perty in question therein, in such manner as the court shall direct. No. 18. The birth years and death years of the Divines, quoted or referred to in the Proofs, as favouring some assertion advanced there. The dates to be borne in mind with reference to all authorities are 1710 as the close of the chapel-building period, and 1704 as the date of Lady Hewley's chief foundation. 9 Proviso added at instance of Mr Hardy. To meet the possible case of some accretion having been given, with an express doctrinal purpose in the accretion deed, to sonic chapel without a doctrinal trust deed. 10 The words "Eight or title to property derived under or by virtue of," were omitted, to make it clear that Lady Hewley's case was not to be affected by the Bill ; for though there has been a judgment, no right to property has been yet derived in that suit. u "Suit by information," &c. To make it clear that pending suits as to private rights, if there were such, should not be affected. 798 William Chillingworth, 1602—1644. John Hales (the ever-memorable) 1584 — 1656. Edward Bowles, York, 1613—1662. Bishop Jeremy Taylor (Down and Connor), 1613 — 1667. Dr. Thomas Manton, 1620—1677. Thomas Brooks, died 1680. Bishop John Pearson, (Chester), 1613 — 1686. Richard Baxter, Blackfriars, 1615 — 1691. Charles Morton, Newington, 1626, went to New England 1688. Archbishop John Tillotson, (Canterbury), 1630 — 1694. Oliver Heywood, Northowram, 1629 — 1702. John Howe, Silver Street, 1630 — 1705. John Chorlton, Manchester, died 1705. Matthew Warren, Taunton, died 1706. Thomas Doolittle, Monkwell Street, died 1707. Francis Tallents, Shrewsbury, 1629—1708. Lady Hewley, 1627—1710. Richard Stretton, York, 1632—1712. Matthew Henry, Chester and Hackney, 1714. Bishop Gilbert Burnet, (Salisbury), 1643—1715. John Shower, Old Jewry, 1657—1715. Dr. Robert South, 1633—1716. Dr. Daniel Williams, Hand Alley, 1644—1716. James Coningham, Manchester, died 1716. Henry Moore, Bridgewater, died 1717. Samuel Jones, Tewkesbury, died about 1717. James Pierce, Exeter, 1673 — 1726. Clerk Oldsworth, Crosby Square, died 1726. William Tong, Salters' Hall, 1662—1727. Benjamin Bennet, Newcastle, 1674 — 1726. Dr. Joshua Oldfield, St. Thomas's, 1656—1729. Dr. Samuel Clarke, St. James's Westminster, 1675 — 1729. Samuel Bury, Bristol, died 1730. Dr. John Evans, Hand Alley, 1696—1730. Dr. Thomas Colton, York, 1658—1731. Bishop Fx-ancis Atterbury, (Rochester), 1662 — 1731. Dr. Edmund Calamy, Prince's Street, Westminster, 1671 — 1732. Simon Browne, Old Jewry, 1680 — 1732. Henry Grove, Taunton, 1683 — 1738. Bishop Francis Hare, (Chichester), died 1740. Dr. William Harris, Crouched Friars, 1675 — 1740. John Newman, Salters' Hall, 1676 — 1741. Thomas Emlyn, Dublin, 1663—1743. 799 Dr. Jeremiah Hunt, Pinners' Hall, 1678—1744. Dr. Samuel Wright, Carter Lane, 1683—1746. Bishop Edmund Gibson, (London) 1670 — 1748. Dr. Isaac Watts, Bury Street, 1674—1748. Dr. Obadiah Hughes, Prince's Street, 1695—1751. Dr. Philip Doddridge, Northampton, 1702 — 1751. William Whiston, Cambridge, 1667—1752. Bishop Joseph Butler, (Durham), 1692—1752. Dr. Charles Botheratn, Kendal, died 1752. Moses Lowman, Clapham, 1680 — 1752. Dr. James Foster, Pinners' Hall, 1647 — 1753. Samuel Bourn, Birmingham, 1689—1754. Dr. Ebenezer Latham, Findern, died 1754. Timothy Jollie, jun., Miles's Lane, 1693 — 1757. Dr. Benjamin Grosvenor, Crosby Square, 1695 — 1758. Bishop Bobert Clayton, (Clogher), 1695—1758. Bishop Benjamin Hoadley, (Winchester), 1676 — 1761. Bishop Thomas Sherlock, (London), 1678 — 1761. Dr. John Taylor, Norwich and Warrington, died 1761. Dr. George Benson, St. John's Court, Southwark, 1699 — 1762. John Barker, Hackney, 1682 — 1762. Dr. Samuel Chandler, 1693—1766. Dr. Bichard Lardner, Crouched Friars, 1684 — 1768. Archbishop Thomas Seeker, (Canterbury), 1693 — 1770. Dr. Caleb Fleming, Bartkolemow Close and Pinners' Hall, 1698 — 1779. Micaiah Towgood, Exeter, 1700 — 1782. Dr. Andrew Kippis, Westminster, 1725 — 1795. Professor Hey, Cambridge, 1734 — 1815. Bishop Bichard Watson, (Llandaff), 1736—1816. Bishop George Tomline (Winchester), 1750 — 1827. It was at one time determined to give in this Appendix all the quotations which are only referred to at pp. 71-2, but they do not carry the matter further than those from Calamy and Jollie, p. 72, and the volumes quoted from were all published too late fairly to bear upon the point in question. 800 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. p. 10, 1. 17. Dr. Evans's list No. 2 of the Appendix shows 1200 chapels, 750 Presbyterian, 200 Independent, and 250 Baptist. One chapel is reckoned for every group of villages having one minister between them, on the supposition that there would be a chapel in the one in which the minister was stationed, but that in the others there would be only preaching rooms. p. 15, 1. 11. The ministers and elders in Essex were, in 1647-8, divided into 14 classes, by ordinance of the Committee of Lords and Commons. Classes seem to have been formed of congregations in other parts without districts of country being assigned to them. p. 15, 1. 18. Parliament confirmed and sanctioned the Westminster Confession as respected doctrines, but not as regards discipline. The Presbyterian form of Church government never was even theoretically constituted the national religion. The Middlesex Provincial Assembly or Synod did not meet after 1655. Particulars will be found in Neal's History. p. 17, 1. 17 from bottom. No instance seems to have been brought to light of elders having, after the restoration, had this power, or of their exercising any definite functions. p. 19, 1. 13 from bottom. York is not in the West Riding. 10 from bottom : There was also one for Shropshire and the northern counties of Wales. p. 19, 1. 22. Dr. Calamy says that through the Salters' Hall meeting " the united became the divided ministers," implying that the union had continued up to that time. In London Independent ministers joined in examining Presbyterian ministers on their "passing trials" as in Dr. Grosvenor's case in 1699, and in their ordinations or settlements, as in Mr Showers' s on p. 725. p. 19, 1. 23. The present Old Meeting at Dukinfield was always Presbyterian ; the Independent congregation, one of the first in the kingdom, met in a room in Dukinfield Hall. The congregation at Pinners' Hall London, the Upper Meeting, Sheffield, and Dean Row Cheshire, as well as Call Lane, Leeds, now Socinian, were originally Independent. That at Rotherham seems to have been originally Pres- byterian. p. 28, 1. 23. All those doubts are cleared up in No. 4 of the Appendix. 801 p. 34, 1. 11 from bottom. The state of things between 1714 and 1741 is well shown by extracts from Mrs Savage's Diary, published by Sir J. B. Williams in the Congregational Magazine for 1831. She mentions the following occurrences : 1714 and 1726, sermons of Mi- Gardner of Chester ; 1714-1730 sermons of Mr Berry of Shrewsbury ; 1725 death of Mr Beynon of Whitchurch ; 1723-1741 sermons of Mr Dobson of Shrewsbury, and his death in 1743; 172G opening of new chapel at Namptwich, when Mr Owen of Warrington, and Mr Gardner preached; 1728 ordination of Mr Colthurst of Whitchurch, in which, in addition to Mr Berry and Mr Dobson, Mr Kenrick of Wrexham (his sermons are mentioned till 1731), Mr Venables of Oswestry, and Mr Holland of Wem, took part ; 1729 Mr Haines becoming Mrs Savage's minister at Namptwich, death of Mr Gee of Leicester; 1730 death of Mr Bury of Bristol; 1730 sermon of Mr Braddock, ordination of Mr Hugh Worthington of Dean Row and Mr Nichols, (of whom no particulars are stated), in which Mr Gardner of Chester, and Mr Wor- thington, senr., (qy. of Durham) took part ; as to the Mr Worthington ordained seethe Cheshire volume ; 1731 sermon of Mr Fleming, (qy. of Bridgnorth) ; 1739 death of Mr Colthurst of Knutsford ; 1740 ordina- tion of Mr Phillips of Bromsgrove, when twenty-five ministers were present; 1741 death of Mr Warner of Walsall; 1742 deaths of Mr Stokes of Dudley, Mr Warren of Coventry, and Mr Bradshaw of Kidderminster ; 1743 ordination at Dudley of Mr Hancox of Dudley, and Mr Fownes of Cradley ; 1746 death of Mr Mattocks of Birmingham. Mrs Savage's son-in-law, Mr Witton of Westbromwich, preached the funeral sermons of Mr Warner and Mr Mattocks. There can be no doubt of Mrs Savage being thoroughly evangelical, (in these extracts she mentions in 1732 saying over the Assembly's Catechism to herself in bed) ; and as she speaks of all these ministers with appro- bation, they must all have been orthodox in her time, though it is asserted that Mr Gardner and Mr Witton became Arians before their deaths. Several of the others may have been the last ministers of their chapels who were orthodox. Of all the ministers here mentioned Mr Dobson was the only Independent, the Dissenters in the district being almost exclusively Presbyterians. On his retirement his congre- gation joined Mr Berry's Presbyterian one. p. 44, 1. 5 from bottom, " in many chapels " should be added, for no doubt Dr. Caleb Fleming and two or three more preached Socinian notions before Dr. Priestley's time. p. 59, 1. 15 from bottom. After the Revolution church covenants were eutered into, chiefly by Independent churches, and indeed they are scarcely consistent with the laxity of Presbyterian congregations. The church at Worcester entered into one which they consider to 100 802 have been formed on Mr Baxter's model, and they were not at that time Independents. It appears from the minutes of the Cheshire Asso- ciation (quoted by Mr Urwick in the Cheshire volume), that in June 30th, 1G91, Matthew Henry being then present for the first time, " a project was drawn up for a rule to be observed in the admission of members into church communion, particularly into the Lord's Supper for God's glory and godly edifying, and approved of and consented to by all the members then present, viz. : " 1. That such as do desire communion with us come to discourse the minister, who, upon satisfaction received concerning them, is to propound them to the church, and the church is to take competent time to consider of their fitness. 2. Upon the church's satisfaction with them, we take their silence for satisfaction, the persons to be received in manner following. " 2. " Let the persons present themselves at a convenient church meeting, and there acknowledge and renew their baptismal covenant, and consent to walk in communion with that church, according to gospel order. " 3. That the minister is solemnly to pray for them and admit them with the church's' consent, whereupon minister and people are mutually to discharge their duty to one another." This is real Independency, and nothing is said as to elders. p. 61, 1. 4. In the 8th volume of the Protestant Dissenters' Maga- zine for 1799, p. 234, is a letter to the Editor, from E. T. J., of London, in these words : " Sir, Induced by your review of Mr [Rowland] Hill's Tour, I perused it, and I think with you that he is inaccurate in his distinctions between the different denominations of Dissenting Protes- tants. Some years ago I remember a question proposed by a counsellor learned in the law to a late country minister, to which the enclosed is an answer. It was occasioned by several law suits then taking place about the settlement of ministers reputedly Independents in meeting- houses said to be Presbyterian. On one of these trials a witness declared that he was in judgment an Independent, but said he was the minister of a Presbyterian congregation, because there was no difference between them, and the verdict for the defendant being brought up to the Court of King's Bench for revisal, Lord Mansfield'"' said he could not perceive where the difference lay, nay, a celebrated dissenting barrister * That no other trace remains of the decision in the text than this letter is not to be wondered at ; the law reporters would think it below their notice. Such a judgment was what might have been expected from Lord Mansfield ; he would know what Presby- terianism was in Scotland, and would require little evidence to shew him the true state of the case, as to the English denominations ; and he never allowed a mere name tu counterbalance fact. Lawyers no doubt have cause for describing Lord Mansfield as having broken in upon the old law of real property, but Dissenters should not forget that he put them on a new footing by declaring that they were established by the 803 confessed lie knew of none." Mr Hill's remarks in his Tour relate to real Presbyterianism as it is found in Scotland, and though he notices the English Presbyterians of the time of the civil war, he does not refer to those of his time. The author of the letter communicated by E. T. J. describes the Presbyterians of Scotland, and the Independents, He says of the original Independents : " Their minister was one of their own body, chosen from among themselves, and appointed by themselves, or if they chose one that was a member of another congre- gation to be their minister, he must first of all be dismissed from the society he belonged to, and commence a regular member of the society he was to be ruler of before he could be installed (sic) into that office," he adds, " each church had a ruling elder." With regard to the English Presbyterians, he says that "time has meliorated" them ; that their ministers' tenure of office is durante beneplacito populi, [contrary to the general opinion stated, p. 18, sup. ;] that " the prerogative of sending per- sons out, or recommending them to preach, is not in the smallest degree in the people, but the ministers within a certain district or connection settle it ;" that " a minister is not ordained to any particular church, but simply as a minister;" and that "if any person wants to be admitted to the Sacrament, (which is usually styled the being a member), the method is to satisfy the minister, and then he gets in, for though in some places the minister tells the people ' That such or such persons want to go with them to the Sacrament, and he hopes they have no objection ;' yet this is all a matter of form or enquiry if they know any thing against their moral character : the chief business is with the minister, the rest abide by his determination." He concludes from this representation " I presume then that there is as much difference between a genuine Independent church and a genuine Presbyterian one as between a complete democracy, and any other kind of government you can specify : I say a genuine Independent and a genuine Presbyterian, for there are cases in which the Presbyterians have veered towards the Independents, and others in which the Independents have inclined towards the Presby- terians Many of [the Independents] follow the Presby- terians of late in the admission of ministers, and differ but little in that of members, for the minister reads a written application of the person to him requesting admission, and this alone is implicitly acquiesced in by the people." This letter is signed E.G., and the writer describes himself as a member of a "strict, stiff, or rigid Independent church, whu-h, Toleration Act. It was also his good fortune to have the opportunity of proclaiming to the world that no man breathing the ail- of England could remain a slave, and it was the better said that he gave no authority for it. The other boast of his admirers, that he was the father of our commercial law, amounts to little when it is recollected that it is said to be worse than that of any other civilised country ; this however is no doubt the fault of juries, and in particular of special juries of London merchants. 804 according to records originated about the latter end of Charles the First's reign." In the same volume is a letter from another correspondent, in refer- ence to E. T. J.'s letter, and in recommendation of real Presbyterianism. He points out the original principles of that system, not men- tioning the eldership, and adds, "the nominal Presbyterian ministers and congregations in England in the present day, even those who are avowedly of Unitarian and Arminian principles, are virtually and ipso facto as much Independents as the most rigid Calvinists of that denomination." p. 62. Those who examined the trust deeds of Independent chapels on behalf of the Congregational Board, prior to its sanction of their being begged for in London, when it took that trouble on itself, assert that none of the deeds of the old Independent chapels contained any specification of doctrine, but that the framers contented themselves with declaring that the chapel was for the use of Independents or Protestant Dissenters. p. G6, 1. 10 from bottom. This is an admission of the existence of the associations in imitation of the Happy Union. p. 78, 1. 1. See Appendix No. 8, p. 724. p. 81, 1. 21. One of the questions which, in accordance with the Assembly's Directory, was put to Presbyterian ministers on their ordination, was in these words : " Do you promise you will be zealous and faithful in the defence of truth and unity against error and schism 1" This question continued to be put long after it had lost all meaning, or at least all effect. As early as 1716 Mr (afterwards Dr.) John Taylor of Kirkstead, in Lincolnshire, on his ordination by the ministers of Derby- shire, answered it thus : " I do promise, through God's assistance, that I will in a manner consistent with Christian love and charity, maintain the truths of the Gospel, especially such as are beyond controversy determined in the Holy Scriptures, and will strive to inculcate them upon the minds of all with whom I have to do. I will heartily endeavour to propagate Christian charity, and shall see them with real pleasure when I see believers maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." The ministers who signed the certificates were : Rob. Fern [Worksworth], G. Jones [Hatherlow, Cheshire,] John Hardy [q. Nottingham], John Ashe [Ashford, see Prot. Diss. Mag. v. 401], John Thomas [Chesterfield], George Lowe [charge unknown], J. A. Clegge, Scribe [Chapel le Frith]. What could be done in respect of such an answer as this 1 p, 86, 1. G. Dr. Jennings contracted great odium by dismissing a student on the ground of his opinions being erroneous. p. 88, 1. 15 from bottom. The " Apostle's Creed" seems here treated as Trinitarian. p. 119, 1. 11 from bottom. Mr Stretton's son, Richard, who died young, was in 1688 minister of an Independent congregation in York Buildings. p. 126, 1. 4 from bottom. The Presbyterian chapels at Swan land and Cottingham are now in possession of Independents, and the chapel at Beverley seems from Dr. Evans's list to have been an Indepen- dent one in his time. p. 126, 1. 9. "Mr Root of York," is named by the Rev. Joseph Carpenter of Warwick, afterwards of Worcester, with Mr Rogerson of Derby, Mr Pickard of London, Mr Ward, then of Whitney Oxford- shire, afterwards of Taunton, and Maid Lane Southwark, Mr Hampson of Banbury, Mr (afterwards Dr.) Chandler, and Dr. Benson, in a manner which shows none of them were orthodox. Mr Carpenter, (then of Warwick), in a letter of 1743, refers, with all Mr Bourn's indignation, to the candidate at Kidderminster, who it appears was Mr Statham, being questioned in the manner mentioned at p. 191 ; and in the same letter he refers to the ordination at Dudley, mentioned in p. 801, but gives us no information as to it, except that Dr. Latham was to preside at it. p. 153. Mr Brooks's works have been republished lately by Nichol. p. 163. The moderation and charity which Matthew Henry noticed in the Dissenters may be taken to have been exercised in regard to the Establishment, in accordance with a tract of his, which is next quoted in the Proofs, as if by an unknown author. Matthew Henry forfeited all pretensions to "liberality" by his sermon at Mr Samuel Clarke's ordination, in which he associated " those that deny the Trinity, the Godhead of Christ, and his satisfaction," with " those that question the being of a God." The two books which best display the spirit and opinions of the English Presbyterians, are Matthew Henry's life of his father Philip Henry, and Mr Tong's life of Matthew Henry ; but neither of them is referred to in the Proofs ; instead of this in the volume of the debates, p. 144, it is mentioned that 110 descendants of Philip Henry had signed petitions in favour of the bill. The fact and knowledge of their descent from this old confessor was rendered cer- tain by a list of his posterity printed by a lady, one of their number. It would have been more to the poiut to have referred to the 5th number of the Appendix to Sir J. B. Williams's edition of his life, which contains the skeleton of a most able argument in support of the "Saviour's Deity," by the old confessor, who died in 1696. p. 166, 1. 22. Jeremiah Burroughs was an Independent. pp. 168 and 169. Mr Bury's and Mr Bennet's opinions may be learnt from the quotations from their works in the Appendix No. 1. 806 p. 187, I. 4. By the non-use of articles of faith, the Independents have preserved the ideas, instead of the phrases, of their faith ; each generation expresses those ideas according to its own habits of thought and speech, thus escaping expressions which, having no longer their original meaning, mislead the honest and afford the disingenuous the means of deceiving. No communion really trusts creeds, either as safe- guards or as tests ; for the true interpretation of them is sedulously incul- cated in comments and glosses ; and a candidate's opinions are not ascer- tained by subscription, but by searching questions. Yet, where there is a written standard, the words of it, with all their ambiguities and inconsistencies, which may have been intended by the framers, are the sole authority, and there can be no authoritative construction of them, or that would iu its turn, with all its defects, become the standard. Thus words, not ideas, form the terms of union in other Protestant communities, and are the authority in the Greek and Latin chui-cbes. It seems peculiarly unfair to require subscription to a written form, and also an explanation of it in other words. Independents trust to the living ideas in the minds which have to decide on soundness or unsound- ness of doctrine, and the appeal is to the Bible only. Catechisms or other human compositions may be referred to, not as conclusive, but only arguments in verecundiam ; they have influence without authority. This habit of immediate appeal to the Bible, as interpreted by right reason, without rejection of any help to the interpretation of it, and without any check to free enquiry into its real meaning, tends to keep the articles of faith few and simple, and to bring men continually back to first principles. Besides, a man compelled to state his belief in his own words soon tests the clearness of his own notions, and learns to judge of another person's statements. But perhaps only the Congrega- tional polity can dispense with a written standard, just as we are now told that a sect only, and not a church, can have definite doctrines. p. 18-5, 1. 11 from end. Dr. Daniel Williams, in 1712, uses these expressions : " Tis imposition of unscriptural forms of words in matters of faith that has constantly disturbed the church ever since the three first and purest ages of Christianity. The method taken among us is certainly much more for the interest of the Church of Christ than to cramp men with any particular form by whomsoever invented." These are extracts from the preface to the services at Mr (afterwards Dr.) Samuel Clarke's ordination at St. Alban's, which has been always accepted as a true expression of Presbyterian notions. The Doctor is not writing on the use of creeds, but in praise of the Presbyterian method of ordination, being precisely that prescribed by the Westmin- ster Assembly, which can be accused of anything rather than indifference to standards of faith. He states that the ordination takes place " if 807 the confession be esteemed orthodox," but does not mention the standard of orthodoxy, except that he refers to the agreement of a confession with the doctrines of the Church of England and other reformed churches, that is, with their standards. p. 187, last line. See a series of letters in the Cong. Mag. for 1837. p. 197. The chapel at Kendal is as yet kept open by its large endowment. The fifteen northern ministers whose names appear in the distribution list for 1728 are: Thomas Somervaile, Berwick; John Horsley, Morpeth ; Michael Hope, Huddlescough ; Robert Brown,* William Wood, Darlington ; Joseph Jacques,* John Crosier or Bo.sicr, Little Hazle ; James Bell, Coquet Water ; David Seaton, Ayton in Cleveland ; Thomas Laich, Framlingtoii ; Daniel Atkin, Penruddock Thomas Willis, Brunton ; John Chisholme, Birdhope Craig ; John Deans, North Tyne ; Jonathan Hazle, Alnwick. The opinions of the other Judges having been given at such length, Lord Eldon's judgment must be given more at length : p. 216, 1. 7. " But there is another view in which the case should be con- sidered, and it is this, that where an institution exists for the purpose of reli- gious worship, and it cannot be discovered from the deed declaring the trust what form or species of religious worship was intended, the court can find no other means of deciding the question, than through the medium of an inquiry into what has been the usage of the congregation in res- pect to it ; and, if the usage turns out upon inquiry to be such as can be supported, I take it to be the duty of the court to administer the trust in such a manner as best to establish the usage, considering it as a matter of implied contract between the members of that congregation. But if, on the other hand, it turns out, (and I think that this point was settled in a case which lately came before the House of Lords by way of appeal out of Scotland), that the institution was established for the express purpose of such form of religious worship, or the teaching of such particular doctrines as the founder has thought most conformable to the principles of the Christian religion, I do not apprehend that it is in the power of individuals, having the management of that institution, at any time to alter the purpose for which it was founded, or to say to the remaining members, ' We have changed our opinions, and you, who assemble in this place for the purpose of hearing the doctrines, and joining in the worship, pi-escribed by the founder, shall no longer enjoy the benefit he intended for you unless you conform to the alteration which has taken place in our opinions.' In such a case, therefore, I apprehend, considering it as settled by the authority of that I have already referred to, that where a congregation become dissentient among themselves, the nature of the original institution must alone be looked * No place is mentioned in connection with these names. 808 to, as the guide for the decision of the court, and that to refer to any- other criterion, as to the sense of the existing majority, would be to make a new institution, which is altogether beyond the reach, and inconsistent with the duties and character of this court. " In this view of the case, it is of the first importance to see what the record before the court says upon the subject of the original institu- tion Without entering into what may be the effect of the late statute repealing several then existing laws on the subject ; (a question which it is not for me, sitting in a court of equity, to determine, and which would certainly be much better decided by the judges of the courts of common law), without even so much as looking to the point, whether it be, or be not legal, at this day, to impugn the doctrine of the Trinity, (although that is a point upon which indeed I have an opinion, only I do not find myself called upon now to declare it), what I have now to enquire is, whether the deed creating the trust does, or does not, upon the face of it, (regard being had to that which the Toleration Act at the time of its execution permitted, or forbade, with respect to doc- trine), bear a decided manifestation that the doctrines intended by that deed to be inculcated in this chapel were Trinitarian ] Because, if that were originally the case, and if any number of the trustees are now seekino- to fasten on this institution the promulgation of doctrines con- trary to those which, it is thus manifest, were intended by the founders, I apprehend that they are seeking to do that which they have no power to do and which neither they, nor all the other members of the congre- gation can call upon a single remaining trustee to effectuate. In this view of the case, also supposing even that at the time of the establish- ment of this institution, it had been legal to impugn the doctrine of the Trinity, yet if the institution had been established for Trinitarian pur- poses, it could not now be converted to uses which are Anti-Triuitarian. For (meaning however, to speak with all due reverence on such a subject) to allow such a conversion, would be to allow a trust for the benefit of A. to be diverted to the benefit of B. And the question then resolves itself into this, whether such a conversion, in the case of a trust, can possibly be supported. If therefore this appears, on the face of the deeds, to be the nature of the pi-esent case, as I am inclined to believe it does, it disposes of the question ; affording a short and direct reason for not refusing the interference of the court. " It becomes here necessary (not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on some of the doctrinal points argued at the bar, but in order to see what may be collected by way of fair inference, as to the meaning of the original founders), after observing that the first trust-deed is dated in 1701, to state that, in the year 1689 (1 Will, and Mary) was passed the act commonly called the Toleration Act, which exempted certain 809 persons, coming under the description of Protestant Dissenters, from the penalties of certain laws therein mentioned ; and, as I again observe, the object seems to have been merely as stated in the title of the act, viz., ' to exempt His Majesty's Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of England from the penalties' of the laws therein mentioned ; not appearing, therefore, either upon the terms or substance of it, to have done, or to have intended to do, any more — leaving the Common Law exactly as it was with resjject to all common-law offences against religion or religious establishments. And in that act there is an express provision, s. 17." "It is to be observed that the opinions, the publication of which in any of the modes specified it is the intention of this act (the Blasphemy Act) to prevent, are not thereby expressed to be opinions contrary to those of the Church of England, but contrary to the Christian religion. And the act proceeds to point out more precisely what is the nature of those opinions which it thus declares to be contrary to the Christian religion, viz., the denial of any one of the Persons in the Holy Trinity to be God, &c. It is further to be observed, that the information which was to lead to conviction, where the consequences were so extremely penal, is by the statute required, (in the case, at least, of words spoken,) to be within three months of the time of the words being spoken, and that an opportunity is also given to the offender publicly to renounce his error in the same court where he had been convicted, and thereupon to be discharged from all penalties incurred by such conviction. There can be no doubt, (at least so I apprehend,) that, prior to this statute, blasphemy was an offence punishable at Common Law ; and it is impos- sible to contend, (as it appears to me,) that (whether the preamble is, or is not, to be taken as a ground of ascertaining that the doctrine repro- bated in the enacting parts amounts to blasphemy — on which it does not become me to give an opinion) the penalties inflicted by the statute give any foundation for supposing that there could no longer exist a punish- ment for blasphemy at Common Law, independent of the statute. On the contrary, the Common Law is left by the statute exactly as it was before the statute passed. " The late act, which repealed this statute of William, also repeals cer- tain acts against blasphemy in Scotland, which are therein particularised. [His lordship then read them.] These statutes remained in force till the 53rd year of his present Majesty, and then the act passed, which repealed the excepting clause of the Toleration Act, which repealed the statute of the 9th and 10th of William, (so far as relates to the denying the doctrine of the Trinity,) and which repealed the Scottish statutes; and I should observe that there did not (upon the occasion of passing the act in question) seem to be any difference of opiuion among the members of 101 810 either house of parliament, but that they all agreed, (without entering into the consideration of the question, as to whether it were or were not an offence against the Common Law, or whether the common-law punishment, if any existed, had been taken away by the statutes which it was intended to repeal,) that the penalties, upon that which was considered as blasphemy by the 9th and 10th of William and by the •Scottish statute, enacted by those statutes, were penalties which it was very difficult to say were proper to be inflicted. The act of the 53rd of the King therefore did what I have stated ; but I apprehend that it left the Common Law exactly where it was ; and, conceiving the object of this information to be as I have already represented it to be; and, remembering that, (whatever may have been stated at the bar, with respect to the question of what is, or what is not, criminal in the con- duct of the parties,) I (sitting here) can only administer the civil rights of the parties, this court having no office to determine what is or is not an offence or crime, except where the question arises, as of necessity, by its being called upon to administer trusts, or regulate civil rights, which are involved in its decision ; I will therefore confine myself entirely to the consideration of the civil question, namely, what, in respect to doctrine, was the intent of the founder of this charity. "It must be recollected that, by the Toleration Act, the benefit of that act was declared not to extend to persons impugning the doctrine of the Trinity. That act passed in 1689 : and in 1701 (shortly after the opinions in question had been thus expressly declared by the legislature not to be proper subjects for the toleration which the legislature had been granting to every other class of Dissenters) the first of those deeds upon which the questions in the present cause arise, was executed. " [His lordship then read the deed of the 30th of October, 1701, from the answer, observing the allegation in the answer that the feoffment was followed by livery of seisin, a circumstance which, his lordship said, he did not see alleged, or that it could be made out, as to some of the subsequent feoffments ; and upon the pm*pose for which the meeting- house-was declared to be erected, viz., 'for the worship and service of Cod,' his lordship remarked that the terms were very general.] "Several passages of this indenture have been particularly taken notice of in the course of the discussion at the bai\ There is quite sufficient of allegation in the information to show that it was a-body of Protestant Dissenters who established this meeting-house, in order to have preached in it the religious doctrines to which they were attached ; and more especially, if it cannot be said for the express purpose of inculcating the doctrines of the Trinity, yet that they were Dissenters entertaining such a class of opinions, as that the doctrine of Unitarian ism would be directly at variance with their purpose in founding this 811 meeting-house. I observe upon this particularly ; because I take it that, if land or money were given (in such a way as would be legal notwith- standing the statutes concerning dispositions to charitable uses) for the purpose of building a church or a house, or otherwise for the maintain- ing and propagating the worship of God, and if there were nothing more precise in the case, this court would execute such a trust by making it a provision for maintaining and propagating the established religion of the country. It is also clearly settled that if a fund, real or pei'sonal, be given in such a way that the purpose be clearly expressed to be that of maintaining a society of Protestant Dissenters, (promoting no doctrines contrary to law, although such as may be at variance with the doctrines of the established religion), it is then the duty of this court to carry such a trust as that into execution, and to administer it according to the intent of the founders. In this case it is impossible to doubt that the trust was originally created for the purpose of maintaining a Protestant Dissenting institution ; and it would be doing violence to the intention of the parties to these deeds to say that the worship and service of God being the object expressed by them, the trust must be administered in such a way as to maintain the religion of the established church. Nevertheless I take it from the experience of many years in this court, that if any body of persons mean to create a trust of land or money, in such a manner as to render the gift effectual, and to call upon this court to administer it according to the intent of the foundation, whether that trust has religion for its object or not, it is incumbent on them, in the instrument by which they endeavour to create that trust, to let the court know enough of the nature of the trust to enable the court to execute it ; and therefore where a body of Protestant Dissenters have established a trust without any precise definition of the object or mode of worship, I know no means the court has of ascertaining it except by looking to what has passed, and thereby collecting what may, by fair inference, be presumed to have been the intention of the founders. From this deed I can collect that the founders were Protestant Dissenters, and thence presume that their object was the maintenance of Protestant dissenting worship ; but I have nothing to inform me what species of doctrine this institution was intended to maintain, except as I may be able to infer from some of the clauses of the deed, and particularly from that clause which alludes to the possibility of the future prohibition by law of the worship thereby intended to be established, and also from that which relates to the binding effect of orders to be made by a majority of the Trustees, upon matters relating to the meeting-house only ; from which it should appear both that the founder meant to establish an institution which was not then contrary to law, and that they did not mean to invest in the Trustees, or the major 812 part of them, any right to vary the system or plan of doctrinal teaching which was to be maintained in this meeting-house according to their own discretion. "When I look to the date of the deed of 1701, and to the dates of the Toleration Act, and of the act of the 9th and 10th of King William, and also to the deed executed in 1742, which contains the same clause with the former, it is impossible to say that while the founders contem- plated the eventual abrogation of the existing system of Toleration, they were in fact intending to create by that very deed a system which was ajt that time illegal, and which only three years before, was excepted out of the Toleration Act, as a system unfit to be included in the Toleration which was extended by it to all other modes of Protestant dissent ; the legislature at that time intending to embrace all the doctrines that could be safely included in that Toleration. This clause therefore seems to afford extremely strong countenance to the allegation, that the institution was not intended to be for the maintenance of those opinions which impugn the doctrine of the Trinity. And with respect to the clause which invests the Trustees, or the major part of them, with the power of making orders from time to time upon matters relating to the meet- ing-house, I think it would be doing violence to all the prinoiples of construction upon which we act, to understand it as meaning that those ■trustees, or the major part of them, should have power to convert that meetinghouse, whenever they thought proper, into a meeting-house of a different description, and for teaching different doctrines from those of the persons who founded it, and by whom it was to be attended. I say that appears to me to be as inconsistent with the probable meaning of the original founders, as it would b6 to hold that they meant it should be converted, at the discretion of the Trustees, into a j)lace of worship according to the form and doctrines of the Church of England. " I repeat that I have nothing to do here in the way of pronouncing any opinion as to any religious doctrine whatever. This case must be discussed exactly as if it wer'e the case of a charity properly created, having no relation whatever to any religious purpose, but a case in which one party contends that the trust was originally for purposes of a parti- cular description, (and has a right so to contend), against another party who insists that it was originally for other purposes. And the court is bound to determine this question, if it arises. It would not perhaps be difficult to decide where the legal estate is ; but after that has been dis- posed of, there still remains the other question, viz., for what purpose that legal estate was vested in the persons in whom it now resides 1 For the court will not permit that purpose to be altered, unless it be obvious from the original nature of the institution, that it was meant to be capable of such alteration. 813 " Now where a clergyman is presented to a living in the Church of England, we know the duties committed to him, and the grounds upon which he is bound to execute those duties ; but as the justice of this country has, for the ease of men's consciences, permitted them to secede from the established church, and to form religious institutions for them- selves to a certain extent, it has become the duty of this coui-t and others of a like nature, to enforce the exeoution of trusts for such institutions, and to give the parties who are Trustees that relief which the legislature meant they should have. It is necessary therefore to look to the instru- ments, to know what are the trusts which the court is called upon to enforce the execution of ; and if the parties themselves do not give the information which is requisite, it is in vain to look for a prompt decision with reference to the point in controversy ; because, till inquiry has been made as to the nature of the trusts, a judge must remain in igno- rance of the duty he has to perform. Where then a charitable institution of this kind is founded, or say it were for a civil purpose, that we may the more temperately disouss the subject, I apprehend then, that where a man gives his money to such an institution for a civil purpose, one of the duties of this court is to take care that those who have the manage- ment of it shall apply it to no other purpose so long as it is capable of being applied according to the original intention. And if, upon enquiry, it shall be found that in this case the land was originally given, and the money originally subscribed, for the pm-pose of forming an institution such as the Attorney-General in his information has alleged that this institution should be, then those who object to any change in the insti- tution from its original purposes are not guilty of departing from the institution, but are only doing their duty in endeavouring to prevent such a departure from the purposes of the institution in others ; and, if the allegation is, that there has been such an alteration of sentiments on the part of the congregation, they certainly do throw great difficulties in the way of the courts carrying the trusts into execution in any manner whatever. " I must here again advert to the principle which was, I think, settled in the case to which I referred the other day as having come before the House of Lords on an appeal from Scotland, viz., that if any persons seeking the benefit of a trust for charitable purposes should incline to the adoption of a different system from that which was intended by the original donors and founders ; and if others of those who are interested think proper to adhere to the original system, the leaning of the court must be to support those adhering to the original system, and not to sacrifice the original system to any change of sentiment in the persons seeking alteration, however commendable that proposed alteration may be. Upon these grounds, I have nothing at all to do with the merits of 814 the original system, as it is the right of those who founded this meeting- house, and who gave their money and land for its establishment, to have the trusts continued as was at first intended. It is necessary, therefore, to make inquiries as to what was the nature of that original system ; and in the mean time, it is perfectly absurd that any ejectment should be going on. "For these reasons, I shall now grant an injunction, not till the hearing of the cause, but till the further order of this court ; the parties undertaking to account for the intermediate rents and profits, (except so far as is necessary to maintain the minister), and to obey such order as the court shall make. If the parties will submit to give that under- taking, I don't know how to go more promptly to a decision than by allowing the matter of inquiry to go to the Master immediately. I wish there were any shorter mode of deciding it ; and, if by Mandamus, or by any other proceeding you can propose, such a decision can be accom- plished, I shall have no objection." p. 235. It appears from Mr David's volume on Essex, that Adrian Mott of Weathersfield was, in 1648, appointed an elder of that place. Ady, the name of Lady Hewley's soi-disant heir-at-law, may have been originally the nursery contraction of Adrian. The Presbyterian descent of the family gives additional infamy to their attempt mentioned in the text. p. 252. The description of the defendants was copied fi'om an account of the hearing of the appeal in the Lords, published by them or their friends, and by inadvertence the word Presbyterian was not altered. p. 304, 1. 15 from bottom. When Lord Lyndhurst and the Judges' assessors were about to pronounce their opinions and decision, it was suggested by Mr Booth, the defendants' counsel, that the Attorney- General's consent to the irregularity should have been given in writing ; but his lordship held that the consent of the relators counsel was sufficient. It was no doubt hoped that the objection would disgust his lordship with the matter, and that the case would go on to the Lords, and would be there heard by Lord Cottenham as Chancellor. Cong. Mag. for 1836, p. 211. p. 321, 1. 18 from bottom. The defendants pressed for their costs of the appeal, but Lord Lyndhurst would not give them. He also refused to make an express order that the defendants' costs occasioned by their insufficient answers should be allowed. Their counsel seem to have acted throughout as if the common rules of the court were not to be put in force against them. Lord Lyndhurst, on this occasion, said, " I have been called to the decision of this qtiestion much against my will." These words throw light upon the part his lordship took as a legis- lator. Cong. Mag. 183(5, p. 22 L 815 p. 324, 1. 14. The solicitor to the trustees opposed the application to the Chancellor to have the Judges summoned to attend the hearing. Cong. Mag. 1837, p. 474. The statements respecting the cause in this Magazine may be taken to have been communicated by Mr Blower, who was a member of the congregation of which Mr Blackburn the editor was minister. p. 347, 1. 7 from bottom. See p. 220 as to Lord Eldon's reading all the deeds relating to the Wolverhampton chapel. p. 360, 1. 19. Emlyn seems to have been convicted at common law, but no doubt the Judges were not unwilling in such a matter to overlook Irish cases. p. 389, 1. 4 from bottom. The following extract from the Orthodox Presbyterian Magazine for June, 1830, reprinted from the Cong. Mag. for 1831, will show the extent of the Remonstrant Secession : " Upon Tuesday 2-3th May, seventeen Ministers, who have separated from the General Synod of Ulster, assembled, with sixteen Elders, in the Meeting-House of the First Arian Congregation, Belfast. Tliey have denominated themselves, 'The Remonstrant Synod of Ulster,' though not so numerous as some of our Presbyteries, and though embracing within the sphere of their ministry a population, we opine, which at the most liberal estimate would not outnumber two of our large Orthodox congregations. Still the loss of seventeen ministers and congregations appears to effect a formidable breach in the walls of out- Presbyterian Zion. But upon examination, we find the loss is more in name than in reality. The ministers indeed are gone; but generally speaking, a large portion of the congregations remain with the Synod of Ulster. As this is a matter of some statistical importance we shall, so far as we arc; able, give a statement of the relative numbers of the Arian and Orthodox parties. We begin at the head of their list. Narrowater was originally a small congregation, and we believe the majority adhere to the Synod of Ulster ; and will no doubt receive their countenance and protection. Newry has, some time ago, been divided into an Arian and Orthodox congregation : the latter, a flourishing settlement, with an active minister, remains with the Synod of Ulster. Kilmore is a considerable congregation, totally gone over to the Arians. Banbrid'je, a large congregation, has been separated into Arian and Orthodox. A promising young minister has just been ordained, who, together with an increasing and respectable congregation, adheres to the Synod. Garlingford is totally turned Arian; but, we belies*e, were a sheriff to make a return to a writ of enquiry, he might almost, with truth, declare of it — non est inventus. ft is a nominal congregation, that cmdd not furnish even an elder to their Synod. Dromore is a respectable congre- gation, totally withdrawn from the Synod. In that town, however, the 816 Synod retains an old and flourishing congregation. Grey- A bbey congrega- tion lias likewise been divided into Arian and orthodox. The latter has just obtained a site to build a house for worship. The people have sub- scribed most liberally ; they have obtained the countenance and assistance of individuals of influence ; and the orthodox congregation promises to get forward prosperously. We cannot speak of the relative numbers with any approach to confidence 5 but we are inclined to believe the divisions are nearly equal. Moira — This is a small congregation, totally gone over to the Arians : the orthodox members having, from time to time, joined the Seceders. Dunmurry, a respectable congregation, though not numerous, has, with a few exceptions, gone over to the Arians. Moneyrea — This congregation, including a respectable yeomanry, consi- derable also for its numbers, has entirely gone off to the Remon- strants : the orthodox members having, from time to time, with- drawn to the Seceders, or to the neighbouring congregations of the Svnod of Ulster. Bailee, once a large, now a small congrega- tion contains sevei'al members in respectable circumstances. It has totallv withdrawn from the Synod ; the few orthodox members have joined themselves to a neighbouring congregation. Cairncastle — This congregation has divided. The decided majority adhere to the Synod of Ulster. Templepatrick. — This was one of the original Presby- terian settlements of Ulster. Here preached Josiah Welsh, the grand- son of John Knox. Here was the scene of one of the blessed revivals of religion experienced in the early days of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. A lai'ge portion of the congregation still adheres to the Synod of Ulster, and to the orthodox sentiments of their fathers. They have experienced the liberal aid of Lord Templetown towards the support of a minister ; and we may still hope and trust, that the seed sown by the hand of Welsh, will grow up abundantly. Crumlin. — This congregation having given over its orthodox members to the new and prosperous congregation of Dundrod, the small remnant of Arians have entirely crone over to the Remonstrants. Glenarm. — This was originally a small congregation. In spite of difficulties, and in the face of much opposition, one half, at least, of the congregation, have adhered to the Synod of Ulster ; the other part have joined the Remonstrants. Ballycarry.— This was, perhaps, the earliest Presbyterian settlement in Ireland. We believe a great majority of the people have firmly adhered to the- Synod of Ulster. Newtonlimavady. — This congregation has been wasted to a shadow ; that shadow has totally gone off from the Synod of Ulster." The strength of this Secession is important from the influence which Dr. Montgomery of Dunmurry exercised over Sir Robert Peel. This it is quite clear from the latter's speeches was not produced by appeals to his reason ; and the Synod of Ulster party must have had warrant 817 for their belief that Sir Robert was alarmed by assurances of danger from the numbers who would be rendered discontented, if the chapels of the Presbytery of Antrim and of the Remonstrant Synod were restored to the faith of their founders. The Doctor's interest with his own political friends, (who were in office at his death in 18G5), sur- vived him, as his widow and daughter received a grant of pensions. Every person who had the pleasure of acquaintance with him, how- ever slight, could not be otherwise than pleased that his wishes in this respect were fulfilled, but the facts in both cases are proofs of his influence with government, by some method or other, whatever party was in power. p. 394, 1. 4. Extracts from the answer will be found at p. 743. p. 425, 1. 20. The examinations of Dr. Cooke and Dr. Reid, (see p. 407), have not been obtained, but no doubt they supported the chief Baron's assertion, still their opinions, if merely their own conclusions from authorities not mentioned, cannot be set against the Act of Synod j>. 377 ; see also Dr. Reid's opinion p. 380. p. 430, 1. 3 from bottom. Extracts from the answer are printed at p. 746. p. 480, 1. 8. The case as to this Widow's Fund is set out in Mrs. Armstrong's petition, p. 763. p. 497. When the Chancellor laid his bill on the table he stated that " he should make some explanatory remarks on the second read- ing." Lord Brougham immediately inquired whether he would extend the measure to Ireland, as if so, he (Lord Brougham) would not present a petition with which he had been entrusted. The Chancellor answered that " he intended, on the second reading, to state the particular operation of the bill, and the circumstances which had led to its introduction, and to propose that it should be referred to a committee, and the better way would be for Lord Brougham to present the petition, and it might be referred to the same committee.'' Such a bill should have been explained when introduced, but it could not have been brought forward more stealthily ; and it seems from the Chancellor's speech, p. 502, that on his silence some other law lord thought it necessary to state the principles on which it was founded. Lord Lyndhurst's original plan to refer the bill to a select committee con- firms the remarks at p. 558, but in five days' time he gave it up, although he could not have any other reason for doing so, than the conviction that the Synod of Ulster would defeat the scheme, if the subject underwent the investigation which that method of proceeding would have secured, p. 534, 1. 23. The merciful Fenelon was a determined persecutor of the Protestants aud Jansenists of France, but being a Jesuit by nature, (he was of the party in his church called from St. Sulpiee's,) he passe* 102 818 current as the very model of goodness. Thus he had his share in the dragonnades and the Bull Unigenitus, without any prejudice as yet to his reputation, so false for a time may the judgment of the world be. For a contrary instance, the name of Servetus is always coupled with that of Calvin. It is not known, or not noticed, that the Reformer warned the fugitive Spaniard what the law of Geneva was, and that the sentence was approved by all contemporaries, Protestant as well as Roman- ist, even by the mild Melancthon. The Genevese reformer and law giver is in fact selected to bear alone the reproach which all men of his time incurred by their acts or their writings. Cramner burnt several, even women, merely for denying the real presence, and yet has retained a cha- racter for gentleness and mei'cy. Geneva, under her great citizen's influ- ence, was eudeavouring to attain in religion and morals to a conformity with the principles indicated in the Bible, to be in effect a theocracy, and it is no wonder that it did not make itself an exception to all Chris- tian States in the sixteenth century, by tolerating the denial of the Saviour's deity. It is the highest possible testimony to Calvin that lie, alone of historical characters, is in this respect judged, not with refer- ence to the opinions of his time, but according to what his critic for the time being thinks the highest standard of ethics and religion. To deal this hard measure to him is however to admit that his intellect and spirit were too grand and elevated for his errors to be palliated like those of other men. Any reflection upon the Genevese reformer on account of his treat- ment of Servetus would in the mouth of a Romanist be the quintessence of hypocrisy, only that no one of his persuasion, (the expression is peculi- arly applicable in this case), forms or voluntarily adopts any opinions on religion, for his church burnt more than sixteen hundred human beings for heresy in Spain, even during the eighteenth century. As to Bossuet, the less an Ultramontane says about him the better. It is singular that this Romanist alone, of all those who spoke in parliament in support of the bill, betrayed a hatred of Evangelical opinions. Although as we have seen, the defendants in the A.G. v. Shore, and their advocates and pamphleteers, all represented themselves as com- bating Calvinism, yet all other speakers in the debates avoided the avowal ; but at the thought of Calvin a papist always loses his self-com- mand. p. 537, 1. 18 from bottom. Mr Byng did not settle in Tam worth till 1768. p. 576, 1. 16. The Synod of Minister consisted of congregations at Dublin (two), Limerick, Waterford, Clonmel, Bandon, Fethard, Sum- merhill, and Cork. ]>. 576, note t. The chapels at Ballast Hills and Bedford should not have been included in this enumeration. 819 p. 579, 1. 3. A pamphlet was published in Belfast, in 1844, entitled " Dissenters' Chapel Bill : their Arguments in defence of the recent attacks on the congregational property of Unitarians considered," by C. Porter, minister of the first Presbyterian Congregation of Larue. p. 580, 1. 18. The controversy between Independents and Scotch Presbyterians was carried on in the Cong. Mag. for 1834, 1842-3. p. 596, I. 11 from bottom. Dr. Calamy's account of his journey, so far as it relates to religion or ecclesiastical matters, is given in No. 8 of the Appendix, p. 724. p. 609, 1. 10 from bottom. Additional charges of heresy were brought against the Independents. The following is an extract from the affidavit of the Rev. Robert Kirk and the Rev. Peter Morrison, ministers respectively of the Great Market and High Bridge chapels, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the Rev. Charles Thompson of Tynemouth, and the Rev. Robert Gillan of South Shields, all Kirkmen : " From the acquaintance which the deponents have had with the writings of the English Presbyterians and Congregationalists of Lady Hew- ley's day they firmly believe that the said parties held the plenary, lull and complete inspiration of all the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testaments, but that there is reason to believe that multitudes of the modern Congregationalists hold very different views upon this most important subject; in evidence of which they submit the Eclectic Review, a periodical much read amongst the Congregationalists. The numbers for September 1825, and April 1826, throw doubts upon the inspiration of the hagiographa, amounting to 149 chapters of the Old Testament. And the Rev. Dr. Pye Smith, theological tutor at the Congregational Academy at Homerton, in his work on the Messiah, has avowed his doubts respecting the inspiration of the Song of Solomon, and does not consider the book of Esther canonical ; and he argues in the same work against the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures iu general, whilst he admits it in some particular places, and quotes with much approbation the following statements of Dr. Parry, theological tutor at the Congregational Academy at Wymomlley : ' If the inspira- tion and guidance of the Spirit respecting the writers of the New Testament extended only to what appears to be its proper province, matters of a religious and moral nature, then there is no necessitv to ask whether everything contained in their writings were suggested immediately by the Spirit or not, whether Luke was inspired to say that the ship in which he sailed with Paul was wrecked on the island <>;' Melita (Acts 28), or whether Paul was under the guidance of the Spirit in directing Timothy to bring with him the cloak which he left at Troas, 'and the books, but especially the parchments' (2 Tim. 4) : for the answer is obvious : these were not things of a religious nature, and no inspira- 820 tion was necessary concerning them. The inspired writers sometimes mention common occurrences or things in an accidental manner, as any other plain and faithful man might do, although such things may be found in parts of the evangelical history, or the apostles' addresses to churches or individuals, and may stand connected with important declarations concerning Christian doctrine or duty. Yet it is not necessary to suppose that they were under any supernatural influences in mentioning such common or civil affairs, though they were as to all the sentiments they inculcated respecting religion. This view of the subject will also readily enable a plain Christian in reading his New Testament to distinguish what he is to consider as inspired truth.' Vol. 1, p. 65." Dr. Hunter, Mr Thompson, and Mr Miller did not make the statement at p. 609 in an affidavit, but in a State of facts. Another allegation of theirs is : " The charge of unsoundness in the faith against the Independents, is further confirmed by Robert Haldane Esq. of Edinburgh, who accuses the Rev. Moses Stuart, an Independent professor at Andover, U.S., of denying the orthodox doctrine of the imputation of the guilt of Adam's first sin to his posterity, in a work on the Epistle to the Romans, which has been recently (1836) introduced to the notice of the English Independents in highly recommendatory prefaces by Dr. J. Pye Smith, Theological Tutor at Homerton, and Dr. Ebenezer Henderson, Theological Tutor in Mr Thomas Wilson's (sic) College at Highbury." [These quotations are favourable specimens of the Scotch affidavits.] p. 626, 1, 5. There is no mention of elders in the Cheshire minute, p. 802, or in the descriptions of the English Presbyterians to be found in pp. 701 and 803. p. 663. The harmony with which the trustees have distributed the fund, and the care taken by them to give assistance to none but those who both need and deserve it, each trustee undertaking to ascertain all particulars necessary for proper decisions in any cases in his own deno- mination which seem to need enquiry, has entirely falsified all the predictions of the heterodox party and their supporters, and affoi'ded "the three denominations" an opportunity of manifesting their brother- hood. The Independents may have a less share than they had, but they have it without the necessity of a recommendation from a Socinian minister, which was the general method in the former time. p. 696, 1, 5. On the other hand some few chapels are here entered in the Independents' list, because their minister in Dr. Evans's time was an Independent, us Chaplain and Rotherham. p. 696, 1. 9. In addition to the histories of nonconformity in counties, cities and towns, accounts of chapels are to be found in Nichofs Leicestershire, and as to a few of the London chapels in the Middlesex 821 volumes of the " Beauties of England and Wales." The early volumes of the Cong. Mag. contain short accounts, prepared by Dr. Redford, of the congregations in Devon, and the English counties standing before it alphabetically, and there will be found in the same magazine accounts of the following churches : 1830 York, 1831 Andover, Darwen, Ellen- thorpe, Potterspury, 1833 Wimborne, Potterspury, 1831 Llanbrynmair and Stamford, 1835 Nottingham, Plymouth, Beaminster, 1836 Arundel and Bishop's Hull, 1838 Stoke Newington and Ramsgate, 1842 Sutton- in-Ashfield, Hereford and Beaminster, and in a volume the reference to which is mislaid, White Row. In the Evangelical Mag. for 1866, there is an account of the chapel at Horningsham, Wilts, which seems the oldest foundation among all chapels now existing. Dr. Raffles made collections as to Lancashire, and Mr Scales as to Yorkshh-e, as they stated in their examinations in A.G. v. Wilson. It is to be hoped these will not be lost or disposed of, but be deposited in the Congregational Library. Much additional information is to be gained from Mr Walter Wilson's MSS. in Dr. Daniel Williams's Library. It will be found upon examination that every Independent chapel founded about the middle of the eighteenth century owes its origin to the secession of Trinitarians from the old Presbyterian congregations, which had become, or were becoming, Arian. The few cases specified are taken from local histories. Independent congregations ai'ising from associations of the converts of the first Methodists were of a later date. p. 696, 1. 15. Mr Palmer of Hackney, gave an account of this MS. in the 5 th volume of the Protestant Dissenters' Magazine, p. 468 ; and in the 6th volume will be found that part of it which gives an account of the chapels and ministers, with some additions. It also contains remarks on the Salters' Hall meeting, part of which has been quoted, p. 709. Mr Neal is blamed for not taking part in the business, but Mr Bradbury is remarked to have lost his influence from his want of prudence in the controversy. Of Mr Hunt it is further said : " The doctor is what we call a rational preacher, and labours in all his discourses to conceal his sentiments and talk in the dark. It is one of the most surprising instances that can be met with how a number of Christians, and many of them of long experience, should, from a warm Calvinistical pastor, fix on a person who to all but themselves appears to be but little acquainted with the most important truths of the Gospel. However the doctor is a quiet, peaceable man, and does not give his neighbours any disturbance. Although he is accounted very learned, it does not appear from his public discourses." Since the question as to Mr Hunt is of some importance, the reader will note the following lines from a character in rhyme of some of the Dissenting ministers in London of the period, and an answer to it also in rhyme, which give the same idea. 822 The praise is : With soundest judgment and with nicest skill, The learned Hunt explains his Master's will ; So just his reasoning, and his sense so true, He only pleases the discerning few. The disparagement in answer is : Not so the busy Hunt, with little skill, Takes mighty pains to extol his own free will ; So dull his meaning and his action too, He really pleases but a very few. It will be noticed that the parody retains the rhymes of the line, on which it is founded, which was a great disadvantage. In the origina Wright, Bradbury, Guyse, and Bragg, are lampooned, and Watts, Hunt Chandler, and Foster, magnified. In the parody Wright and Watts, who are contrasted in the original lines, are omitted together : and the praise and dispraise are counterchanged throughout ; but while Dr; Chandler appears in the answer as an Arian, and Dr. Foster as Socinian, Dr. Hunt is merely a free wilier. The lines were communi- cated by J. T., i.e, Dr. Joshua Toulmin. p. 701, 1. 12. The distinct statement here made that only the male members voted in the church deserves remark. This is contrary to the o-eneral ■ practice at the present day, though some churches follow this rule, among others that of Carrs Lane, Birmingham. It is believed per- sons of other denominations consider this as the most indefensible and injurious point in the whole system. The right to vote should go with the right of speaking in a church meeting, as the right to influence fellow voters seems as natural and equitable as the franchise, but no one will say a word for this. p. 704, last line. The author of this account uses the word church, in connection with the Presbyterians, as if it had the same meaning among them as among Independents. The same phraseology occurs in the Cheshire minute, p. 802. See also p. G67. This method of speak- in<* seems to indicate that although admission to the communion was matter of course, and there was little or no discipline with regard t persons so admitted ; yet they were regarded as forming a body in a peculiar relationship to each other, aud exercising formally a contro, over admission into their number, though the approbation of candidates might be a matter of course. So far as this was the case, all difference in theory between the denominations was done away with, except that the church was a reality among Independents, but a name only among the Presbyterians. This is entirely in harmony with the account reprinted at p. 803. In the 3rd volume of the Protestant Dissenters' Magazine, there is given a list of the London chapels in 1796, a year which is about half way between the date of Dr. Evans's list and the present clay, and that 823 shews the following state of things to have been the result of the changes during that period of seventy years, as it may be considered. English Presbyterians : Prince's Street Westminster, Salters' Hull Cannon Street, Carter Lane, Leather Lane, Hanover Street Long Acre, Essex Street Strand, Monkwell Street, St. Thomas's Borough, Alie Street Goodman's Fields, Old Jewry, Clapbam, Hackney, Stoke Newington, Newington Green, Peckham. Independents or Congregationalists : New Court Carey Street, Fetter Lane, Hare Court Aldersgate Street, London Wall, Broad Street Moorfields, White's Row Spitaltields, Eastcheap, New Gravel Lane Wapping, Nightingale Lane, Haberdashers' Hall Staining Lane, Pinners' Hall Broad Street, Redcross Street, Barbican, Jewin Street, Stepney, Union Street Borough, Colliers' Rents Borough, Camomile Street, Jamaica Row Rotherhithe, Chapel Street Soho, Bethnal Green, Islington, Kensington, Pavement Moorfields, Hoxton, Bury Street St. Mary Axe, Founders' Hall Lothbury, Newington Butts, Deptford, Hammersmith, Hackney, Locke Fields Walworth, Queen Street Ratcliff Highway. Scotch Presbyterians : Swallow Street, Peter Street Soho, London Wall, Crown Court Drury Lane, Artillery Street Spital Fields, East Smithfield, Camberwell. Seceders : Well Street Oxford Street, Bow Lane, Miles's Lane, Cannon Street. There are also lists of Baptists and Methodists. The London "Presbyterian" chapels in 1865, after the lapse of another seventy years, are given as Paradise Fields Hackney, Stoke Newington Green (morning), Stamford Street Blackfriars, Islington, Essex Street, two chapels connected with the Domestic Mission in Chapel Street and Spicer Street Spitalfields, Little Portland Street Langham Place (morning), Sermon Lane St. Paul's (evening), Roslyn Hill Hampstead, Clarence Road Kentish Town, Effra Road Brixton. The lists in the foregoing pages show the short duration of Noncon- formist congregations, for, especially if they are not endowed, they require many favourable conditions in the general society around, in order to their permanent subsistence in the unhealthy atmosphere produced by a State church ; and those on the Congregational principle have, as the inevitable consequence of their nature, the peculiarity that, unless they in some considerable degi'ee fulfil the idea and purpose of their being, they fall into a state of decay, which speedily produces their dissolution. The Episcopalian and Presbyterian systems, in their various forms, support worship where Independency would fail to do so, for to last it must be fully carried out ; mere congregations without churches within them are insufficient to secure their own permanence. Now a 824 congregational church is the only fellowship in Christendom which is in idea restricted to truly regenerate men, real children of God, living in contrast to the world of nominal Christians around them. It is no wonder then that such societies soon become extinct, just as the hundreds of churches founded by the apostles, (recorded in the New Testament or not), disappeared ; and any one that admires Independent churches in their purity and efficiency must say of them, what was first said of far different societies, Sint ut sunt aut non sint. It is well that they should pass away, and that other churches should arise in their place, rather than they should exist only to teach error, or at best to exhibit religious worship and teaching in the condition of utter inefficiency, which was the general characteristic of the Establishment during the period in question. p. 742. An analysis of this list gives the following result : According to the classification of the recipients here given, and doubling the half-yearly sums, the last year's distribution of the old trustees was to 62 Soc. ministers £798, or on an average £6 7s each ; to 4 students at Manchester College, York, £100 a year, or £25 each; and Mr Wellbeloved £80 a year, making a total of £978 ; to 49 Presby- terian ministers £395, or on an average £8 Is each ; to 92 Independent ministers £658, or on an average £6 5s each ; and one student at Airedale £10; making a total of £339; to 33 Baptist ministers, 217 or £3 5s 9d each ; in the aggregate to orthodox parties £1214. The separate grants were as below : £32, £24, £21, £20 (1 each) to Socinians. £19, £18, (1 each) to Independents. £17 to 2 Socinians. £16 to 15 : 7 Socinians; 2 Presbyterians ; 5 Independents ; 1 Bap- tist. £15, £14 (1 each), to 2 Socinians. £13 to 2 : 1 Socinian ; 1 Independent. £12 to 36 : 33 Socinians ; 3 Independents. £11 to 1 Independent. £10 to 22 : 8 Socinians ; 6 Presbyterians ; 7 Independents ; 1 Bap- tist, £9 to 1 Presbyterian. £8 to 46 : 21 Presbyterians; 16 Independents ; 9 Baptists. - £7 to 15 : 1 Socinian; 3 Presbyterians; 6 Independents; 4 Baptists. £6 to 14 : I Socinian ; 4 Presbyterians; 7 Independents ; 1 Baptist. £5 to 78 : 2 Socinians; 9 Presbyterians ; 4-7 Independents; 17 Bap- tists. £7, £6, (1 each) : and £5 to 3 denominations not known. The lai'ge sums were thus divided : York £80, Bradford Yorkshire £32, Halifax £24, Doncaster £21, Wakefield £20, all Socinians. 825 According to counties the division was as follows : Berwick. 1 P. £8, 1 B. £5. Northumberland. Alnwick K. £16, Soc. £6 : Bavington K. £5 : Belford S. £10 : Billingham S. £5 : Birdhop Craig K. £10 : Blytlie I. £8 : Branton K. £8 : Etall K. £8 : Falstone K. £10 : Felton K. £8 : Glanton K. £9 : Haltwistle K. £8 : Harbottle K. £8 : Hartley P. £8 : Haydon Bridge and Corlidge I. 8/: Hexham K. 10/: Long Framling- ham K. 8/: Morpeth K. 81: Newcastle P. 51. S. 11: Castle Garth R. 15/. B. 51. I. 51 : Staratbrdham K. 81 : Spittle K. 8/ : North Sunderland S. 81: North Shields B. 81. S. 61 : Thropton K. 8/: Wallsend S. 12/: Wark K. 18/ : Warneford P. 8/ : Widdington K. 81 : Wooler K. 8/. Cumberland. Alston Moor I. 51: Bewcastle K. 10/: Blenner- hasset I. 51: Brampton K 8/: Carlisle S. 10/. I. 11: Cockermouth I. 51 : Longtown K. 61 : Mary port K. 11 : Oulton B. 51 : Parkhea«l I. 8/: Penrith S. 16/. I. 51: Salkeld and Plumpton S. 8/: Whitehaven K. 61 : Workington K. 87. Westmoreland. Kirkby Stephen I. 8/ : Ravenstonedale 1. 10/ : Rawtenstall Soc. 51. Durham. Chester le Street I. 51 : Gateshead K. 51 : Hamsterly B. 51 : Houghton le Spring S. 51 : Monkwearmouth P. 61 : Norham S. 51: South Shields, K. 51. P. 12/: Stockton Soc. 13/: Sunderland and Shields Soc. 10/ : Tweedmouth K. 15/. Yorkshire. Allerton near Bradford 51 : Barnsley I. 81 : Bingley I. 4/ : Birchcliffe B. 51 : Bishop's Burton B. 11 : Bradford Soc. 32/: Bramley B. 8/: Birdlington B. 8/: Brighouse I. 10/: Celan- dine Nock B. 51 : Cleckheaton I. 10/ : Cold Rowley B. 11 : Cother- stone 1. 16/ : Cottingham I. 51 : Cowliughill and Kilwick B. 51 : Dogley Lane I. 51: Doncaster Soc. 21/: Eastwood I. 6/: Eccleshill I. 51 : Elland Soc. 16/: Ellenthorpe I. 15/: Farsley B. 51: Feetham I. 18/ : Gildersome B. 16/ : Great Ay ton I. 10/ : Great Driffield I. 51 : Gains- borough I. 51 : Halifax Soc. 24/. B. 10/ : Heaton B. 51 : Hebden Bridge B. 11: Heckmondwicke I. 51: Holmfirth I. 51: Horsforth B. 51 : Honley I. 11 : Howarth B. 51 : Howden I. 51 : Hull Soc. 12/ : Keighley I. 61 : Keld I. 13/ : Kirby Moorside I. 51 : Kirkham T. 51 : Knaresborough I. 19/ : Leyburn I. 51 : Lidgate 51 : Locksley I. 51 : Lockwood B. 11: Market Weighton I. 51 : Marsden I. 51: Mixendeu I. 8/ : Morley I. 16/: Netherfield near Penistone I. 51: Northowram 1. 8/: Osset I. 10/: Otley I. 51: Pateley Bridge I. 51 : Pickering I. 5/ : Pock- lington I. 51: Pontefract I. 16/: Pudsey I. 16/: Qneenshead near Halifax B. 51: Rish worth B. 51 : Rotherham Soc. 17/: Sandyryke Gisburn Forest I. 51: Scarborough B. 8/: Selby Soc. 17/: Settle I. 51 : Shelley I. 51 : Shipley B. 8/ : Shore B. 51 : Skipton I. 10/ : Sowerby I. 11/: Stainland I. 51: Stannington Soc. 12/: Steep Lane 103 826 near Halifax B. 51: South Cane and Elloughton I. 87: Swaziland I. 81: Thirsk I. 51: Thorn and Statfield Soc. 12/: Thornhill B. 11: Wains-ate near Halifax B. 51 : Wakefield Soc. 20/ : Warley I. 10/ : Whitby Soc. 12/: Wortley I. 51 : York Soc. 807. Lancashire. Blackley Soc. 121 : Blakeley B. 8/ : Booth I. 51: Bolton Moor Lane 61: Burnley B. 8/ : Bury Soc. 12/. I. 51 : Clitheroe F. 51: Chorley Soc. 12/: Chowbent Soc. 12/: Dob Lane Fails- worth Soc. 12/: Fullwood I. 6/: Gorton Soc. 12/: Greenacres I. 51: Hallfold I. 11: Hallshaw I. 51: Haslingdon I. 8/: Hindley Soc. 12/: Horwich I. 61 : Lancaster Soc. 12/: Liverpool Edge Hill B. 51 : Toxteth Park Soc. 12/ : Lydiate Soc. 16/ : Monton Soc. 12/: Ormskirk Soc. 16/: Park Lane Wigan Soc. 10/: Pendlebury I. 51: Piatt Soc. 12/: Preseot Soc. 10/ : Preston Soc. 12/ : Rainford I. 11: Risley Soc. 12/: Bivington Soc. 12/: Rochdale Soc. 12/. Soc. 10/: Rossendale Soc. 12/. B. 61: Smallbridge L 11: Southport I. .5/: Stand Soc. 12/: Tottlebank B. 8/: Ulverstone I. 61: Wharton I. 51: Walmsley Soc. 12/: Willesden I. 8/: Wigan and Tunby K. 12/. CHESHIRE. Altringham Soc. 12/: Congleton Soc. 16/: Cross Street Soc. 10/ : Dean Bow Soc. 12/ : Duckenfield Soc. 12/ : Hather- low I. 61: Hyde Soc. 12/: Knutsford Soc. 15/: Macclesfield Soc. 12/: Nantwich Soc. 12/: North vvich I. 11: Partington I. 61: Stockport Soc. 14/. I. 51. Debryshire. Alfreton I. 81 : Bamford I. 51 : Charleswovth I. 51: Chesterfield Soc. 12/: Chinley Chapel I. 51: Derby Soc. 12/: Hedge I. 51 : Hopton I. 8/ : Hucklow, Bradwell, Middleton aud Ashford Soc. 16/: Ilkeston and Findern Soc. 16/: Marple Bridge I. 51 : Ripley and Duffield Soc. H/. Lincolnshire. Barrow 51 : Barton-upon-Humber I. 51 : Boston Soc. 12/: Gainsborough Soc. 10/: Lincoln Soc. 12/: Stamford I. 10/. Nottinghamshire. Mansfield Soc. 12/. Staffordshire. Burton-on-Trent B. 81 : Newcastle-under-Lyne Soc. 51. Salop. Whitchurch Soc. 16/ : Wem I. 8/. Leicestershire. Loughborough Soc. 10/. Cambridgeshire. Wisbeach Soc. 10/. Domgay and Lutton are unknown. One or two errors of the press will not substantially affect the calculations. This analysis is requisite to a fair estimate of the distribution in the former state of things. Many considerations must also be taken into account, which it is unnecessary, and might be thought invidious, to specify here. p. 785, 1. 6. The confident, indeed the over-bearing tone and 827 manner which the heterodox parties maintained throughout all the suits, even to their very end, was perhaps the most remarkable circumstance connected with the contest. It is easy to say that they relied on the goodness of their case, and that it triumphed at last. Such trust, how- ever, was not manifested by their keeping back the objection as to evidence in both the English suits until the final appeal, or by setting up at the same stage for the first time the original illegality of the General Fund, or by getting in the legal estate of the Clough and Killinchy chapels, as to the former from a man intoxicated for the purpose. After they had at last discovered that their hope in the courts was self-delu- sion, and that no argument, whether legal or historical, would stand examination, the memorial of March 1843 took the same tone, although Sir Robert Peel declared, when he saw the bill was safe, that he had not, previously to its introduction, expected it to be carried. They however knew the men with whom the fate of the bill rested. It was first intro- duced in the House of Lords, and they could safely trust in their friends there. Lord Cottenham and Lord Campbell were their old advocates who had entered into every point they raised. Lord Brougham's opinions were well known from his Glasgow declaration that a man was not responsible for his belief; he had already referred to the "interpolated verse in St. John, and the spurious chapter in Josephus, upon which may repose the foundations of a religion or the articles of its creed;" he had charac- terized a deist as " one who disbelieves in our Saviour being either the Son of God or sent by God as his prophet on earth," (though this perhaps now would be thought illiberal and uncandid) ; he had remarked of his beau ideal of a clergyman, his kinsman Di\ Robertson, that " his notions of usefulness and his wish to avoid the fanaticism of the High Church party (which with \is would be called the Low Church or Evangelical) led him generally to prefer moral to theological or gospel subjects ;" and throughout his lives of the Doctor and his friend David Hume, he had never referred to Evangelicals otherwise than as the fanatical party, so that, not to mention the good will which he had manifested in the case of the Hewley charity, they were safe of him. As to Lord Lynclhurst, no doubt a very short interval elapsed after the judgment of the House of Lords, before he made known to them his opinion that a measure which merely preserved to them the chapels and endowments which had not been recovered, and did not give them back the Wolverhampton, Clough, and Killinchy meeting-houses, and the Dublin and Hewley Funds (for they could not have wished for anything else which they did not get), was but a scanty measure of justice, and encouraged them to set at nought any "clamorous opposition they might encounter. Sir Robert Peel also they doubtless knew sufficiently to count on his negotiating for them out of Parliament, and in Parliament making 828 statements on their behalf which they would have been ashamed to make for themselves. They further knew that he could secure on their side his law officers, including his Irish Chancellor No wonder then that the memorial shadowed forth the bill and the speeches in favour of it, and that the silence which it preserved as to all details was the instruction under which the Chancellor avoided for his measure the ordeal of a select committee, after having promised it to the other side Relief as a matter of course. p. 792, 1. 4 from bottom. This petition, it should have been noticed, was by a remnant only of the Seceders, see p. 582. The Kirk men, the Free Churchmen, the United Associate Synod, and the Belief (now the United Presbyterians), did not oppose the bill. p. 795, 1. 4 from bottom. The act is referred to as 7 and 8 Victoria, chapter 45, and is entitled, "An act for the regulation of suits relating to meeting-houses and other property held for religious purposes by persons dissenting from the United Church of England and Ireland." This title was singularly incorrect. The act (practically) limited suits as to certain chapels and property held in trust for Dissenters, and it did not regulate any suits, nor did it affect Dissenters' chapels and property generally ; but the more vague and general the title, the better was the appearance of matters, and the more the real intention and the true effect were disguised. Mr Hardy pointed this out to the House in vain, p. 542, but it was not to be expected that such an act would be properly entitled. The short title in the Commons' votes was, " Limi- tation of suits for Dissenters' Chapels' Bill." The proviso giving the court power to stop suits previously com- menced was contrai'y to all former practice in suits affecting property. The Bill as introduced carefully provided that it should not affect pro- perty in suit on the 1st March, which was six days before the first reading in the Lords. Thus the informations as to the Dublin chapels would, if Ireland had been included in the Bill, have been left to take their course because, as Lord Lyndhurst knew, a select committee would, as a matter of course, have inserted a clause which would never afterwards have been got rid of, and would have effectually preserved the rights of the parties to all existing suits. The carefully selected committee to which was referred the knotty point as to extending the Bill to Ireland had their attention drawn to the suits by the petitions referred to them, but even they did not recommend that the Bill before them should be altered so as to give effect to the prayer of those petitions. That was accom- plished without notice on the third reading, and the House appears to have been packed for it, as the majority was 41 to 9, which showed a large attendance that afternoon of peers favourable to the bill. The best comment on Sir Edward Sugden's arrest of the suits is the 829 exposure of all the manoeuvres in Parliament which were requisite to give it effect. It is most painful to think an act passed for such a purpose was the first in which Parliament disregarded a rule so well founded in prin- ciple as that by which it had, up to that time, restrained itself from interfering with any suit once instituted for the recovery of property. The Bishop of London assures us, p. 524, that the act was contrary to the plainly expressed convictions of the nation, and it is well that could be said. Nevertheless the majority in the Lords was nearly in the pro- portion of five to one, and that in the Commons much more than two to one. p. 457, last line but 2. The following remarks were made by the law lords who decided the appeal in the A.G. v. Drummond. Lord Brougham, " I attended at the hearing of this case with my noble and learned friend near me (Lord Campbell) and my noble and learned friend Lord Cottenham, whose absence on account of indisposi- tion, we have to lament. He has however, considered this case, and after communicating with us on the subject, he has sent me a corrected copy of his judgment, which I will read to your lordships, and in which I entirely coincide. The case is of great importance ; and whatever opinion we might have had before the case of Lady Hewley's charities, I do not consider that we can do otherwise than the Court of Chancery in Ireland did, that is, to follow the principles laid down in that case." His lordship then read Lord Cottenham's judgment as follows : " It appears to me that the rules and principles acted upon in the case of Lady Hewley's charities, govern the present. The cases indeed are very similar. In Lady Hewley's charities the principal question was, the meaning of the founder's words, ' Godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel ; ' and whether Unitarians were incl uded in that description. In the present case the question is the meaning of the founders' words, 'Protestant dissenters;' and whether Unitarians are included in that description. In Lady Hewley's charities, the evidence used below em- braced a wide range, much of which was probably not properly receiv- able ; but there was sufficient evidence free from all objection to. enable the judges and this House to come to a satisfactory conclusion upon the meaning of the words, and the disqualification of Unitarians. " In commenting upon the opinions delivered by the learned judges upon the question of the admissibility of evidence in the case of Lady Hewley's charities, I observed that the evidence which went to show the existence of a religious party, by which the phraseology found in the deed was used, and that Lady Hewley was a member of that party was clearly admissible, being in effect no more than evidence of the circumstances by which the author of the instrument was surrounded at 830 the time. The appellants in this case, indeed, attempted to distinguish the two cases, upon the ground that, although no distinct meaning could be attributed to the mere words, ' Godly preachers of Christ's holy gos- pel,' the words ' Protestant Dissenters' had a known legal meaning, and therefore in the absence of ambiguity, evidence of the meaning of those words could not be received. It is clear that the words of themselves have not any such known legal meaning as the appellants would attach to them. The expression, ' Protestant Dissenters,' do indeed of them- selves imply that the parties are Protestants against the Church of Rome, and Dissentients from the Church of England, but that is all. They cannot include all those who are neither of the Church of Rome nor of that of England, for that would include all those who reject Christianity altogether ; nor all those who, to some extent, admit the divine mission of Christ, for do not the Mahomedans do that ? Wbat classes, and what descriptions of persons are included, is uncertain from the terms used, and therefore matter of proof. The appellants indeed refer to acts of parliament and other documents, for the purpose of showing that Unitarians have been included in the general terms of Protestant Dissenters. If this be admissible for the appellants, it is clearly open to the respondents to adduce evidence to prove that such was not the sense in which the words were used by the founders of these trusts, which is in truth the whole question. " It appears to me clear, that upon the principle of the case of Lady Hewley's charities, and within the limits acted upon in that case in this House, evidence of the meaning of these words 'Protestant Dissenters,' as understood and used by the authors of these trusts, is admissible. "Some important points are certain from the deed itself, such as that the trust originated with the members of certain congregations of Dissenting Protestants in Dublin ; that they professed that the charity was founded upon a pious disposition and concern for the interest of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and that its object was the support of religion in and about Dublin and the south of Ireland, by assisting and supporting the Protestant Dissenting interest against unreasonable prosecutions, and for the education of youth designed for the ministry amongst Protestant dissenting congregations that were poor and unable to pro- vide for their ministers. It is established beyond all doubt that these congregations professed Trinitarian doctrines ; that there were not at that time any Unitarian congregations or ministers in Dublin or the south of Ireland, although there were individuals who professed those doctrines. " Looking then to the declared objects of the trust, those who had no congregations or ministers, and who had not in the opinion of the founders been subject to any unjust prosecutions, could not have been 831 in the immediate contemplation of its authors; but still they may have had intentions 30 liberal and enlarged as to embrace objects not imme- diately contemplated, but such objects must have been within their general intentions and within the mischief they proposed to guard against. They must have been Protestant Dissenters within the sense in which the authors of the trust understood and used this description. The inquiry therefore, is, were Unitarians or Unitarian Christians included in this description, as so understood and used ] The evidence I think proves that they were not. " The quotations in evidence from members of those congregations, at or about the period of the trust, prove the abhorrence in which they held the Unitarian doctrines. This cannot be more strongly expressed than in the extract from the sermon of Samuel Mather, who says: 'If any man deny one God and three Persons, deny the Scriptures, the Deity of Christ, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, or sxtch like fundamental points, it is the duty of the church to cast him out ; he is unclean.' So his brother Nathaniel Mather says, ' this belongs to Christ ; he is God, co-equal with the father and the Holy Ghost, being one of the blessed perfections of the Divine essence.' .And after speaking of the opinions of Papists, Socinians and their followers, he says, ' Grotius indeed does the same, and I learn that Arminians and Socinians do so too; but I do not reckon Grotius, or them, among Protestants.' " Many other extracts to the same effect were produced ; but that, which is most conclusive, is what appears in Emlyn's history and narrative, and the reply to it by Mr Boyce, one of the authors of this trust. Emlyn complains of these congregations and their members as having taken part against him, and the Irish convocation in their address to the Crown claim credit for having so done, and declare that there are no people ki the world, whose principles and practices are more opposite to Deists, Socinians, and all the enemies of revealed religion, and to Papists, than they were, and ever had been. " It is useless after this, to refer to more evidence upon this point. The authors of this trust at the time it was created, were professed Trini- tarians, and not only disclaimed all connexion with, or sympathy for those who professed Unitarian doctrines, but held them in abhorrence, and publicly declared such to be their opinions, denying that such Unitarians were Protestants or Christians. Can it then be supposed that these authors of the trust in question intended to associate with themselves as cestuis cpie trust, those whose doctrines they so abhorred and con- demned ! Is not the sense in which the words ' Protestant Dissenters' were used by the authors of this trust, made clear beyond all question ] They denied the right of Unitarians to the appellations of Protestants 832 or Christians, and could not therefore intend to include them in the description of Protestant Dissenters. "It appears to me, therefore, that the decree of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was correct, in declaring that Unitarians are not entitled to be considered as objects of the trust. " Other objections Were raised to the decree, which may be disposed of in very few words. It was said that there being at the time no Toleration Act for Ireland, the whole trust was illegal ; now if the illegality were proved, the question would arise, how can these appel- lants raise that objection, they claiming under the trust, and showing no other title to be heard 1 " Secondly, it was urged that long enjoyment gave title to the Unitarians. Contemporaneous usage is, indeed, a strong ground for the interpretation of doubtful words or expressions, but time affords no sanction to established breaches of trust. " It was also objected that the decree removed some Trinitarian, as well as the Unitarian, trustees ; but this was sanctioned by the decree in Lady Hewley's charities, and is right upon principle. The decree proceeding to correct a breach of trust, removes those trustees who were the authors of it, for that is of itself a sufficient ground of removal, common to both classes. I therefore advise your Lordships to affirm the decree, with costs." Lord Brougham then stated his own opinions thus : "The only point upon which E entertain the least doubt is, whether his lordship (Lord Cottenham) does not express too doubtfully the inad- missibility of some of the evidence which was received in the court below in the case of Lady Hewley's charities ; but I think he is quite right in his argument upon the admissibility of the evidence which was received in this case, and that the evidence was admissible in this case for the purpose of showing the circumstances in which the party was when making the instrument. You admit it as you admit evidence in construing a will, not to modify the expressions of the will, not to affix a sense upon the will which it does not bear, not to tell you what the meaning of the will is, but to tell you what were the circumstances in which the testator was when he used those expressions, for the purpose of enabling you to ascertain what meaning he affixed to the expressions that he used, and for no other purpose. There was nothing further done in this case, and it is clear that the evidence was admissible. " I therefore entirely agree with the view taken by my noble and learned friend, and move your Lordships that this appeal be dismissed, and that the judgment of the court below be affirmed, with costs." Lord Campbell : " As my noble and learned friend has alluded to the case of Lady Hewley's charities, I have no difficulty in saying that 1 am 833 clearly of opinion now, speaking judicial ly, that there was a great deal of evidence admitted in that case, which ought to have been rejected. There was abundant evidence to support the decree, of course ; we are now bound by that decree, because it has received the sanction of this House, and I think that the evidence which was admissible thei'e, was abundant for the purpose of supporting the decree. But there were in that case admitted and reasoned upon by the Vice-Chancellor of England, and partly by Lord Lyndhurst, declarations made by Lady Hewley as to the particular sense in. which she used particular words, or rather evidence tending to show the sense in which the words were used by her. Now that, I apprehend, was cleaidy inadmissible. On general principles I adhere to what I contended at your Lordships' bar, as counsel in the case of Lady Hewley's charities, and which I find the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has done me the honour to adopt, and to say that it is the canon by which he himself has been guided, viz., that in construing such an instrument, you may look to the usage to see in what sense the words wei'e used at that time ; you may look to contem- poraneous documents, as well as to acts of Parliament, to see in what sense the words were used in the age in which the deeds were executed ; but to admit evidence to show the sense in which words were used by particular individuals, is coutrary to sound principle, and I think my noble and learned friend the present Lord Chancellor (Lord Cottenham), could not have any doubt at all in rejecting such evidence. " My Lords, adopting that canon, I really do not think that there is any reasonable doubt in this case, because what we have to determine is, the meaning of the words ' Protestant Dissenters' in the deed consti- tuting this charity, at the time that deed was made, not what may be the meaning of the words 'Protestant Dissenters' in the reign of Queen Victoria, because I have no doubt now that, upon most occasions, Unitarians would be considered as Protestant Dissenters. Since the repeal of the act of William III., against impugning the doctrine of the Trinity, they have not been liable to any penalties, and it would be very unchristian to say they are not Christians. They are Dissenters, and, therefore, I apprehend, they may be properly denominated Christian Dissenters, and that they are ' Protestant Dissenters.' " " But at the same time we have to look at what they were when this charity was founded. At that time I think the evidence is abun- dant to show that the authors of the charity would not at all have considered Unitarians as 'Christian brethren ;' that they would have looked upon them with great horror, and never would have called them 'Protestant Dissenters;' and therefore they cannot be considered as included in the description of those for whom this charity was founded. 104 834 "That being the case, the decree pronounced by Lord Chancellor Sugden seems to me to be perfectly correct. " Enjoyment might be evidence, if it was doubtful how far Unita- rians were included ; but assuming that Unitarians are excluded, the enjoyment must go for nothing. " Then as to the other point, that the purposes of this charity cannot by law be carried into execution, and that the funds must be disposed of by the sign manual of her Majesty ; I entirely concur in the opinion that that argument cannot be entertained by your Lordships. "I do not think it necessary to enter more at large into this subject, which has been already so ably discussed, but, upon the whole, I entirely concur in the opinion that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed, with costs." " It was ordered accordingly, That the decree be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed, with costs to be paid by the appellants to the relators, Matthews and Black, who alone answered the appeal." This account is from the second volume of Clarke and Finelly's House of Lords' cases, which it had been understood, from solicitors engaged on different sides of the case, contained no notice of it, but a search for another purpose discovered it after the Errata and Index were partly in type. These judgments are particularly valuable ; they pi'ove that there was no doubt either as to the law, as, Lord Lyndhurst and Sir William Follett so impudently feigned ; or as to the opinions of the Presbyterians, English or Irish, up to the end of the chapel-building period, for the facts as to Emlyn and the general arguments applied to both countries. This judicial recognition of the orthodoxy of the body, (which indeed was previously abundantly certain), must for ever dispose of the notion that their vague trust deeds were prepared to meet the case of congregations who knew that their opinions were illegal, or who were indifferent as to doctrines ; one or other of which suppositions seemed matter of necessity to Lord Cottenham, Sir Robert Peel, and Mr Gladstone. It also exposes the falsity of the statement which is to be found at p. 775, and pervades almost all the arguments of the Socinian party, that it was decided in A.G. v. Shore, and A.G. v. Pearson, which was incorrectly considered to be altogether governed by it, that the worship which Presbyterian foundei's intended to promote was -ascer- tained to be Trinitarian only by following the presumption of law ; on the contrary, in both those cases it was declared that the foundations were restored to orthodoxy exclusively on the ground of the certain intentions of the founders. The act of 1844 has indeed no meaning except as it limits the time within which congregational properties, (or rather quasi properties), can be restored to their original purposes, 835 after having been perverted from tliem : and Drumraond v. the A.G. decided that neither Socinians nor Arians can take any benefit from a religions charity founded in 1710 for the benefit of Protestant dissen- ters, for the reason that persons at that time describing themselves, and pointing out the objects of their foundations, by that name, would not have recognized Socinians or Arians as belonging to their body, and did not intend them to participate in those benefactions. The decision was that the words "Protestant Dissenters" as explained by admis- sible evidence had this meaning at that date ; and fully recognized the old doctrines that the intentions of founders, ascertained in this manner, guided courts in the construction of foundation deeds ; that the perversion of a charity was to be redressed at any distance of time ; and that no length of time during which it had been wrongly enjoyed gave a right to it. The remarks of these three law lords, always the advocates of the Socinians, destroy the chief pretences on which the act was passed, and their words read as a bitter condemnation of its authors. Let us see how these remarks bear upon the Dublin chapels. The General Fund deed was dated in 1710, the trust deed of the Eustace Street chapel, (to which the congregation from New Row removed), was dated in 1725, a deed declaring trusts of the building fund was dated in 1718-9, and Mr Darner's was the chief name in all these deeds. The Strand Street chapel derived £100 a year, as an original endowment, from the General Fund, and it was built (in 1768) by the congregation of Wood Street chapel, (with what funds was not shown), in substitu- tion for that chapel from which Mr Emlyn was expelled in 1702, and of which Mr Boyce was minister until 1728, and Mr Choppin until 1711. Mr Abernethy was co-pastor with the latter, and it was said on the trial that he was an Arian, but there was no proof of this, and what proof there is is the other way. Lord Campbell found himself compelled to own that these congregations in 1710, instead of considering persons holding the opinions of the present occupants of the chapels as members of their body or Christian brethren, would have looked upon them with great horror. Yet these were the two chapels which the act preserved to Arians or Socinians in violation equally of precedent and principle, by a provision, which, in fact, was applicable only to them. To advert to other matters, the law lords did not commit themselves to any opinion as to the admissibility or non-admissibility of any specific part of the evidence given in the Hewley case. They were no doubt hampered by the consideration that the belief of a denomination must in part be shown by acts or writings of individuals belonging to it, in which light most of that evidence could be viewed. It is to be particu- larly noticed that no attempt was made to show that Lady Hewley 836 used any expression in a sense peculiar to herself, as Lord Campbell would have it understood. Her own will was brought forward to show her opinions to have been those of her party, and in no other way to give a particular meaning to any woi'ds in her foundation deeds. The appellants gained nothing by setting up the illegality of the fund, though they made it, according to the report, the chief point in their appeal, but the infamy of the attempt, and Lord Cottenharn's exposure of its folly. The Trinitarian trustees were removed for shaving in the illegal appropriation of the fund, and the appellants, two ministers, were con- demned in the costs, as to which the heterodox party always fought hard. It may be admitted that a description of the church government and discipline of the English Presbyterians would most appropriately have formed part of the introduction to the contest between the Indepen- dents and the Scotch Presbyterians, but it was necessary to commence the volume with a short account of their system ; and particulars and illustrations of the state of things among them were subsecpiently given as they bore upon the more important branch of the controversy which they left as the chief part of their damnosa hereditas. Some authorities were obtained only in time to appear in the Appendix, or to be referred to in the Corrections. There will be found some advantage in gathering up in a few sentences the effect of all these scattered notices,* in addition to making the references to them in the Index much fuller than any to be found in relation to other subjects, The Scotchmen did not attempt any proof that after the Revolution a single presbytery was set up in England otherwise than in original connection with a Scotch denomination, beyond a mere assertion that the existing presbytery of Northumberland was formed soon after that event. Any organization however which existed at that time in the northern counties, was no moi*e than a Southern Association ; indeed it was called a Class, a name which, though during the Commonwealth it was the English name for a Presbytery, was afterwards used in the North of England in contradistinction to it. The evidence in A.G. v. "Wilson will bear out these statements. The only union known among * Such a description was at first inserted to fill up a blank half page, but when this reason was obviated by the further notice of the A.G. v. Drummond, the incomplete- ness of this vohune without such a summary caused a much larger space to be devoted to it. The reader is desired to notice that the addition at p. 826 to the remarks ending at p. 785 was not an afterthought, but was occasioned by an omission in printing that page. 837 English Presbyterians was the meeting of the ministers of a district, in which Independents took part on a perfectly equal footing, and which had no jurisdiction, but was held merely for conference and advice. The ordina- tions within the district, it is true, were naturally, and indeed necessarily, conducted by members of the association, but the individuals officiating appear to have been in most cases selected by the minister to be ordained, and to have acted with any other ministers from a distance whom he invited. Independents assisted in the ordination of Presbyterian ministers, occasionally taking the most important parts of the seiwice. These ordinations in all respects resembled ordinations among Independents at the present day, except that there was, at any rate during the chapel-building period, an examination into the theological and general acquirements, and the pulpit abilities, of the candi- dates. This enquiry was not made at the ordination of Independents, but in the case of many of their ministers it had taken place preliminarily to their being considered qualified to entertain a call to the pastoral office. The chief peculiarities of the early Independents were connected with their ordinations, and they were soon abandoned, and the Presbyterian method adopted, with the exception which has been mentioned. It is to be noticed that most of the Presbyterian ministers were edu- cated at private academies, and no greater proportion of them than of their Independent brethren had resorted to universities out of England. In learning, as shown by authorship, they had no pre-eminence. There was no discipline in the Presbyterian churches ; admission to the Lord's Supper seems to have been permitted, as a matter of course, on application to the minister, and church censures were unknown. It has not been shown that there existed, in any congrega- tion of English Presbyterians, an eldership exercising any church power ; the usual committee or body of managers have, in contempt of the facts of the case, been represented as being so many elders, but no instance has been produced of their deciding on the admission of com- municants, or managing any other than the temporal affairs of the congregation. An isolated congregation, although governed by its minister and elders, would not be truly Presbyterian unless the minister and elders were ordained and governed by a presbytery. But were it otherwise it is not with such isolated congregations we have to do here, but with congregations existing in every county, and all .self- governed. This was without doubt the case with the congregation at York, of which Lady Hewley was a member, the Presbyterianism of which was most confidently deposed to. It is impossible to frame any consis- tent definition of Presbyterianism which can embrace a state of things such as this. The proceedings as to the Exeter ministers display and illustrate 838 the state of* things almost as fully as could be wished. There was uo Kirk Session, but a committee of management, who apparently were also the trustees, and they decided and acted for the united congrega- tions. The Western Assembly, though the most highly organized of all the Associations, had no jurisdiction in the matter, and no real power, as appeared during the contest, for they could not even control ordinations within their bounds by members of their own body. After this Assem- bly found they were powerless to deal with the suspected ministers, five London ministers were consulted, and they recommended that the diffi- culties should be submitted to the wisest ministers of the neighbourhood. Seven of them were accordingly selected by the committee but failed, and then the five London ministers took up the matter again ; and they thought it best to call together the ministers of the three denomi- nations, English and Scotch Presbyterians, Independents, Calvinistic Baptists, and Arminian Baptists. This was not Presbyterianism. In the meantime the Exeter people did not wait for their decision, but the trustees of the chapels shut the doors against Mr Pierce and Mr Hallet. The Happy Union and the Associations would not have been formed, or even thought of, if there had been presbyteries ; and it is to be noticed that all the opposition to their formation came from Independents. Such a system as obtained among all the English Pres- byterians, according to the historians of the Synod of Ulster and its Leaders in our own time, was one of real Independency, but for the most part of Independency without its vital forces or its safeguards. For default of any organization embracing several congrega- tions, they necessarily became congregational, the seatholders having the powers which the church exercised among Independents ; some congregations however went beyond this, for the use of a church cove- nant, and the practice of obtaining the sanction of the body of com- muuicants to admissions to communion which obtained among them, amounted to the adoption, however imperfectly, of Independent principles. The minute of the Cheshire Association, if carried out, would have ensured the adoption of the Independent system in purity and efficiency ; and in Cheshire and Lancashire the Presbyterians outnumbered the Independents in a greater degree than in any other part of the kingdom. On the other hand, some Independent churches abandoned their old discipline, and the ministers admitted -to the Lord's Supper at their pleasure, and consequently seat-holders were admitted to participate in the choice of the minister ; in all other cases they soon, while preserving every vital part of their system, gave up the rigidity and peculiarities which occasioned whatever diffi- culty there had been in working with them. The extent to which ministers were interchanged between the denominations is shown by Dr. Evans's list ; indeed in the original the two bodies are inter- 839 mixed in a manner which can be accounted for only by their being considered as substantially one. The Independents have, in this volume, been arranged in a list by themselves, to the great prejudice of the argument now on hand, the convenience of the method for all other purposes having outweighed this disadvantage attending it. In London, where only separate boards and funds for the support of religion throughout the country were established, a congregation was esteemed to belong to one or the other body according to the fund selected by the pastor for the time being to receive their annual fund-collections, and the Presbyterian fund has always assisted several Independent congregations. Though the ministers called themselves some by one name and some by the other, differences other than doctrinal ones, went on disappearing more and more, until at last, in Lord Mansfield's time, the right of a professed Independent to be minister of a chapel founded by Presbyterians being submitted for decision to the courts at Westminster, the Judges could not discover any real difference between the denominations. The result is that the Inde- pendents are now in possession of very nearly half the old chapels now existing, or others built in substitution for them ; and all those of them now in the hands of Scotch Presbyterians were formerly occupied by Independents, or by congregations not in connexion with any Presbytery. This merging of one denomination in the other was to be expected from all their mutual relations from the era of the Revolution. In several instances a body of Independents, as such, joined a body of Presby- terians in the formation of their congregation, and such unions occurred from time to time until heterodoxy in the Presbyterians formed a gulf between the denominations. The Independent system in the end prevailed, because it was better suited to the English character, and because no effort was made to carry out any one principle of Presby- terianism. Those who prefer the latter polity have a right to say that it has not failed in England, because it never was really put on trial here. This view of the case is however fatal to the claim made by the Scottish denominations to the charities and chapels of Lady Hewley and her likeminded contemporaries. The qiiestion as to creeds requires special notice. The English Presbyterians do not appear to have demanded, on any occasion, a pro- fession of adherence, by subscription or otherwise, to any written standard of doctrine. The divines of the Westminster Assembly, when they formed their Directory, knew that the Arminianism which was the chief object of their hostility had been introduced and diffused by men professing the articles which all the Protestant predecessors of Archbishop Laud had regarded as bulwarks of the old Augustiniauism. The ejected ministers and their immediate suceessoi-s saw that the same articles were 840 subscribed, at ordination and every step of preferment, by the men who were answerable for the state of things described in Mr Pattison's Essay on the Theology of the Sixty Years succeding the He volution.* Those who founded the Presbyterian denomination with such warnings before their eyes, were not likely to trust to any formula of doctrine nor, when subscription had been the engine by which they had been torn from their flocks, would they be inclined to use it as the bond of their infant communion. They accepted any confession which assured them that the persons ordained really held the faith once delivered to the saints. On the other hand, the Scotch Presbyterians hastened to adopt the Episcopalian way ; but they did not find that it secured the ascendancy of Calvinistical or indeed of Evangelical doctrines. The Synod of Ulster contented itself with reiterating, and securing from repeal, laws enjoining the subscription of the Confession, under the tacit condition of their not being put in practice. Both churches have been for the most part won back in our day to the faith which they have all along professed ; but the English congrega- tions still bearing the name of Presbyterian had become entirely Socinian before the time of revival came. The Evangelical parties in Scotland and Ireland both trust to the subscription of the Confession, and the disuse of it cuts off the subscribing churches from all real communion with non-subscribing ones, for like almost all the rest of Christendom they do not see that while adherence to a standard is matter of principle, subscription to it is only a means to secure that end, and, as it has so often proved, an ineffectual and a dangerous means.. The heads of English Presbyterianism were no doubt consulted beforehand on the subscription demanded by the Toleration Act, and the references left by some of them as to their own compliance with the requirement, do not display any sense of its hardship. The objection to the subscription, which the bill for repeal of the Schism Act threatened, was that it affected laymen, and the proposal was, on opposition, abandoned ; but its authors seem to have expected the support of the Dissenters, though Loi"d Barrington happily persuaded them to the contrary. It is however evident that subscribing the national creed for the purpose of escaping the operation of a persecuting statute or the discipline of the state church, is a very different matter from subscribing articles of faith on joining or taking office in an unestablished communion. It has not been shown that any Presbyterian, before 1717, declared from the press any objection to the use of a Confession as the basis * It is to be noticed, that only one Nonconformist author is quoted in that essay, but it exhibits a just picture of the non-Calvinists whom the degenerate Presbyterians joined, and an extract from it is prefixed to this volume in order that it may be borne in mind how evil the days were in which heterodoxy obtained a permanent estab- lishment in England. 841 of church membership, or of an Association of Churches, but the feet remains of the non-use of any such. The members of the Belfast Society might have before that time discussed, and even denounced among themselves, the general principle involved in the use of formulas, but their first manifesto against it was Mr Abernethy's sermon, preached in Dec. 1719, and printed subsequently. The Confession of the Assembly seems never to have been formally recognized by the English Presbyterians after the Revolution as their peculiar symbol or formula, although its doctrines were held by them. The Directory does not require a minister at his ordination to subscribe the confession, or even to declare his adhesion to it, but directs that he shall undergo an examination evidently intended to be most searching. The examination thus enjoined implies a standard governing the examiners and appealed to by them ; but per- haps subscription to the Confession was not required, lest it might in time be a pretext for reducing the examination to a nullity. It is not to be supposed that the Assembly were indifferent to any point or any phrase of their confession, or that they thought it necessary to express that the body for whom they legislated should use it as their standard of doctrine in all respects and on all occasions ; and there is no doubt it was referred to as representing, and forming, the opinions of the next two generatkms of Presbyterians, unless as it might be supei^seded by the Assembly's own Catechism, which was in more constant and familiar use. The Confession was not however of exclusive or paramount authority. Dr. Williams does not refer to it in his description of Presbyterian ordination. The founders of the Happy Union proclaimed their agreement with it, but also with the Savoy Confession and the Anglican Articles ; and the coun- try ministers when they formed their Associations seem to have followed the example. This reference to three standards which, however similar, dis- play differences, capable of being magnified indefinitely by parties who found them shackles, proves that they were intended as declarations and not as tests. The Western Assembly required subscription of the doctrinal articles of the Establishment, and the trust deeds of many chapels also made them their standard, but this selection was no doubt dictated by fear or policy, not by preference. Some few churches drew up articles or a confession for themselves. Mr Howe and Mr Lowman both speak of new summaries of doctrine being prepared in their times by individuals, apparently as terms or conditions of union. It is trusted that the reader will see that on the one hand every distinctive peculiarity of Presbyterianism specified by the Scotch defen- dants in the A.G. v. Wilson was wanting in the English Presbyterians, and that on the other in every such particular as well as in every point id:, 842 of doctrine, the Independents of the nineteenth century exhibit a similarity to them but little short of identity, strictness as to member- ship in the one body and laxity respecting it in the other nearly effacing all differences between them. The relators' evidence in the A.G. v. Wilson contains particular accounts of many of the old chapels, and shews that those at Hall- fold, Nuttall, Windle, Horwich, Wigau, Risley, Tunley, Plumpton, Penruddock, Whitehaven, Meallingsriggin, Stamfordham, Swalwell, Stockton-on-Tees, Wallsend, Branton and Morpeth, were formerly in the hands of Independents, and inferentially it discloses that such was the case with others. They were one by one carried over to one or other of the Scotch denominations, by their ministers laying then- plans and waiting their opportunities ; but those at Hallfold, Nuttall, Whitehaven, Penruddock, and Carlisle, were gained by barefaced vio- lence, and sad narratives are given of the scenes they presented. The earliest minute book of the Northumberland Presbytery does not go further back than 1750, but the defendants' evidence imported that it exhibited Presbyterianism in that year in regular operation ; if such had been the case, the pi-oof of it could have been supplied from the Synod's records. We have full accounts of one Presbyterian congregation which appears to have exercised great influence over, not only the congregations in its own county, but those in the ad- joining ones, that late of Hanover Square Newcastle, the scene of Dr. Gilpin's and Benjamin Bennett's labours, now Socinian, and it is certain that it never was connected with any Presbytery. Whitehaven is rendered an important instance by the academy of Dr. Dickson, which was situated there ; the chapel there was Independent until the Seceders forcibly possessed themselves of it within this century. The trust deed is in favour of Presbyterians and Congregational ists equally. Dr. Rothetam's"" * The Arianism of Dr. Rotheram was too easily admitted by Mr Hadfield, see p. 129 supra, for the statement in the Proofs on the point is as follows, p. 120 : "Two short quotations more may be added, which plainly show that Dr. Rotheram was no orthodox minister, but one of those who rejected all the extreme doctrines of ortho- doxy, and probably also the doctrine of the Trinity itself, on any recognized explication of it. ' It would be indeed strange [says Mr Daye, of Lancaster, one of the doctor's pupils, in his funeral sermon to the Kendal congregation in 1752], if the most perfect harmony had not subsisted between you and your worthy pastor, while learning was so well applied, and religion rationally set forth to the pious and judicious.' Again, ' As a Protestant Dissenter he was a credit to his profession, for he was a friend, a faithful friend, to liberty, the distinguishing principle of that profession.'" The reader will doubt whether this can be all the proof which is produced of the doctor's heterodoxy, but this extract is a fair sample of the reasoning of the Proofs, and it is upon no better evidence than this that other ministers are claimed by the Socinian party. The chapel at Kendal is richly endowed, but it is with difficulty a congregation sufficient to carry on the service is maintained. This state of affairs is a matter of course if Presbyterianism was such in the north as it was in the rest of England, but no one has given us the history of any system really Presbyterian, which lost without a straggle such chapels as those of Newcastle and Kendal. 8 1 3 academy was at Kendal, and the congregation there is now Sociniati. These were the influential places, and all circumstances connected with them are well known. Our ignorance as to smaller congregations cannot avail to bring the general state of things into doubt ; for they must have gone with Newcastle, Kendal, and Whitehaven. It is clear that the < !lass of Cumberland and Westmoreland was a mere Association. The extract from Mr Dodson's sermon at p. 98 is conclusive on the matter. No attempt has been made to explain how the northern chapels fell off from Presbyterianism, or orthodoxy, when really governed by a Presby- tery ; nor was any instance given of an English Presbytery joining a Scotch denomination, which must, if it had ever taken place, been a matter of notoriety, and would have been recorded in the books of the Synod. All the congregations, one after another, joined Presbyteries either of the Kirk men or Seceders, and there would have been no reason for their doing so if they had been previously in connection with an English one. There will not be found in the north, any more than in the south, any facts to support the rights of Scotch denominations to the old Presbyterian chapels ; their occupation of them will, in all cases, prove to be modern, and all arguments in their favour will, upon exami- nation, dwindle down to the use of the word Presbyterian, which south of the Tweed will be found to have denoted anything but real P resby teri an is m . It may be admitted that some of the northern congregations founded by the English Presbyterians retained, before they joined the Presbyteries with which they are now connected, the name of "elders,'' but the persons so styled were either deacons of the Independent model, or if not such, were anything rather than Church Officers, since they had no share in the admission or supervision of the communicants, all discipline having been laid aside in the communities there as in the south. It may be difficult to verify this now, but the use of the word does not afford the slightest proof that there were in those congregations Kirk Sessions with real power, after the likeness of things beyond the Tweed. This caution will not be thought needlessly reiterated by those who know how entirely the arguments of the Scottish litigants were founded on names and words, without enquiring into the things or notions which they really represented. But as already observed, the most strict discipline administered by minister and elders was not of itself sufficient to render a congregation Presbyterian, if several like communities existed in the district without uniting themselves into a Presbytery ; for they would exhibit, and indeed must, from the fact of this non-union, have intentionally preserved, that self-government which is so far the chief characteristic of the Independents, as to have given them their name On the other hand, a Christian society uniting to the necessary condi- 844 tions of soundness in the faith, and purity of fellowship, the specific distinction of freedom from external control or interference, might justly claim to be ranked among Independent churches, notwithstanding then- delegation to some of their number of powers which other bodies bearing that name have always retained as their most sacred franchises and liber- ties. A similar delegation is most advantageously practised in many churches as to exclusion, by the appointment of a discipline committee for each case as it arises, or for all the cases occurring within a certain period of time ; and admissions in most churches may be considered as practically left to the minister, with the like good result. The Independents have always regarded their self-government as having maintained their two other characteristics just referred to ; and in both the anomalous cases under consideration it is evident that the select body, although in theory governing, would defer to the general opinion of the community. Now that Presbyterians ai'e freed from the influence of their fancied interest in the question, they will no longer see in their English name- sakes of the time of the Revolution, the counterparts of themselves, and they will become anxious to save their church polity from the reproach, originated only by ignorance, of having in England failed to preserve the faith. When they recognize the true state of the case, they will no longer think it necessary, as if in self-defence, to transfer the stigma by showing that their congregations were Independent when they lapsed into heterodoxy, for they will be aware that the discipline and govern- ment of the English Presbyterians were the same throughout the whole period of their existence, and that to say that they were ultimately Independent, is to admit that they were never Presbyterian, but always congregational, and in fact to concede one point which this volume has been written to maintain, that the practice of the present congre- gationalists more nearly than that of any other body resembles the system of Heywoocl and Calamy, and their fellows of the earlier and later portions of the chapel-building age. The congregationalist body, for its part, will always rebut the charge of having produced the apos- tasy, for it was shared only by a few of their congregations which, although they retained the name of Independents, adopted from their neighbours, as incorrectly calling themselves Presbyterians, the utter abandonment of the discipline essential to the existence of a- true congregational church, and what was still worse the devolution on the seatholders of the powers which principle and experience unite to show can be exercised to any good result by the communicants only. 8 L5 ERRATA. p. iii, 1. 5 from bottom, for obtained read gleaned. p. iv, 1. 2 from bottom, for all read each. p. vii, 1. 5 from bottom, insert at beginning experts in ecclesiastical history ; dele as they. Next line, for referred to read used. p. viii, 1. 15, for even read also. p. xiv, 1. 15, dele kindly. ,, 1. 5 from bottom, before adviser insert nonprofessional. p. 18, 1. 11 from bottom, for Matthew read Samuel. p. 25 and other pages, for Pinners, Salter's, read Pinners', Salters\ p. 28, 1. 10, for Dickinfield read Duhenjield. p. 26, 1. 21, for Hale read Hall. p. 27, 1. 24, for thinking read think. p. 28, 1. 13, for associations read connexions. p. 3-4, 1. 19 from bottom, for Gill read Evans. p. 19, 1. 13, before appealed to insert he was. p. 54, 1. 8 from bottom, for is read seems. p. 56, 1. 3, for ite read their. 1. 5, for it read £/iey. p. 61, 1. 8, before always insert the latter. p. 61, 1. 5 from bottom, for congregations read congregation. p. 63, 1. 2, for Norwich read Norwich. p. 72, 1. 6, for principles read principle. „ 1. 20, for //ar/ read Hare. „ 1. 25, transpose ] to follow 262. p. 75, 1. 22, for says read is made to say. p. 81, 1. 12, for there read then. ]). 84, 1. 5 and elsewhere, for Moreton read Morton. p. 97, 1. 3 from bottom, for John read Joseph. p. 98, 1. 23, for added read saioJ. p. 120, 1. 2, for '■clinically read technicality. ]). 129, 1. 11, for Samuel Leetham read Lemuel Latham. „ 1. 23, for Louthion read Lowthion. 846 p. 141, 1. 3 from bottom, for Craydon read Crandon. p. 142, 1. 1, for Reliqucti read Reliquiae. p. 167, 1. 6, for 248 read 235. p. 173, end of line 17, insert a. p. 176, 1. 9, for preached read printed. p. 179, 1. 9 from bottom, after Howe insert pertain. p. 193, H. 2 and 3 after attendants, and obtained insert ? p. 195, 1. 11 from bottom, for interests read interest. p. 199, 1. 9, for to read of. ., 1. 16 from bottom, for should nut be read is not. p. 201, 1. 3 of note, for son read ward and pupil. p. 204, 1. 4 from bottom, for has read had. p. 210, 1. 20 from bottom, for 1820 read 1720. ,, I. 3 of note, for district read districts. Next line but one, after door insert on. p. 215, 1. 17, after year* insert possession. p. 217, 1. 6, for temporately read temperately. p. 218, 1. 8 of note, for colleage read colleague. ,, next line but two, for profess ing read possessing. p. 219, last 1. but 4, for Winter read Wontner. p. 220, 1. 5 from bottom, after decree insert obtained. p. 239, 1. 2 of note, for be related I'ead relate. p. 240, 1. 5, for Houseman read Horseman. p. 242, 1. 9, for of read in. p. 242, 1. 21, for 10 read 20. p. 249, 1. 1, for James read John. p. 251, 1. 5 from bottom, for Hadley read Hadfield. p. 270, omit lines 10 and 9 from bottom. p. 274, 1. 15 from bottom, for 1789 read 1799. p. 282, 1. 2, and p. 284, 1. 2 from bottom, for Darbyshire read Darbishire. p. 328, 1. 13 from bottom, for done read made. ,, 1. 9 from bottom, for practised read hastened. „ next line for affirmation read affirmance. p. 345, 1. 9 from bottom, for volice read voluit. p. 378, 1. 8 and elsewhere, for Boyce read Boyse. p. 389, 1. 7 from bottom, for members read ministers. ,, next line but two, for Dunmurray read Dunmurry. 817 p. 42->, 1. 8 from bottom and elsewhere, for Killinchey read Killinchy. p. 426, 1. 14, for Walser read Watson. p. 433, 1. 14, for plaintiffs read defendants. p. 434, last line, for Abraham read Arthur. p. 451, 1. 12 from bottom, for from read for. p. 481, 1. 6 from bottom, for be tried read come on. p. 485, 1. 7, and last line, for Glendy read Glendie. p. 493, 1. 16, for smcZi read so. p. 494, 1. 15 from bottom, for «owe read no one. p. 495, 1. 9, before if insert nor. ,, next line but one, for gathered read to join. ,, last line, for however read moreover. p. 497, 1. 7, for considered read safely averred. p. 501, 1. 16 from bottom, for . 656, 1. 5, for Alfreton read Alfreton, p. 657, 1. 15 from bottom, for Bear read Bear. p. 661, 1. 7, for Lanchline read Lauchline. ,, 1. 21, for Gloucester read Gloucester. p. 662, ]. 10 from bottom, for Sharman read Sherman. ,, 1. 8 from bottom, for Box Lane read Box Lane. p. 663, 1. 14, dele J. p. 664, 1. 5, (Goudhurst), add [extinct]. ,, 1. 7, (Tonbridge Wells), add [new chapel built]. ,, 1. 10, for Woolwich read Woolwicla. p. 665, 1. 3, for Ash ton or Parklane read Ashton or Parklane. p. 667, 1. 10, for Brickhell read Brekell. p. 668, last line, for Bond read Broad. p. 670, 1. 10, for Deadmans Place read Maid Lane. ,, last line but 3, for 3EIampstea& read Hampstead. p. 676, 1. 15 from bottom, for Aason read Aaron. „ 1. 17 from bottom, for Ayerigg read Aycrigg. ,, 1. 18 from bottom, for Lambrook read Lambroo/C. p. 677, 1. 9 from bottom, for Winchester read Winchester. p. 679, last line but one, for Narton read Norton. p. 681, 1. 16 from bottom, transpose words between [ ] to follow Pickard, 1. 12 from bottom. p. 6S2, for Russendale read Pussendtde. 8 L9 p. 6$l'>, 1. 7 from bottom, for York read York. ,, 1. 6 ,, for Knaresborough read Knaresborough. p. 684, 1. 9, for Pudsey read Pudsey. ]>. 684, 1. 11, for Eland read Eland. ,, 1. 12, for Bradford Dale read Bradford Dale. ,, 1. 13, for Winterburn read Winterburn. ,, 1. 17, for Worsley read Warley. ,, 1. 22, for Hep ton read Hopton. „ 1. 31, for Rotherham read Rotherham. M. William Wil- son. 100. ,, 1. 10 from bottom, for Kingstou-upon-Hull read Kixgston- UPON-HuLL. ,, ,, ,, for W 'ilter read Witter. [ Extinct] should be added to the entries of Barnsley, Greenhill (if the same as Greenbow Hill), Long Houghton, Tadcaster, Clifford, Rathmell, Light Cliff, Garsdale and, next page, Ottringham. p. 685, 1. 2, for Mallescriff 'read Mallison. 1. 8, for Swaledale read Swaledale-. 1. 9, for Ellenthorp read Ellenthorp. 1. 10, for Ay ton read Ay ton. p. 687, 1. 8, after wrongly insert stated, for as being read to be. 1. 13 from bottom for jJCission vend passim. p. G90, 1. 1, after Gainsborough insert Ambrose Rudsdale. p. G92, 1. 1-L from bottom, transpose Northumberland to follow Rusden. p. G95, 1. 20, add at end this chapel appears to have been originally Presbyterian, p. G96, 1. 8, before Board insert Fund. p. 702, 1. 16 from bottom, for least read lest. ]>. 705, 1. 9 from bottom, (Gale), for P. read G.B. p. 70G, dele -or Beaconsfield. p. 707, 1. 16 from bottom, (Beaumont), for P. read /. p. 711, 1. 5 from bottom, after Tunbridye insert Wells. p. 715, 1. 15 from bottom, for Mile read Mill. \). 717, 1. 11 from bottom, before all insert are. p. 720, 1. 22, for Cook read Cock. }>. 722, 1. 12 from bottom, for communions read communion. 106 850 p. 723, 1. 18, add ] at end of paragraph. ,, 1. 20, for extract read original list. p. 724, 1. 15 from bottom, after as insert to. p. 730, 1. 15, insert [at beginning of paragraph. p. 732, 1. 9 from end, for admitted read conceded. p. 741, 1. 15 from bottom, for P. read B. p. 768, 1. 3, for petition read petitions. p. 769, 1. 2 from bottom, before commenced insert which. p. 783, 1. 13 from bottom, after told insert truly. p. 784, 1. 12 from bottom, dele own. p. 785, 1. 6, before vjhich insert most of. p. 799, 1. 13 from bottom, insert Dr. Jabez Earle died 1768. p. 799, 1. 8 from bottom, insert Dr. William Paley, Archdeacon of Carlisle, 1743—1805. ,, 1. 6 from bottom, insert the time of the death of the Rev. William Baker, quoted p. 71, has not been met with. p. 818, 1. 2 from bottom, after Cork add Fermoy. And still the list may be incomplete. INDEX. Contractions are used : S. Scotch, E. English, P. Presbyterian and Presbyterians, I. Independent and Independents, C. Congregationalists, Soc. Socinians. Abernethy, Rev. John, of Antrim, 382. forms Belfast Society, 371. his publications, 373. his overture in the Synod for settle- ment of differences, 381. he is cut off from the Synod with other non-subscribers, 381. Academies, English. Independent and Baptist described by S. P., 615. Presbyterian, of the 17th century, 8. those of the 18th century the chief sources of heterodoxy, 37, 81,-2,-5. Accretions. See endowments. Act 7 & 8 Victoria, chapter 45, introduced in compliance with a memorial, which gave no particulars, and no definite information, 783. incorrect title of it, Stages of its passing, Contents xxxvi. Sir Robert Peel did not expect it to pass, 535. public feeling against it, 524, 829. the difficulty of effectually opposing its passing, 557. change in its main provision after second reading in the Commons, 559. the uncertainty of the opinions favour- ed by it, 556. anomalies in it, 493. the false pretences under which it was passed, 549. condemned by the judgment of the Lords in A.G. v. Drummond, 8l!4. the mischiefs proceedings under it will occasion, 553, 556. does not affect cases such as the [lew- ley charity, the General Fund, or ( 'lough or Killinchy chapels, 573. ought not to affect cases similar to the Wolverhampton one, 573. the results of it, 573, 490. doubt whether it would have passed if the present state of things among Unitarians had been foreseen, 573. its effect on existing suits. 7*7. discourages future charities, 785, 789. intended to benefit heterodox parties only, 789, 792. unjust if not nugatory, 793. destructive of confidence in Parlia- ment, 791,795,559. doubt whether it applies to many Socinian chapels at present, iv. ought to have been referred to a Select Committee of the Lords, 557. should have provided for a Special Commission of enquiry, 569. Independents should have petitioned to have been exempted from it 562. volume containing all particulars re- lating to it, 579. petitions in favour of it, 759-775. against it, 785-792. Admission to church, (i.e., to communion) among E.P., 701, 802, 803. Adiaphorist, Church of England practi- cally, 53. Alderson, Mr Baron, according to the Proofs, misconceives the question, 90. stops discussion as to Anninianism, 328. his opinion in the Hewley case, 304. Allen, Rev. John, M.D., of New Broad Street and Worcester, 722. Alsop, Vincent, secedes from Pinners' Hall Lecture, 22. Ambiguity of the language used in the Proofs, 200. Amory, Dr., of the Old Jewry, 35. Ancestral title to religious endowments, 114, 779. futility of it, 4<)5, 7S4. connexion with chapels, 777, 781. re- marks on, 495, 7X4. Anderson v. Watson, Killinchy chapd case, 430. for proceedings see < lontents xxxiv. Angear, Rev. John, of Swanland, joins in Mr Cappe's ordination, 124. Anglican system referred t<> in illustration 852 of reasoning on the right to Presby- terian charities, 90, 560. Annesley Francis, donor of site of dough chapel, 391. Anonymous Pamphlet, on the title to English Presbyterian endowments, 577. account of London ministers in 1731, 696. Anti-Burgher Seceders, 581. their amalgamation with the Bur- ghers, 582. Antinomians in 1731, among Indepen- dent-, 700; among Baptists, 703. Anti-Calvinistic, assumption of name, 759. Anti-Trinitarians Irish, usurpers of proper- ty devoted to Trinitarianism, 786,7. Anti-Trinitarianism not offence at Com- mon Law, 360, but see 815. Antrim, the Synod's Presbytery of. all non-subscribers attached by the Synod to it, 379. Antrim, Presbytery of. a separate denomination formed under the name, 381. reasons of their separation given by Arians, 741. congregations originally adhering to it, 382. congregations now composing it, 576. mistake as to their original opinions 407, 425, fatal use made of it 543. memorialises Irish Government to stay suits, 481. their petition in favour of the bill, 759. Apostles' Creed. not E.P. standard, 50. supplement of the Proofs as to it, 148. Baxter quoted in the Proofs as to it, 144. Howe quoted in the Proofs as to it, 154. Arian ministers concealed their opinions, 40. the manner of their introduction into congregations, 41-2. Arians of the eighteenth century, 39. 719. of the nineteenth century, 45. in Somerset before 1720, 97. might subscribe declaration of faith of Congregational Union according to the S. P., 009. Arianism in some instances differed from orthodoxy in words only, 39. in others merely disguise of infidelity, 39, 129. nearer to orthodoxy than to Soci- nianism, 44, 514, 133. difficulty of legally establishing charge of, 48. according to the Proofs widely spread at the beginning of the 18th cen- tury, 68, and most widely where least noticeable, 97. statement of Arian opinions in an- swer, 432, 750. time of introduction of, 768-774, 780, 205, 123, 88. was it openly and honestly intro- duced ? is the main question, 783, 192, 522. Arminians among London ministers in 1731, 34. Arminianism not held by any Presbyterian at the time of the Neonomian con- troversy, 138, nor according to Pierce in 1716, nor according to Dr. Calamy in 1717, 139. earliest proofs of its existence, 140, 698. first step towards Socinianism, 137, 328. Discussion as to, stopped by Mr Baron Alderson, 328. Armstrong, Mi's. , her petition in favour of the bill, 763. Ashley, Lord, gives notice of amendment, 541. not ready with his clause in com- mittee, 545. Aspland, Rev. Robert, his tract given in evidence, 285. Assembly. See Westminster Assembly. Assistant ministers often introduced Arianism, 41. Associations of ministers formed through- out England, 19. Atkinson, the Rev. Benjamin Andrew, his account of the non-subscribers' rea- sons and belief, 1 13. Atonement of Christ. supplement of the Proofs as to, 135. quotations in the Proofs from epis- copal writers as to, 135. Atterbury, Bishop Francis, of Rochester. of a rational school of theology, 09. Attorney-General v. Drummond, as to the Dublin General Fund, 434. for proceedings see Contents xxxiv and , judgment of Lords on appeal, 831. 853 Attorney-General v. Hutton, as to Eustace Street chapel, Dublin, 439. for proceedings see Contents xxxv. Attorney-General v. Pearson, as to \\rol- verhampton chapel, 214. for proceedings see Contents xxx. misrepresentation of the decision, 775. N.B. This misrepresentation is the hasis of almost all the arguments of the hetero- dox parties. Attorney-General v. Shore, as to Hewley charity, in the House of Lords, Shore v. Wilson, contest with Socinians, 252. tactics of defendants in 2S2, 301, 8i4,5. for proceedings see Contents xxxi. Attorney-General v. Wilson, Hewloy charity, contest with S. P., 592. for proceedings see Contents xxxix. Autonomy chief characteristic of Indepen- dents, 813-4. inconsistent with Preshyterianism, 837, 843. Balywalter chapel, suit respecting, 391. Baker, William, quotation in the Proofs from, 71. accompanies Dr. Calamy to Scotland, 78. Bangorian Controversy, the source of the opinions of the Belfast Society, 372. Baptists. description of them in 1731, 703. secured perpetual nomination of one Hewley trustee, 585, 630, 032. their good understanding with Inde- pendents, 586. support the bill, 488, 580. Barrington, Lord, 101, 104, 107, 110. Barrow, Isaac. his new way of preaching, 202. quoted by Chief Justice Tindal, 359. Bates, William, D.D., secedes from Pin- ners' Hall Lecture, 22. presents address of London ministers for legislation against blasphemy, 107. Baxter, Rev. Richard, "f Kidderminster and Black friars, 183, 151. quotations from in the Proofs, 141. charged in Proofs with Sabellianism, 61. his opinions on the essentials of reli- gion, 132, 147. unfairly dealt with in the Proofs, I'.is. quoted by Chief Justice Tindal. 359. Beadon, l!ev. Roger, dismissed from Bud- leigh, Devonshire, for Arianism, 97. Bedell, Bishop, 371. Belfast Society, The, 371. Bennet, Rev. Benjamin, 129, 717. goes with Dr. Calamy to Scotland. 78. his opinions inferred in the Proofs from his successors, 129. importance of the fact as to his orthodoxy, 129. quoted in the Proofs, 169. quotations in answer, 636. Bennett, James, D.D., examined as a wit- ness, 282, 224, 618. Benson, George, D.D., 717, 723, 35. dismissed from Abingdon for Armi- nianism, 140. . eventually a Socinian, 723. Bernal, Mr, his speech in favour of the bill, 519. Berry, Rev. Henry Lea, witness for S. P. 609, 623, 624. Bible. independent of particular interpreta- tion of it not a basis of communion, 442. alleged to be the only standard of Irish Fresbyterians, 745. Billingsley, Rev. Nicholas. quotation from in the Proofs, 93. one of the first Arians in Somerset, 97. Blasphemy Act, in accordance with the address of London ministers, 107. Blomfield, Bishop, (London). attends the hearing of the appeal, 324, 327. his speeches on that occasion, 507, 547. extract from, 529. Blower, John, of London, (Vizard and Blower), undertakes to file information as to the Hewley chanty, 254. no doubt communicated the state- ments as to A. G. v. Shore in the Cong. Mag., 815. Board Presbyterian, 1727. list of, 710. Board Independent, 1727, list of, 712. 1734,5, list of 715. formation of, 713. see Fund Boards. Bogue and Bennett's History of Dissenters, 73. quotations from in the Proofs, i 1, 91. by S. P., 600,-1,-5. Booth, Mr, junior counsel for defendants in Attorney-General v. Shore. 854 quotation by him derogatory to the I., 303. his speech published as a pamphlet, 578. Bourn, Samuel, of Birmingham, 719. early recipient of the Hewley charity, 129. republishes Mr Strong's revision of the Assembly's Catechism, 35. reference to in the Proofs, 43, 136. quotation from in the Proofs, 71. his indignation at written questions addressed to candidate, 41. Bowles, Rev. Edward, of York. his Catechism, 733. reference to his Catechism in the Proofs, 118 ; in appeal case, 208 ; in information 253 ; in trustees' answer, 261 ; in Mr Wellbeloved's answer, 270 ; by Mr Baron Alder- son, 309, 315 ; by Lord Lyndlmrst, 315. Boyd, Dr., member for Coleraine. his notices of motions and amend- ments, 539. his absence from the committee through illness, 541. Boyse, Rev. James, of Dublin. joins in approbation of Mr Aberne- thy's pamphlets, 373. joins in mediating before the Synod of Ulster between the Belfast Society and their opponents, 378. Bradbury, Rev. Thomas, of New Court, his two proposals at the Salters' Hall Assembly, 25. Brookes, Rev. James, of Hyde, near Man- chester, pamphlet by, 578, 805. Brookes, Rev. John, of York, succeeds Dr. Colton. Inferences as to his opinions, 122. Brooks, Rev. Thomas, ejected minister, quotations in the Proofs from, 158. Brougham, Lord. hears Hewley case without deciding it, 295. his eulogy of Mr Wellbeloved and prayer for him, 395. threatens that Hewley estate would be claimed for the Establishment 295. his description of the P. of the Com- monwealth, 297. his eulogy of Independents, 297. his remarks during the appeal in the House of Lords, 324-5. his speech on the appeal, 362. his judgment in Drummond v. A.G. , 832. presents petitions in favour of the bill, 497, 502. his speech in the debate, 508. his mistake as to the bill, 508. indications of his opinions, 827. ^ Browne, Rev. Simon, of the Old Jewry. a contributor to the Occasional Papers, 116. Buck, Rev. John, of Bolton. declines invitation to York chapel, 121. extracts from a sermon of his, 121, 125. Budleigh congregation, 97. Burgher Seceders, 581. their union with Anti-Burghers, 582. contest between New Light and Old Light, 217, 419, 496. their preamble to the formula misin- terpreting the Confession, 420. Burnet, Bishop, alleged to be of a rational school of theology, 68. Burroughs, R,ev. Jeremiah, his inscription over his study door, 166, 805. Bury, Dr., deprived of mastership of col- lege for Arianism, 92. Bury, Rev. Samuel, of Bury St. Edmonds, and Lewin's Mead Bristol. quotations in the Proofs from him, 165, 72. quotations in answer, 634. student in Mr Doolittle's Academy, 84. his alleged opinions in 1702, 165. remarks on him, 169. Butler, Bishop, his opinion as to the atonement, 135. Calamy, Edinond, D.D., of Prince's Street, Westminster, 75, 698, 717, 724. Mr Rutt's edition of his autobiogra- phy, 724. his account of his ordination, 724. neutral as to Salters' Hall Assembly, 26. his account of it, 100. his account of the acts of the Synod of Ulster, 376, 377, 379. his account of his journey to Scotland, 727-731. referred to in the Proofs as show- ing his liberality 77, referred to by the S.P. as showing the entire agree- ment of the E.P. with the S. P., 596. his remarks on cases which he heard discussed iii the General Assembly, 727-729. preaches at Edinburgh a sermon, cen- sured by James Webster for latitu- dinarianism, 729. preaches in return for Mr Seniple, of Libberton, 730. his answer to Scotch lady's assertion that the Gospel was not preached in England, because no Presbytcrianism there, 730. quotations from his works in the Proofs, 72, 133, 148, 157, 724-5. quotations in answer, 159. admission in the Proofs of his Trini- tai'ianism, 78, 725. insinuations in the Proofs against him, 78, 133. statement in the Proofs that he never subscribed, 74. Calvin, John, 818. Calvinism always orthodoxy in the west- ern church, according to Mr Hallam, 33. of Baxter, 33. of Dr. Edward Williams and Andrew Fuller, 33. perpetually attacked in the Hewley case, 327, 431, but only by Mr Sheil in the debates, 818. of English Presbyterians of Revolu- tion and subsequent generation, 13S, 328. Campbell, Hugh, professor of Ecclesiasti- cal History in the London P. Col- lege ; extract from his examination, 622. Campbell, Professor, alleged to approve teaching both sides of a question, 81. Campbell, Sir John, defendants' counsel on appeal, afterwards Lord Campbell, 329. slip by, 329. extract from his speech on appeal 329, see also 325-327. uses relators' offers against them, 287. speaks for the bill in presenting peti- tion against.it, 499. his speech in the debate, 529. his judgment in Driunmond v. A.G., 832. Cappe, Rev. Xewcome, of York, 122. account of him in Proofs, 123, in infor- mation 254, in answers 263, 274, by Mr Moody 120, S. P., 608. the ministers who signed his ordina- tion certificate, 12;!. Carlisle Chapel, 842. Carpenter, Rev. D. Lant, of Bristol, his sermons given in evidence, 285. Carson, Rev Mr, of Tobermore, becomes a Baptist, and his congregation claims the Presbyterian chapel, 391. Chalmers, Principal, his opinions as to the Salters' Hall Assembly, 105. Chandler, Samuel, D.D., 35, 98, 697, 717, 723, 822. his opinions, as alleged by Proofs, 720. one of the first Arians in Somerset, 97. his settlement at Peckham, in 1716, alleged as proof of early spread of Arianism, 98. Chapels, Lists of, 1718 1729. Presbyterian, in England 685, in Wales 685. Baptist chapels in England, 650, 685. Independent chapels in England, 687. the number of E.P. chapels, originally 10 ; now in possession of S. P. 10, 5S3 ; of Socinians 10, 686, 782 ; of Baptists 10 ; of Independents 10 ; 685. two titles concurrent in, 502. Chapels, title to in respect of additions or repairs, 494, 78, foundation by ances- tors, 495, 779, interment of relatives, 495, 781, as matter of partnership, 495, 779. Chapel deeds, Wolverhampton 210, Clough 391, Killinchy 426. Chapel-building period, 63. Charity property. rules of equity as to remedies for mismanagement of, 492, 793. limitation of such remedies 465, 781, 785, 789. is subject to two concurrent titles, 502. Charity Commissioners. enquire into Hewley charity, 250. suggest information as to its applica- tion, 251. refuse list of recipients, 252. Cheshire Association, 19. their minute recommending Indepen- dent principles as to admission to fellowship, 802. Chester congregation, 21. Chilling worth, William. his theology very different from Cal- vinism, 68. his Arianism, 95. quoted by Dr. Clarke in opposition to creeds, 77. Chorlton, Mr, his academy at Manchester, 33. 856 Choppin, Rev. Mr, of Dublin. » joins in recommending Mr Abernethy's pamphlets, 373. joins in mediating before Synod of Ulster, between Belfast Society and their opponents, 378. Clarke, Samuel, D.D., rector of St. James's. Proofs allege him to teacb how Arians might speak of a scriptural Trinity, 100, 70, 92. quotes episcopal writers in opposition to creeds, 77. Classes, nature of, 624. Clayton, Bishop, quoted in the Proofs, 94. Clough Chapel case, see Dill v. Watson. Coleridge, Mr Justice, extract from his answers (1) 341, (3) 347, (2) 348, (4) 354, (6) 3(31. Colville, Rev. Alexander, M.D. of Dromore suspended for obtaining ordination in England, 379. Colquhoun, Mr, M.P. , his speeches in an- swer to Mr Macaulay, and on the third reading, 545. Colton, Rev. Thomas M.D. , LadyHewley's pastor and chief adviser, 119. his practice as a Hewley trustee, 130. John Dunton's character of him quoted in the Proofs, 175. extract from his will, 177. his account of Lady Hewley in his funeral sermon for her, 237. bill in Chancery against him as to her property, 236. extracts from his answers, 237. Commission Royal, only method of ascer- taining facts of each Presbyterian chapel or charity, 569. Committee (Select) of the Lords should have enquired into the case to be made for the act, 557. Commissioners, see Charity. Education. Commons, House of, divisions analysed, 547. heard only one side of the question, 534-539. yet changed the nature of the bill, 559. Congregation cannot enter on enquiry after truth, 190. right of, practically denied by Soc. , 193. Congregational Union, their declaration of faith accused of heresy, 597, 008. petition against the bill, 790. Congregationalist congregations peculiarly liable to dissolution, 823. Coningham, Rev. James, his academy at Manchester, 82. Cooke, Dr. Henry, of Belfast, Moderator of the Synod of Ulster, examined as witness, 399, 433. presents to Irish government memo- rial in answer to Arians, 481. extracts from it, 483. meets Dr. Montgomery before Sir Robert Peel, 483. Lord Lyndhurst's promise to him, 520. prays to be heard by counsel against the bill, 539. his petitions, 785, 789. Cooper, Charles Purton, Q.C., counsel for Mr Wellbeloved, his speech pub- lished as pamphlet, 578. Costs alleged as motive for suits against anti-trinitarians, 506, 534, 537, 760. Cottenham, Lord, 509. affirms Vice-Chancellor's decree in the Wolverhampton case, 225. dismisses appeal on Further Consider- ation, 226. affirms the Vice-Chancellor's decree in the Attorney-General v. Shore, 300. allows S. P. to attend the Master, 585. compels compromise in the Attorney- General v. Wilson, 631. his judgment in Drummond v. A.G., 829. his share in the proceedings in Parlia- liament, 497, 508, 519, 546. . his speeches, 547. Cox, Mr, Seceders' solicitor, 585. Cox, Rev. John, dismissed from Kings- bridge congregation for Arianism, 97. Counsel engaged in the Wolverhampton case 226, the Attorney-General v. Shore 367, in the Attorney-General v. Wilson 626, in the- Clough case 394. Craigdallie v. Aikman, D.P., first hearing 21 7, second hearing 419, explanation of, 496. Creed, see Apostles' Creed. Creeds, P. opposition to, alleged in the Proofs, 70. not used by E. P., 841. extracts as to, from P. authors, 70. ,, episcopalian, 77. Crosthwaite, Miss Anne, her charitable foundation in connexion with Eus- tace Street chapel, Dublin, 461, 474, 477. 857 Cruso, Eev. Timothy, joins Pinners' Hull Lecture, 51, 22. Cumberland and Westmoreland Associa- tion, 19. dimming, Dr., of Founders' Hall, his book on the Trinity commended by Dr. Calamy, 105. Darner, Joseph, Esq. one of the founders of the General Fund, 434. contributor to fund for building "Wood Street chapel, 4G0. remarks on his gifts, 477, 46G. Darbishire, Samuel, Secretary to Man- chester College, his examination, 284. Daye, Eev. Mr, of Lancaster, extracts from his funeral sermon for Dr. Kother- ham, 842. Deputies, Dissenting, formation of body, 717,8. Dickson, Dr., of Whitehaven, 717,8. his academy, 83. early recipient from the Hewley Fund, 129. Dill, Rev. Francis, his settlement at Clough, and proceedings consequent upon it, 392. Dill v. Watson, the Clough chapel case, 393. for proceedings see Contents xxxiv. report of, by Mr Macrory, 579. ,, the defendants, 579. Doctrine, only basis of denomination, 51. Documents. answers of Wolverhampton chapel trustees 214, 221, Hewley trustees 261-282, Clough chapel defendants 743, Killinchy chapel defendants 746, General Fund trustees 435, Proofs 64-181, reasons for appeal in A. G. v. Shore, 321, extracts from appeal case 203-209, reasons for appeal in A.G. v. Drummond, 456, Eossendale memorial, 244, memorial to Government, 775, Scotch Presbyterian answers, 593- 617, their evidence, 620-626. see Chapel deeds. Lists. Doddridge, Philip, D.D., of Kibworth and Northampton, 717. his association with Arians, 47. his academy, 83. Dodson, Eev. Joseph, of Penruddock and Marlborough, 129, 719. extracts in Proofs from his sermon, 97. Donaghadee chapel, suit respecting, 391. Doolittle, Eev. Thomas, of Monkvvell Street, his academy, 82. Dort, Synod of, Baxter's agreement with, 141. Dublin General Fund case, Attorney- General v. Drummond, 439, second information as to, 457. Association, 369. Presbytery, 369. Southern Presbytery, 370. Chapels, 369, 459, 479. their memorial to government to stay the suits, 481. their petition to Parliament, 761. Earle, Jabez, D.D., quotations in the Proofs from, 71. Edinburgh Eeview, (vol. 80, p. 513, not a separate article), commendation of the act, 581. Education Commissioners (Irish), state- ments made to, as to Arianism in the Synod of Ulster, 387. Elders, government by, without Presby- tery or Synod, alleged by Professor Campbell to be the essence of Pres- byterianism, 625. See 837, 843. not mentioned as exercising power after restoration, 800, 820. Eldon, Lord, 48, 219, 783. his judgments in Craigdallie v. Aik- man, 219, 421, in A.G. v. Pearson, 807. his dislike to Sir Samuel Eomilly's act, 783. fear of his doubts and delays no doubt caused discontinuance of A.G. v. Pearson, and prevented other suits, 48. Elliot, Lord, (afterwards Earl of St. Ger- mains) Irish Secretary, speaks in favour of the bill, 546. Ellis, Eev. Thomas, joins in Mr Cappe's ordination, 124. Emlyn, Thomas, of Dublin and the Old Bailey, 32, 39, 57, 70, 92. Matthew Henry's remarks to, 163. Sir E. B. Sugden's reference to his case, 445. Endowments enabled Arian ministers to retain their pulpits, 43. additional 114, 220, 474, 4S2, 550, give no right to alter original founda- tion, 494. danger and doubtful propriety of. 633. 107 858 Eiskine, Mr Justice, extracts from his answers (1) 339, (2) 347, (3) 347, (4) 352. Essentials of Religion. the existence of some such recog- nized in the quotations in the Proofs 179, Non-subscribers' letter 183, in Presbyterian certificate of ordination 181, by early Arians and Racovian Catechism, 184. specified, Proofs 79, Bishop Gib- son 132, Archbishop Tillotson's biographer as held by him 132, Baxter 132, Sir Matthew Hale 147, (all these from the Proofs), Mr Baron Alderson 306, Synod of Ul- ster 376, Baron Smith 415. Lowman's wish for a list of them, 179. Mr Howe's account of them, 180. difference between doctrines of the confession, as some essential and some non-essential, not recognized by ministers belonging to the Synod of Ulster, 431. Essex divided into Presbyteries, 800. Eternal sonship of Christ, 431, 609. Evans, John, D.D., of Hand Alley, 645, 717, 722. quotation from in the Proofs, 71. his "doctrine of Scripture conse- quences," recommended by Dr. Calamy, 105. his list of Dissenting chapels and ministers, 685, 683. his pamphlet as to the bill, 580. Evans, John Cook, Esq., barrister, his pamphlet in opposition to the bill, 580. Evans, Rev. Josiah, extract from letter by, 90. Evidence in A.G. v. Shore. for the questions upon it submitted to the Judges, see Contents. objections taken to, 324, 330. remarks on vii, 363, by Mr Baron Al- derson 305, Lord Lyndhurst 31 1, Sir E. B. Sugden 436, Sir William Follett 515, Lord Cottenham 829, Lord Brougham 832, Lord Campbell 832. non-observance by S. P. in either suit relating to the Hewley charity of the rule laid down as fco it, 019. Exeter Congregations. their reference of dismissal of Mr Peirce to ministers in London, 23. distinguished persons forming part of them, 784. Experts in Ecclesiastical History, non- admission of their testimony, 339, 340,-1,-5,-6, 361, vii. " Express words" requhed by the act, 561. Farmer, Rev. Hugh, of Walthamstow, 716, 717. Fenelon, Archbishop, of Cambray, his true character, 817. Fermoy congregation refused grant from General Fund, 435. Fendhern Academy, 83, 698. Fleming, Rev. Caleb, of Bartholomew Close and Pinners' Hall, 723. Fordyce, Dr., of Monkwell Street, 128, 717. Foster, Rev. James, of Pinners' Hall, 822. quotation from in the Proofs, 80. one of the first Arians in Somerset, 97. Foster, Mr Baron, his judgment in Dill v. Watson, 416. Founders. who to be considered, 501, 512, 514. have no power to vary trusts once declared, 219. Founders' Intentions. • the guide in cases of charity, 219, 813, 224, 287, 305, 311, 404, 411, 417, 454, 468, 785, 788, 791. to be learnt from the practice of his own time and the next generation, 502. to be collected from what has passed, Lord Eldon, 217. to be collected from founders' opinions, Vice-Chancellor Shadwell 225, Baron Alderson 315. to govern in faxrlt of instructions, Vice-Chancellor Shadwell, 234. to be first considered, Lord Lyndhurst, 313. minority following, to be preferred to majority defeating them, 419. Arians' pretence to have carried them out, 433. Frankland, Rev. Richard, of Rathrnel, Natland, Dawsonfield, Halburrow, Calton, Attercliff, and Rathrnel again, his academy, 84. Free Church of Scotland, 582. Free Inquiry, 761, 767. practised by Independents, 189. practised by Presbyterians during the chapel-building age, without pro- ducing Latitudinarianism. 189. 850 no congregation as such can practise it, 190. Fuller, Eev. Andrew, his statement of Calvinistie doctrines, 33. Independents assisted from, 099, 704. Fund, Presbyterian, 098, 704. Independent, 699. Baptist, 703. Fund-Boards Presbyterian and Indepen- dent, membership of them only test of denomination of London ministers, 23. Furneaux, Dr. Philip, of Clapham, 710,7. General Fund, see Dublin. Geneva, abolition of subscription in, 85. Gill, Rev. Jeremiah, of Gainsborough, joins in Mr Cappe's ordination, 124. Gillam, Rev. Robert, of South Shields, Kirkman, his statement of the heresies of I. 819. Gilpin, Richard, D. D. , of Newcastle-upon- Tyne, 128. Gladstone, W. E., M.P. speech in support of the bill, 520. contradicts Lord Cottenham and Sir Robert Peel, 521. misquotes Bogue and Bennett's his- tory, and Mr Thomas Wilson's affidavit, 531. quotes Dr. Doddridge as if a Presby- terian, 531. misrepresents the vote of the Salters' Hall meeting, 533. Glasgow University. Chosen by Lady Hewley for her exhibitions accord- ing to the S. P., 615. Godson, Mr, Q.C., M.P. , his mistake as to the act, 215. Gospel, The, the meaning of, 335,9, 349, 353,4, 617,8, but see 460, 473. Gould, Sir Nathaniel, a Hewley trustee, 196. Grafton, Duke of, attendant at Essex Street Chapel, 776. Grant, Sir William, M. R., dismisses peti- tion as to the Wolverhampton chapel, 215. Grosvenor, Benjamin, D.D., Crosby Square 717. quotation in the Proofs from, 71. a contributor to the Occasional Papers, 116. Grove, Rev. Henry, of Taunton, 35, 717, 720. quotation in the Proofs from, 72. one of the first Allans in Somerset, 97. Grundy, the Rev. John of Cross Street chapel, Manchester, dinner to, 248. his evidence in the Attorney-General v. Shore, 284. Gurney, Mr Baron, extracts from his an- swers, (1) 343, (2), 347, (3) 350, (1) 455. quoted by Lord Cottenham, 361. Hadheld, George, M.P., of Manchester, takes leading part in Manchester Socinian controversy, 249. his volume respecting it, 249. brings the Hewley charity before the public, 251. becomes relator in the suit, 252. perversion of his statements by S.P. , 607. required by S.P. to produce papers collected by him respecting the charity, 607. deposit by, in Manchester College Library, of a set of the papers in the suit, xx. encourages and assists the present publication, xv. Hall, John, solicitor, Manchester, witness for S.P. , denies I. and C. to be the same body, yet produces deed of Whitehaven chapel in favour of the P. or C. denominations, 625. Hale, Sir Matthew, his opinion of the essentials of religion, 147. Hales, John, of Eton, alleged to be of very different opinions to Calvinism, f 8. Halliday, Rev. Samuel, of Belfast. his pamphlet against subscription, 373. allowed to sit in Synod of Ulster without subscribing, 376. Hallam, the historian, asserts moderate Calvinism to be orthodoxy in the Western Church, 33, 625. Hallett, Joseph, the son. dismissed by Exeter congregation for Arianism, 23. his declaration on the subject, 23. quotation in the Proofs from him, 71." quotations from him, 71, 97. his academy, 82. Hallett, Joseph, the grandson, corresponds with Mr Whiston without his father's knowledge, 97. Hamilton, Archibald, minister at Killin- chy, 426. Hardy, M.P., moves two amend meats to the bill, 542,5. 860 Hare, Bishop Francis (Chichester) quota- tions in the Proofs from, 77, 94. Harris, Rev. George, of Bolton-le-moors, speaks at Manchester against Evan- gelicalism, 249. Harris, Dr. William, of Crouched Friars. quotation in the Proofs from, 71. Hastings, Lady Elizabeth, her endowment not restricted to any party in the establishment, 91. Heber, Bishop Reginald, (Calcutta), state- ment of Bishop Taylor's opinion on original sin, 134. Hemlingway, Rev. John, minister of Eustace Street Chapel, Dublin, 459. Henderson, Dr. Ebenezer, of Highbury College, accused of heresy by S.P., 820. Henley, Lord, Master in Chanoery in the Hewley case, 267, 589. Henry, Rev. Matthew, of Chester and Hackney, quotation in the Proofs from, 163. odd reference there to him, 163. his conversation with Emlyn, and remark as to Socinus, 163.' his confession of faith, 163. his Calvinism, 164. the author of the Layman's Reasons, 165. his account of an ordination at Mac- clesfield, quoted by the S. P., 597. his classification of Socinians with infidels, 805. his own biography, and that of his father by him, the best authorities as to the Presbyterianism of their times, 805. Henry, Rev. Philip, of Broad Oak, Flint, 110 of his descendants sign petition in favour of the bill, 805. his argument in proof of the Society. Hewley, Sarah, Lady, notice of, 227. description of her opinions 314, in the Proofs 117, by the S. P., 593-5, 616, in appeal case 209. alleged to be influenced by Locke's works, 90. shown to be a Puritan by her lan- guage, 119. her treatment in the Proofs a fair test of them, 120. extracts from her first settlement 228. ,, ,, second settlement, 235, her rules for her almshouses, 233. account of her will, 285. alleged by the S. P. to have named Glasgow University for the exhibi- tion, 615. suit in Chancery by the Mott family for her property, 237. Hewley Trustees.(old), list of them, 240. favoured Arians, 241. their management of the estate, 242. had not wasted their time in studying abstruse and mysterious doctrines, 272. See Heywood, J. P., Hey wood P., Walker Thomas. Hewley Trustees (new), 632. grant too small sums, 632. Hewley Charity, recipients of in 1830, 737, analysis of the list, 824. Hey, Professor John, of Cambridge, quo- tations in the Proofs from, 80, 135. 136. Heywood, John Pemberton, defendant in A. G. v. Shore, his account of his religious principles. 271. submits that he is not unworthy to be a Hewley trustee, 271. he refuses the relators' offer to be retained a trustee, 287. Heywood, Rev. Oliver, of Northowram. co-operates with Independents, 21. his biography, by Rev. J. Hunter, decisive of all questions as to Lady Hewley's opinions, 202. deplores certain new opinions, but has no fear of Arianism, 202. notices the new way of preaching, 202. Heywood, Peter, defendant in A.G. v. Shore, his account of his religious principles, 272. Heywood, Sergeant Samuel, trustee of Essex Street Chapel, 776. Hill, Rev. Joseph, his academy, 83. Hillsborough, Lord, M.P. his amendments to bill, 540. not present in committee, 560. Hinks, Rev. William, tutor at Manchester College, his examination, 282. remarks on it, 578. his pamphlet in answer to Mr Knight Bruce's speech, 578. Historical Proofs and Illustrations. authoritative statement of the Soci- nians' case, 63. appeal to the public on broad grounds of morality and public policy, 63. statement of their contents, 64. 8G1 to be judged by their language as to Lady Hewley, 120, examination of section by section, 180. contain few quotations really bearing on the subject, 197. copied from refuted pamphlets, 198. unfair treatment of the authors relied on in support of their case, 197. strange mistakes in, 198. defects in, 199, 202 note. treat episcopalian writers unfairly, 99. authorsbip of, 201, must be supposed best possible statement of the whole case, 203. use made of them, 203, 631 ; and see contents xxvi — xxx. Hoadley, Bishop Benjamin, Winchester, alleged to be of a rational school of theology, 69. Hodgson, Rev. Timothy, Lady Hewley's chaplain, 119. Hollis, Mr Brand, trustee of Essex Street Chapel, 776. Hoppus, John, L.L D., once of Carter Lane, his pamphlet relating to Car- ter Lane chapel, 577. Horwich Chapel, 62. Howe, Rev. John, Silver Street, 183. claimed as a Congregationalist, 156. his secession from Pinners' Hall lec- ture, 22. his account of the close of Neonomian controversy, 138. quotations from in the Proofs, 71, 153, 155. his account of the essentials of reli- gion, 180. his opinions as to standards of faith and terms of communion, 181. Hoxton Academy, considered methodisti- cal by Arians, 46. Hughes, Rev. John, of Ware, his book on the Trinitarian controversy, recom- mended by Dr. Calamy, 105. Hughes, Obadiah, D.D., of Westminster. quotation from in the Proofs, 71. Hunt, Dr. Jeremiah, of Pinners' Hall, his opinions, 700, 717, 721, 82L Hunter, Rev. Joseph, of British Museum. pamphlet by him, 201, 677. appendix (to 3rd act of the drama) by him, 201. his Life of Oliver Heywood, or Rise of the Old Dissent, 201. his half opinions and his faltering ex- pression of them, 201. his attack on Independents, 303. Hunter, Rev. Richard, of Carlisle, Seces- sion Minister. statements by him accusing I. of heresy, 609, 820. main witness for the S.P., 618. extracts from his examination, 621. Hutton, Rev. Joseph, minister of Eustace Street Chapel, Dublin, 459. Hymn Book, test of doctrine, 36. "Improved Version" of the New Tes- tament, the Vice-Chancellor's criti- cism on, 289. Independents. their claim to represent the E.P., 11. their principles, 18. description of them in 1731, 699. misrepresented by S.P., 598, 601. join Presbyterians in building meet- ing-houses, 21. the terms of admission to their churches, 60. objected to creeds by the Savoy Con- fession, 30. their reasons for so doing, 186. have kept the faith, 187. alleged to practise subscription, 187. new Independents (accessions from the Methodists) alleged not to be entitled to P. endowments, 131. their congregations which have be- oome Socinian, 19, 800. Lord Brougham's eulogies on them, 297. old I. alleged to be adversaries of P., 66. want of descent from old I. alleged against the right of present I. to Presbyterian foundations, 195. Mr Booth (counsel) quotes Mr Hun- ter's attack on them, 393. should have had their deeds excepted from the act, 562. the good understanding between them and the B., 586. charged by S.P. with not believing the doctrine of the Trinity, 608. their obtaining possession of P. meet- ing-houses according to S.P., 602. the S.P. allege present I. do not repre- sent the old I , 603,8. classed by S.P. with U., 602, 8,9. charged by S.P. with heresy, 605, 609, 819. extracts from documents of S P., accusing them of heresy, 609. put on equality with Presbyterians in trust deeds, 01, 626. 862 compared with Presbyterians as to authorship, 717. Independent-Presbyterian, compound name used in the bill objected to by the S.P., 311. Inglis, Sir R. H., M.P. opposes bill, 518. in vain requests Sir Robert Peel to delay proceedings on bill, 511. James, Rev. J. A., of Birmingham, his controversy with the Rev. J. Robin- son as to the Wolverhampton case, 576. Jay, Rev. William, of Bath, charged with not stating the Deity of Christ and the Trinity among essentials, 609. Jennings, Dr. David, of Kibworth, 717, 804. Jocelyn, Viscount, M.P., his notice of amendment 541, declines to press it, 545. Johnston, Nathaniel, his endowment con- nected with Eustace Street Chapel, Dublin, 460. Jones, Rev. Samuel, his academy at Tewkesbury, 82. Jones, Rev. Jeremiah, of Harborough and Nailsworth, 717. Joy, Chief Baron, his judgment in Dill v. Watson, 403. Judges, English, connected with the Hew- ley case, 368. plied with pamphlets, 303, 486. Judges, Common Law, their answer in the Hewley case, 338 360. Judge, Irish, induced to apply to the Government to obtain from Mr Mathews, who held public employ- ment, stay of proceedings in the suits, 481. Kay, Samuel, Solicitor, Manchester, takes part in Manchester Socinian con- troversy, 249. Kennedy, Rev. Gilbert, of Tullylish. book in defence of subscription known by his name, 373. Kidderminster Congregation, 40. Killinchy Chapel. subject of suit of Anderson v. Watson, 425, for stages see Contents, trust deed of, 426. Kindersley, Mr, Q.C., counsel for relators in Shore v. Wilson, extract from his speech, 331. Kings, their duty and power in matters of religion, according to the Burghers, 419. Kingsbridge Congregation, 97. Kinkhead, Rev. Joseph, minister at Kil- linchy, 426. Kirk, Rev. Robert, of Great Market Chapel, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Kirk- man, his statement of heresies of I. , 619. Kirkpatrick, James, D.D., of Belfast. his pamphlet on the subscription con- troversy, 373. Knight Bruce, Mr, Q.C., leading counsel for relators in Shore v. Wilson, ex- tracts from his speech, 332-337, see also 301. Laity, best defenders of the faith, 26, 381. Lancashire Association, 19. Langford, Sir Arthur, of Summerhill, County Meath. one of the founders of the General Fund, 434. endows chapel at Summerhill, 479. Lardner, Dr. Nathaniel, of Crouched Friars, 721. originally an Independent, 721, 716, 717. Latham, Rev. Ebenezer, D.D., of Find- hern, 717. his academy, 83. Latitudinarianism of classes forming pub- lic opinion in England, 486. Lavington, Rev. Mr, of Exeter. dictates resolution of Western Assem- bly, 24. accompanies Dr. Calamy to Scotland, 78. Law, consistency of Dissenters in protect- ing their chapels by appeal to, 195. Lawrence, Dr., of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, his opinions, 128. Layman's reasons, &c, written by Matthew Henry, 164. Le Clerc introduced Socinianism, 68. Ledlie, James Crawford, D.D., minister of Eustace Street Chapel, Dublin, 459, his opinions 472. Lee John, Attorney-General, trustee of Hewley Charity and Essex Street Chapel, 240, 776. Leland, John, D.D., of Eustace Street chapel, Dublin, minister of Wood Street and Eustace Street chapels, Dublin, 459. his opinions 463, note 470. Limitation of suits relating to religious charities, 779-781. Sir E. B. Sugden's opinions as to, 464. reasons against, 492. 803 remarks on period fixed l>y the act, 544. Lists by Dr. Evans of Presbyterian chapels and ministers in England and Wales, 1718-1729. same list as to Independents, 686. i.isU of London Presbyterian ministers in 1730, classified according to their doctrines, 697. List of London. Independent ministers in 1730, 699. List of London Baptist ministers in 1730, classified according to their doc- trine, 704. List of subscribers, non-subscribers, and neutrals at Salters' Hall in 1719, 705. List (first) of the Presbyterian Board, (1727), 710. Lists of the Congregational Board, (first) for 1727, 712, for 1734-5, 715. List of London Presbyterian and Indepen- dent chapels in 1796, 823. List of London Unitarian chapels in 1865, 823. List of old meeting-houses in England held by Socinians or Arians, 575-6. List given in the Proofs of ministers of Anti-Trinitarian sentiments who were in the course of their education before 1710, with remarks, 717. List of recipients of the Hewley Fund in 1830, 737. List, with particulars, of congregations which presented petitions in favour of the act of 1844, 768. List of recipients of the Hewley charity in the northern counties in 1728, 737. List of Hewley trustees before the act, 240. List of congregations of the Presbytery of Antrim in 1726, 382, in 1865, 576. List of congregations of the northern Presbytery of Antrim in 1865. 576. List of congregations of the Remonstrant Synod, 389, 576, 815. evil of litigation no reason for the act, 792. Litigation, evils of, no reason for the act, 792. Livingstone, Bev. John, minister of Kil- linchy, 425. Locke, John. an Arian remained in the establish- ment, 53, 205. introduced new theology, 68. quoted in the Proofs 78, referred to 80-94. Lady Hewley's advisers supposed to be acquainted with his works, 90. Loftus, Lady, one of the founders of the General Fund, 435. London ministers, see Ministers. Lords' divisions, analysis of, 547. Lords, House of. un-satisfactorinesH of their judgment, vii. the select committee of, 498. allow the bill to be read a second time without a division, 500. division on third reading, 500. nature of the bill as they sent it down to the Commons, 559. analysis of the division on the Com- mons' amendments, 547. Lowman, Bev. Moses, of Clapham, 74, 713, 717. contributor to the Occasional Papers, 116. Lowthion, Bev. Samuel, of Penrith and Newcastle, 129. Lyndhurst, Lord. his judgment confirming the Vice- Chancellor's, 311. his remarks during arguments, 297, 301, 325, 328. absent when judgment on appeal was pronounced, 360. promises Dr. Cook hearing before committee, 520. his speech in the debate, 547. consents to appoint select committee of the Lords, 498. his speech in the debate, 501. his misstatement of the Hewley case, 505. his exaggeration of the costs of that case, 505. his insinuation that it was wrongly decided, 506. his denial that the bill was intended to benefit Unitarians, 551. Lyttelton, Lord, extract from his speech against the bill, 547. Macdowell, Bev. Mr, of Summerhill, in- jures his congregation by preaching against the doctrine of the Trinity. 479. McEwen, George, minister of Killinchy, 426. Macrory, A. J. , Esq. , solicitor of Synod of Ulster. 864 his report of Dill v. Watson, 422. his approval of the account here given of the Irish suits, xx. Magazines taking part in the controversy, 580. Magee, Archbishop, quotation from, 135. Majority, powers of, in Irish Presbyterian congregations, according to Arians, 745. Male members of I. churches only per- mitted to vote according to the Northampton anonymous, 822. Manchester Academy, 82. Manchester New College, 260, 263, 269, 283, 320, 332. Mander, Benjamin, trustee of "Wolver- hampton chapel, his litigation con- nected with it, 211. Mander, Charles, son of Benjamin. files new information, 221. becomes a Baptist, 221. Manning, "William, of Peasenhall, Suffolk, ejected minister, a Socinian, 43, 84, 92. Manton, Henry, D.D., quotation from, 132. Maquay, Leland, his endowment in con- nection with Eustace Street Chapel, Dublin, 460. Marshfield Chapel, 61. Martineau, Rev. James, minister of Eus- tace Street Chapel, Dublin, 459. Masterton, Rev. Charles, of Belfast, ablest defender of subscription, 374. Mather, Nathaniel, and Mather, Samuel, ministers of Wood Street Chapel, Dublin, 459. Maule, Hon. Fox (afterwards Earl of Dal- housie), speaks against the bill, 420. Maule, Mr Justice, extracts from his an- swers (1) 338, (2) 347, (3) 348, (4) 352. Meeting-houses, see chapels. Methodists join Independent congrega- tions, 47. Methodistical practices imputed to Inde- pendents, 47, Middlesex, Presbyterianism in, 15, 810. Midland Counties' Association, 19. Miller, Rev. John, of Penruddock, seces- sion minister, his statement as to the heresies of L, 619, 821. Milton, John, quotation from him in the Proofs, 61. Millies, Mr Monckton (afterwards Lord Houghton), speech in favour of the bill, 159. Ministers, London, in 17-U. classified lists e of. Presbyterians, 696. Independents, ,699. Baptists, 704. Ministers, 1718 to 1729, lists of. England. Presbyterian and Baptist, 685, Independent, 687. Wales, Presbyterian, 685. Ministers alleged to be Anti-Trinitarian in course of theological education before 1710, 717. Montgomery, Dr., of Dunmurry. examined as a witness, 394, 433. negotiator for Irish Arians, 482-3. Monthly Repository, 278, 579. Moore, Rev. John, of Bridgewater, his academy, 82. Morrison, Rev. Peter, of High Bridge Chapel, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Kirk- man, his statement as to heresies of I., 819. Morton, Rev. Charles, his academy at Newington Green, 82. Mott Family, 814. claim Lady Hewley's property, 235, 238. Mottershead, Rev. Joseph, of Nantwich and Manchester, 718. pupil and friend of Matthew Henry, 163. an Arian, but resists the arguments of Socinians, 43. signs recommendation of Bounie's re- vision of the Catechism, 35. Munster, Synod of, 369, 479, 818. Neal, Rev. Daniel, of Jewin Street, 709, 717. Negation of doctrine no basis for denomi- nation, 51. Neonomian controversy, 22. account of it in the Proofs, 137. Nepotism introduced Arian ministers, 42. Nevin, Rev. Thomas, of Downpatrick, expelled from Synod of Ulster, 378. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Hanover Square congregations, 842. New Dissenters produced by Methodist revival, 99. Newman, Rev. John, of Salters' Hall, quoted in the Proofs, 71. extract from a letter of his, 98. Newspapers taking part in the controversy, 581. Non-subscription, principle of, 187, 806. permitted by Irish P., 375, 386, 390. 865 first declaration in favour of, by E.P., 107. Northampton, anonymous writer from, 38, G9G. Northern Counties of England. list of ministers recipients of Hewley charity in 17*28, resident in, 807. Presbyterianism in, 584, 836. Northumberland, date of real Presby- terianism in, 584, 836. Norfolk and Suffolk Association, 19. Northowram congregation, 21. Norwich congregation, 90. Nuttall Chapel, 842. Occasional Papers, the writers in, 116 722. N.B. — Bagweel is said to indicate them, Brown, Amory, Grosvenor, Wright, Evans, another E— unknown, and Lowman. Prot. Diss. Mag. Oldfield, Joshua, D.D., of Maid Lane, president of Salters' Hall Assembly, 26. tutor of Dr. Lardner, 83, but see 86. character of, by Mr Shower, 159. quoted in the Proofs, 163. quoted by Mr Bennett, 641. Oldfield, Samuel, of Rarnsbury, quoted in the Proofs, 80. Oldsworth, Rev. Clark, of Crosby Square, quoted iu the Proofs, 71. Ordination, among E.P., 20, 184, 624, 701, 801, 804, 806, S.P. 60. meetings at, 81. certificate of, 184. among I. original, 596, 701, 803, later 21, 618. certificate of, 184. Original Sin. Proofs' supplement as to, 135. quotations from episcopal divines as to, 129. discussion of, in A.G. v. Shore, 298. Osborne, Professor, of Glasgow, his con- versation with Dr. Calamy, 728. Pacific Act of Synod of Ulster, 375. Palcy, Dr. William, Archdeacon of Car- lisle, his doctrine as to subscription referred to in the Proofs, 94. Palmer, Rev. Samuel, of Hackney, quota- tion from in the Proofs, 7. deposits in Dr. Williams's Library MS. account of London ministers, 696. publishes large extracts from it in the Pn.t. Diss. Mag., 821. Parke. Mr Bi Lord Wensleydale), ex- tracts from his answers (1) 344, (2) 317, (3) 350, (4) 357. Parliament, proceedings in, see contents xxxv . Parry, Dr., of Wymondley, accused of heresy by S.P., 819. Partnership not formed by joint founda- tion of chapel, 495, but see 521. Pearson, Bishop John, of Chester, his doc- trine as to subscription, according to the Proofs, 94. Pearson, Joseph, trustee of Wolverhamp- ton chapel. his litigation respecting it, 211. his executors carry on the suit in his spirit, 226. Peel, Sir Robert, Bart., M.P., takes up the heterodox cause, 481. negotiates with their opponents, 483. extract from the Synod of Ulster's letter to him, 486. the power of his administration, 491, 497, 525. refuses to give time to opponents of the bill, 511. extracts from his speech on second reading, 534. his expectation of being defeated on the bill, 535. his misstatements as to Tamworth chapeb, 537, and the Irish Presby- terians, 538, 543. Pemberton, Mr, Q.C. (Lord Kingsdown), advises the A.G. not to file informa- tion as to Hewley charity, 254. Penruddock Chapel, 842. Petitions, see contents, p. xl. Pierce, Rev. James, of Exeter. charge of Arianism against him, 23. his statement of his opinions, 23. quotation from his posthumous ser- mons, 43. his denial of Arianism, 97. his account of the origin of Arianism in Exeter, 68. Mr Barrington's efforts to screen him from censure by the London minis- ters, 101, 108. his denial of the existence of Armi- nianism among the Presbyterian; 139. quotations in the Proofs from him, 71. Dr. Calamy's account of him, 101. Philpotts, Bishop Henry, | Es opposes the hill. 507,9, 546,7. his protest a--.:;)!-! it. 793, 108 866 Pinners' Hall Congregation, 23. see Hunter, Foster, Fleming. Tinners' Hall Lecture, changes in, 22. Plumptree, Mr, M.P., opposes the bill, 518, 541. Preaching, new way of, noticed by Mr Oliver Heywood, 202. Prelates, analysis of their votes on the bill, 547. Presbyterian, meaning of the word, 588, 626. refers to doctrine as well as discipline, 512. according to the Judges, 401, 442 not so according to the heterodox parties, 273, 743. as certain as the word Anglican, 560. synonymous with Dissenter, 61. Socinians' explanation of it, 278, 401. Presbyterianism, essentials of, according to S.P., 599, 625. not found among E.P., 599, 841. never national religion of England, 15, 800. set up partially during the Common- wealth, 15, 800. but no Presbytery set up after the Revolution in England, not even in Northumberland, except by south body, 584, 624. never had fair trial in England, 839. see Fund and Fund Board. Presbyterians, English, after the Revolu- tion, 15, 17. their doctrines, 64, 203, 13 ; enlarged spirit, 141 ; change at first gradual, 69, 204, all as alleged in the Proofs. their alleged opinions as stated in the Proofs' quotations from their writ- ings, i 37-170. account of their change of doctrine byS.R, 601, 610, by I. 39. their doctrines stated, by Baron Alder- son, 307; Lord Lyndhurst, 313; Lord Brougham, 297; by S.P. 594; by I. 584, 599, 836. their church government stated, by 8. P. 596-602, 620-626; by I. 584, 599. by the Revolution they had in their practice given up Presbyterianism, 15, 66, 625, and never after set it up, 838 ; so Mr Baron Gurney, 356. 'admission to Lord's Supper among them, 17, 701, 803. no instance of elders admitting to it, 800, 625. their congregational committees, 19, 601. choice of ministers among them, 17, 109. ordination of their ministers without subscription, 841. the ordainers I. equally with P. , 618, 624, 837. their form of ordination the same as that of I., except examination into acquirements and pulpit abilities, 618, 20. did not require conformity with the Westminster Confession as standard, 841. did not prefer it to other formulas, 841. their ministers educated at private academies, 613. comparison of them with those of the I. in point of authorship, 717. the "Happy Union" of P. and I. ministers in London, 18. its dissolution, 21, but see 103. the London P. and I. ministers after- wards united in ordinations, settle- ments, and examinations of minis- ters and students, 800. similar associations formed at the same time throughout the country, which continued until the preva- lence of Arianism among the P., 19, 20. London congregations reckoned as P. or I., according to the fund, to which the minister paid the year- ly denominational collections, 23. both funds supported the same coun- try ministers in some instances, 699. P. and I. ministers settled indiscrimi- nately over P. or I. congregations, 59, see Appendix No. 2, 643. the same state of things usual in the United States, 59. their adoption of I. methods, terming the body of communicants the church, 701, 669, and using the phrase of a church being dissolved, 669. the use of church covenants, which implies existence of a church in the I. sense, 59, 801. the minute of Cheshire Association in 1693 proposes real Independency, S02. Dr. Calamy appealed to as example of Presbyterianism, by Soc. as to doc- 80 7 trines, 727, by S.P. as to church govemraent, 596. his account of his journey to Scotland extracted as test of the fact in botli cases, 724. the EP. described in 1731, GOG ; to- wards the end of that century, 802. in Lord Mansfield's time the courts could not see any difference between them and the I., 803. bodies now claiming to represent them, 11. Presbyterians, Irish, 3G9. really Independents, 370. their view of toleration in 1716, 372. trust deed of one of their chapels, 426. their alleged right to change their Presbytery or their denomination, remaining Presbyterians, 431, 745. their opposition to the bill, 487. account of their divisions, 381. difference in belief between their ministers and laymen, 431. relations of Synod and Presbyteries, 433, 743. Presbyterians, Scotch. claim the English chapels, 14. opposition to the bill, 487. their divisions, 504. the old meeting-houses held by them, 583, 612, 842. contest between Kirkmen and Sece- ders respecting the Hewley charity, 586, 627. made common cause at first, 584. Seceders charged by Kirkmen with endangering their claims by neg- lect, 585. singularity of their affidavits, 388. claim tobeE.P., Gil, 612. their evidence as to this, G21. their perversion of a passage of Mr Hadfield's, 607. their quotations from I. authors, 600, 603, 605, 607, 620, 621. would have received their share from the I. trustees, 617. entitled their English chapels Scottish churches, 618-9. their learned ministry, G14. Presbyterian Keporter Magazine, 579. Presbyteries set up in different parts of England, 15, 800. Pretences on which the Act passed, see Contents, xxxvi, xxxix. Procedure to determine rights to chapels, suggested method of, 569. Progress in theology to he expected accor- ding to the Proofs, 93. Proofs and Illustrations, see Historical Proofs, &c. Protestant Dissenters means Trinitarians, 449, 470 ; sometimes P., 458; some- times the body formed by the Union of P. and I., 61. Protestant Dissenters' Magazine, quota- tions from, 801,2,4,5. Public policy alleged to require power in congregation to change their belief, 115. Publications connected with the contro- versy and the litigation, 576. Raffles, Dr Thomas, of Liverpool, exami- ned as witness, G18. Ramsey, Rev. Hugh, minister at Clough, 391. Rational School of Theology, according to Proofs, 09. Read, Rev. Henry, his opinions and dis- missal from Monkwell Street chapel, 722. Read, Rev. James, his opinions, 722. Rees, Dr. Abraham, of the Old Jewry, 45. Rees, Dr. Thomas, of Sutton, makes affi- davit for S.P. before the Master, 586, which in his absence was read in the suit, 618. Reid, Rev. James, minister at Killinchy, 426. Relief, Church origin of, 581. amalgamate with the Seceders, 582. Remonstrant Synod. extract from constitution of, 755. congregations originally adhering to, 389, 815. congregations now constituting, 576. arrangement with Synod of Ulster, 390. memorialise government to stay the suits, 481. their petition in favour of the bill, 759. Repair of chapels gives no right, 494. Reserve of Arians, G5, 94, 123, 191. 205. Reynolds, Rev. John, ejected from Wolv-r- hampton, 209. Robertson, Rev. James, of Stretton-under- Foss, takes part in controversy as to Wolverhampton ci se, 576. Robinson, of New England, quoted by Mr Gladstone, 521. Rogerson, Rev. Joseph, of Derby, 35, 718. Rolfe, Robert Monsey (Lord Cranworth), 8G8 counsel for Hewley trustees through- out, 330, see 298-302, 328. his speech puhlished as a pamphlet, 578. Romilly, Sir Samuel, his act amending proceedings as to chanties, 783. hatred of Lord Eldon and Lord Redes- dale to it, 783. Root, Mr, of York, 122, 805. Rotheram, Dr. Caleb, of Kendal, 83, 139, 717, 842. Rudsdale, Rev. Ambrose, of Gainsborough, a trustee of the Hewley charity, 240, 719. Sabellianism imputed to Independents, 608. Salters' Hall Assembly. lists of non-subscribers, 705 ; subscri- bers, 707 ; neutrals, 708. accounts of in Proofs, a correct one, 99, and an incorrect one, 100 ; by Dr. Calamy, 100; in appeal case, 204 ; by S.R, 605 ; by Mr Gladstone, 533 ; by the Anonymous from Nor- thampton, 709. non-subscribers' advices, 27 ; letter, 111 ; reasons, 113 ; belief of the doc- trine of the Trinity, 102. effect of their advices, 37. Salters' Hall Lectures, foundation of, 22. Sandercock, Rev. Edward. joins in Mr Cappe's ordination, 124. his funeral sermon for Mr "Wyndlow, 137. Sandon, Lord, M.P., suggests amendment of the bill, 539. Savage, Mrs, extracts from her diary, 801. Savoy Confession, 30, 721. Scales, Rev. Thomas, of Leeds, examined as a witness, 282, 618. Scandal of suits as to religion, 516, 773. proceedings under the act worst of all, 553. Scarlett, Sir James, A.G., (Lord Abinger), declines to file information as to Hewley case, 254. "Scotch Church," meaning of, 618, 619. Scotland, Church of, cannot have any offshoot in England, 583. , English congregations in connection with, 593. Scott, Dr. "Philanthropes," his work on the Trinity, 90. Seceders, the United Synod of original, their notice* against the bill, 792. various bodies of, 581. union of Burghers and Anti-burghers, 582. their amalgamation with relief church, 501. originally not voluntaries, 583, 419. alleged agreement for their nominating trustee of Hewley estate, 584. their account of themselves, 592 ; and of their English congregations, 614, 619. Seeker, Archbishop Thomas, quoted in the Proofs, 82. Shadwell, Sir Lancelot, Vice-Chancellor, his decisions in A.G. v. Pearson, 224; AG. v. Shore, 287; A.G. v. Wilson, 627. Shaw, Mr, Recorder of Dublin, M.P. his first amendment as to cases where doctrines were defined by other records than deeds, 542. his singular statement as to the Synod of Ulster, 543. his second amendment as to period of limitation, 544. his speech in the debate, 546. Sheil, R. L., M.P., speaks in favour of the bill, 534. Shore Family, leading trustees of the Hewley charity, 240'. Shore, Samuel, Esq. , his acts as trustee of Stannington chapel, 193. Shower, Bev. John, quoted in Proofs, 95, 159, 160. Shrewsbury congregation, 21, 41. Singleton, Hannah, her endowment in connection with Eustace Street chapel, Dublin, 460, 461, 474, 478. Slate, Rev. Richard, of Preston, examined as a witness, 618. quoted in evidence by S.P. , 620. Smith, Baron, his judgment in the Clough case, 411. Smith, Dr. John Pye, of Homerton. examined as a witness, 224, 282. quoted in S. P. answers, 604. accused of heresy by S.P., 819, 820. Smith, John, of Cambridge, new way of preaching, 202. Smith, Southwood, M.D., his writings given in evidence, 285. Sociniuns. their claim to represent the old E.P., 13. their main position (that E.P. thought no doctrines fundamental) necessary to support their case, 49, 50, 89. contrary to all experience, 51. 800 put into the mouths of Presby- terians, 70. quotations in support of it, 71. Mr Baron Alderson finds no proof of it 309, nor Lord Lyndhurst 318, nor Mr Justice Coleridge 354. their dinner at the Spread Eagle, Manchester, 248. state of their congregations, 574 576, 823. their memorial to government to bring in act, 775. their efforts to obtain act, 480, 486. their friends in both houses, 491. they sacrifice their principles by ac- cepting the bill, 560. their petitions in favour of the bill, 759.' analysis of 76 others, 768. Socinianism. introduced by Grotius and Le Clerc, 68. not professed in many congregations before 1780, 44. Somerset, first Arians in, 97. Standards of faith. Mr Howe's opinion as to, 181. in Independent deeds not used as creeds to be subscribed, 187, but inserted oidy on account of legal necessity, 178. Stafford chapel, 499. Stannington chapel, 193. Steward, Rev. John, minister of "Wolver- hampton chapel, 211. Stock, J. S., Esq., Barrister, his observa- tions in the Hewley case, 578. Stogden, Rev. Herbert, one of the first Arians in Somerset, 97. Strand Street chapel, Dublin, suit as to, 479, 545. Stretton, Rev. Richard, Lady Hewley's adviser and trustee, 118-19, 805. Strong, Rev. J. of Ilminster, revises As- sembly's Catechism, 35. Stuart Wortley, Mr J. , his speech, 542. Stubbs, Rev. John, minister at "Wolver- hampton, 210. Subscribing, Irish Presbyteries, 382. Subscription. not required by E.P. at ordination, 185, 806. views of Presbyterians of 1688 as to 106, the Proofs give no quotation to the contrary, 186. Mr Lowman's argument implies that it had not been previously objected to, 185. not necessary to preserve doctrine as Socinians and S.P. suppose, 187, 806. not a mere act of discipline, 400. required by Synod of Ulster accor- ding to the orthodox, 371, 3, 8, 388 ; this denied by the Arians, 744. effect of, 442. Succession, true nature of, 408. Sugden, Sir Edward, Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord St. Leonards), 476. his judgment in the General Fund case, 435, 455. his remarks on Eustace Street Chapel case, 404. his remarks on staying that suit, 563. Sunnnerhill, Meath congregation, 479. Taunton congregation, 40. Taylor, John, D. D. of Norwich and War- rington, 122,5. extract from his answers at his ordi- nation to the usual questions, 804. quotations from, 44, 719. his wonder at his pupils becoming deists, 87. Bishop "Watson's approval of his prin- ciple of teaching both sides of a theological question, 81. Taylor, Bishop Jeremy, his theology very different from Calvinism, 68. Taylor, Rev. Philip, minister of Eustace Street chapel, Dublin, his opinions, 473. Taylor, Rev. Timothy, minister of "Wood Street chapel, Dublin, 459. Terms of Communion, Mr Howe's opinion as to, 181. Teynham, Lord, extract from his speech in the debate, 507. Theology, anti-dogmatic method of teach- ing, 86, 2(39, 332. Thomas, Rev. Samuel, minister of Eustace Street chapel, Dublin, his opinions, 473. Thompson, Henry, D.D., of Penrith, secession minister, his statement as to the heresies of Independents, 609, 820. extract from his examination, 622. Thompson, Rev. Charles, of Tynemouth, Kirkman, his statement of the heresies of I., 819. Three denominations. formation of the body, 713. objects of, 767. Threlkeld, Rev. Samuel, of Penrith, 12'.). Tillotson, Archbishop John. 870 belonged to a rational school of theo- logy according to the Proofs, G9. quoted in the Proofs, 77. the charge of Socinianism brought against him, 96. his opinion as to the essentials of reli- gion as stated by his biographer, 132. follows the new way of preaching, 202, Tindal, Chief Justice, his answers, (1) 346, 515, (3) 347, (2) 348. (4) 358. Tobermore chapel, suit respecting, 391. Toland, John, his memorial quoted in the Proofs, with Mr Shower's approval of it, 95. Toleration, opinions of the Irish Presby- terians as to, 372. Tomkins, Rev. Martin. dismissed from Stoke Newington for suspicion of Arianism, 43. his book on the Atonement recom- mended by Dr. Doddridge, 43. writes also against the Doxology, 43. attended orthodox ministry, 156. irrelevant quotation from his works in the Proofs, 155. Tomline, Bishop George Prettyman, quoted in the Proofs, 13. Tong, Rev. William, Coventry, and Salters' Hall, 168, 717. Towgood, Micaiah, quoted in the Proofs, 71. Trial of young ministers among Inde- pendents, 20. Trinitai'ianism, what it implies, 297. Trinitarians' opposition to the bill, 487. Trinity, doctrine of, as stated by West- minster Assembly, 597, congrega- tional union, 597, Savoy confession, 605, Dr. Manton, 132, Mr Bennet, 641. sufficient knowledge of, according to Dr. Calamy, 132. Trotter, Dr., of Summerhill, 479. Trusts of English E.P. chapel deeds, 56-8, 61-2, 626. of chapels for both denominations, 61. those of I. chapel deeds as vague, 37, 840. reasons for the vagueness of chapel deeds, 57. where definite no sufficient protection of chapels from heterodox worship, 59. Trustees of chapels often the introducers or supporters of Arian ministers, 42. Turner, Rev. James, of Knutsford, exam- ined as witness, 282. Turner, Rev. William, of Newcastle-upon- Tyne, his sermons given in evi- dence, 285. Ulster, Synod of, 371. extracts from acts of, 371 to 391. Dr. Calamy's accounts of its proceed- ings, 376-7. retained after 1726 many ministers non-subscribers in principle who had a bad influence, 383. history of the Synod according to the defendants in Anderson v. Watson, 747 to 759. at one time majority Pelagians, but not Arians, 383. intercommunion and relations with Presbytery of Antrim, 386. adopts code of discipline, 386, 752. non-subscribers regarded code as a triumph to them. 386, 752. enquires as to public statements that some of its ministers held Arian views, 387. transfer of examinations from Presby- teries to committee of Synod, 390. dispute as to its legality, 431. requires declaration of belief in Trini- ty, 380. allows ministers not making the de- claration to retire, and they after- wards form Remonstrant Synod, 389. arrangement as to denominational funds with Remonstrant Synod, 434. this no renunciation of the chapels, 391. alleged variety of opinion among its ministers, their petition against the bill, 785, 787. obtains a promise from Lord Lynd- hurst that there should be a select committee on the bill before which they might be heard, 520. Union of Presbyterian and Independent Ministers in London, IS. rupture of it, 21, but see 110. misrepresented in Proofs, 60 ; appeal case, 204 ; by Mr Gladstone, 527. Unitarian rejection of the term by the Hewley trustees, because few per- sons agree as to the definition of it, and persons with different opinions assume it, 270-1, 283. 871 N.B. The Hewley trustees in their amended answer, use the phrase, "the Dissenters in the information styled the sect, class, or denomina- tion of Christians, commonly called Unitarians," 280. Unitarian Association, discussions in, 574. Unitarian belief stated by Hewley trustees, 265, 274, 280, 435, 4G3, Mr Well- beloved, 266,7, 273,6, Mr Hincks, 282. Usher, Archbishop, 371. Walker, Rev. Thomas, of Leeds, joins in Mr Cappe's ordination, 124. Walker, Thomas, Esq., defendant in A.G. v. Shore, his account of his religious principles. Walker, Rev. William Manning, of Pres- ton, examined as a witness, 282. Wardlaw, R., D.D., of Glasgow, examined as a witness, 282. Wareham chapel, 194. Warren, Rev. Samuel, of Taunton, his academy, 82. Watson, Bishop Richard, Llandaff, quoted in the Proofs, 80-1, 178. Watson, Rev. David, his settlement at Clough disputed, 392. Watson, Rev. Samuel, his contest with the Synod of Ulster, 285. Watts, Dr. Isaac, of Bury Street, St. Mary Axe, 717. his psalms and hymns adopted by E. P., 36. Weld, Dr. Isaac, minister of Eustace Street chapel, Dublin, 471. Weld, Rev. Nathaniel, minister of Wood Street and Eustace Street chapels, Dublin, 459, 467. joins in recommendation of Mr Aber- nethy's pamphlets, 373. mediates at meeting of Synod for the Belfast Society, 378. Wellbeloved, Rev. Charles, minister of St. Saviour Gate chapel, York, and tutor of Manchester College, York, and sub-trustee of the Hewley charity, reference to in the bill, 255-7-9, 260, in the answrer, 263-4. his short answer, 266. his answer in the words of Scripture, 267. his answer to amended information L'7ii. Lord Lyndhurst's remarks on it, 319. his method as theological tutor, 269. Mr Knight Bruce's comment on it, 338. his sermons put in evidence, 285. extract from sermon by him, 285: Lord Brougham's eulogy of him and prayer for him, 295. Sir J. Campbell's quotation of it, 295. Mr Knight Bruce complains of his acts on the ground he must have known Lady Hewley's opinions, 336. N.B. The relators did not press for re- payment by him. Wesleyan Methodists, their committee of privileges oppose the bill, 488. Western Assembly, 19, 23, 8, 9. Westminster Assembly. their Catechism, Mr Strong's revision of it, republished by Mr Bennett, 34. their Confession of Faith, Irish minis- ters agree with it, but the laymen disagree with it, 430. not made standard by E.P., 841. Baxter's agreement with it, 141. Directory, 596. Whitaker, Mr Thomas, of Call Lane, Leeds, joins in Mr Cappe's ordina- tion, 124. Whitaker, Rev. William, of Scarborough, joins in Mr Cappe's ordination, 120. Whitby, Dr. , Arian before his death, 96. Winston, William, the Arian, 38, 70, 97, 92. Whitehaven congregation, 842. Widows of Ministers, funds for, Eustace St. chapel, 460, 478; Strand St. chapel, 480. Wilde, Sir Thomas (Lord Truro), requests delay in passing the bill, 54. gives notice to opponents of it that he has changed his mind, 541. explains his conduct, 546. Wilks, John, solicitor in A.G. v. Pearson, 213 ; chairman of the Deputies, 487. N.B. He was not in Parliament in 1S44. Williams, Dr. Daniel, of Hand Alley, in- volved in Neonomian controversy, 22. one of the founders of the General Fund, 435. his defence of non-subscription on ordination, 806. N.B. Mr Ivimey's volume containing the Doctor's will was not obtained till this sli.it was in t]i^ ]n 872 Williams, Dr. Edward, of Rotherham College, his statement of Calvinistic doctrine, 33. Williams, Mr Justice John, extracts from his answers, (1) 343, (4) 355. Williamson, Rev. Hugh, and Williamson Rev. John, ministers of Clough chapel, 391. Wilson, Joshua, Esq., his pamphlets foun- dation of this volume, and answer all assertions of the Socinians, C3, 108, 203, 580. Wilson, Walter, considers the modern Dis- senters Methodists, 47. N.B. His testimony in favour of Trini- tarians is most valuable, on account of his sympathy with the Arians. See particularly HI. 441. Witter, Rev. John, of Hull, trustee of Hewley charity, 240, 718. Wood, George William, Esq., M.P., shares in Manchester Socinian controversy, 249. N.B. He died in 1843. Wood, John, Esq., defendant in A.G. v. Shore, 252. Wood Street Chapel, Dublin, 459. Wolverhampton chapel, 41, 53, 561, 782, litigation respecting it, 209. Worcester Chapel, 61, 801. Worsley, Rev. Philip, his pamphlet, 558. Worthington, Rev. Isaac, of Durham, 129, 7, 119, 801. Wright, Dr. Samuel, of Blackfriars and Carter Lane, 721, 717. contributor to the Occasional Papers, 116. quoted in the Proofs, 169. his opinions, 721. extracts from his sermons, 722. Wymondley Academy, students from pre- ferred by Arian congregations, 48. Wyndlow, James, Lady Hewley's trustee, 127, 196. Wynford, Lord, takes part in the hearing of the appeal in the Hewley charity case, 524. N.B. He was laid aside by 1842, and died in 1845. Yates, Rev. James, his pamphlets, 579, 580. Yarmouth Merchant's directions to the trustees of his charity, 91. York congregation, 208. HUDSON AND SON, PRINTERS, BULL STREET, BIRMINGHAM. ADDENDUM. An answer to this Volume has been published under the title of " Uniformity and Liberty," by the Rev. John Gordon of Evesham, and as he was very prominent among the applicants for the Act of 1844, and is a leading writer of his party, his pamphlet should be consulted in order to ascertain all that can be said against the Judges' decisions reprinted in the foregoing pages, and in favour of those decisions having been contravened to such an extent by the legislature. Mr Gordon refers to the Wolverhampton suit, (but does not state it correctly), and seeks to revive against the ministers who connected themselves with it, especially Mr James, the old reproach that the relators' counsel rested their case on the illegality of Unitarian preach- ing at Common Law and under the Toleration Act. The pi-oceed- ings are easily justified so far as the ministers were concerned with them : for the bill was filed because the deeds were kept back from Mr Mander, although one of the trustees ; and the injunction was obtained because Mr Pearson, from mere litigiousness, brought an ejectment, a proceeding in which none of the real questions -in the case could be raised. The ministers in their defence of themselves, published at the time of Mr Robertson's attack on them, stated, "We have carefully read the brief which was put into the hands of Sir Samuel Romilly and Messrs. Hart and Shadwell, and we can assure the public that there is not in it one iota of a persecuting nature, there is no suing the judgment of the court against the Unitarians as the abettors of illegal opinions, and as persons disqualified by the common law for holding property set apart for religious purposes. . . . No man can be identified with anything more than the brief which he puts into the hands of his coun- sel, and the arguments which from the nature of the case are absolutely necessary for its support." They referred to Sir Samuel Romilly's known hatred of bigotry, persecution, and injustice in every .shape, as sufficient to prevent the suggestion to him of any unworthy argument ; but they reminded their readers that he was not to be controlled as to the line of reasoning which he might choose to adopt. They also relied on the circumstance of the relators having for their solicitor Mr John Wilks, the Secretary of the Society for the Protection of Religious Liberty, as a proof that all their wishes and instructions were in perfect consonance with freedom of opinion and the rights of conscience. This defence anticipated, and should have prevented, all that Mr Gordon has found to say on this part of the subject. The whole question as to the chapels was disposed of by the Wolver- hampton case, and this opportunity is taken to supply an omission in the foregoing pages, by presenting a condensed statement of the general argument. The decision of Lord Cottenham was based not on the illegality of anti-Trinitarian worship, but on the fact that the deeds showed that the founders did not intend to establish it ; one deed, of 1701, providing for the appropriation of the chapel if the worship became illegal ; and another, of "1720, for the application of the endowment if the Toleration Act should be repealed. Both expressions equally pointed to the provisions of that statute, and to the possibility of change in them ; and as the chapel, while it remained such, could not, according to those provisions, be used for any other than Trinitarian worship, his lordship held that the founders, by their reference to the law, must have intended that worship. The words which they used accepted the established state of things, and declared trusts of the chapel with reference to it. Common sense dictated this decision, as well as legal reasoning, which is the common sense of minds having to decide or assist in the decision of the rights of civilized life. This construction is borne out by the fact, admitted on all hands, that in 1701 there was not in England a single con- gregation of anti-trinitarians. Emlyn afterwards raised one, but it appears to have died out by 1720. It was not even suggested that there was any reason to suppose that any member of the Wolverhampton congregation was anti-trinitarian in the latter year. The Toleration Act was then borne in the minds of Nonconformists as their Magna Gharta ; it was in danger in Anne's time, and all their care was to preserve it as it was. There is no doubt that the heads of the Pres- byterian party in 1689 were consulted with respect to it beforehand, and were well satisfied with it ; and that the exception of anti-trinitarians from its benefits was perfectly in accordance with their notions of right and wrong. See Lord Lyndhurst's expressions, p. 314, see also as -to the Blasphemy Act, p. 106. This fact disposes of all the liberality of opinion attributed to that generation of Presbyterians; and the Socinians* * This name is retained, notwithstanding the anger with which it has been received, for doctrines are dealt with here, and all doctrinal differences are necessarily thus marked. Each sect otherwise would choose for itself a name assuming the point in dispute with it ; the Papist calls his church Catholic, and the name stands him in stead of argument; the Greek styles his church Orthodox; "Baptist'" speaks for itself; could not complain of the Toleration Act as a persecuting law, without putting themselves out of court as to their right to the benefit of any Presbyterian foundation. It is believed that, with very few excep- tions indeed, the deeds of all the old Presbyterian chapels contain similar allusions to the state of the law, and therefore equally express that the founders intended to support Trinitarianism ; hence the case of A. G. v. Pearson is always misrepresented by Socinians. Lord Cottenham's note, p. '225, cannot however be explained away. He was their fast friend, having been their counsel at two hearings of the Hewley case, and he contended in the debates of 1844 that in all cases in which founders did not in their deeds specify doctrines they must have held illegal opinions ; a notion which the Socinian party never dared to suggest, and which was negatived by their explicit admissions ; but, partisan as he was, he did not venture to say that he had been compelled to adju- dicate on the Wolverhampton chapel contrary to the founders' intentions. See on the contrary p. 829 for what he said to the Dublin Presbyterians of 1710, who it was admitted were a branch of the English body. The words "Presbyterians" or "Protestant Dissenters" also occur in almost all the old deeds, but they are unavailing to exempt chapels from the operation of the act, notwithstanding the House of Lords has decided that they indicated Trinitarians, in England up to 1707 (the Hewley case), and in Ireland up to 1710 (the Dublin General Fund case). Those years wei'e the dates of the endowments in litiga- tion, and not the limits of the time during which the words had this meaning, but they are sufficient for the purposes of the preceding volume as nearly corresponding with the end of the chapel-building period. Mr Gordon states that the opinions of the Judges in the Hewley case, which governed the A.G. v. Pearson, really turned upon the provi- sions of the Toleration Act, but any one who will read their opinions in the ninth volume of Clark and Finelly's Reports will see that they relied upon the universal belief of the Presbyterians in Lady Hewley's time, as shown by all their sermons, treatises, memoirs, and other writings. Indeed this was admitted, see p. 177. The nature of Lord Cottenham's judgment was remarked on at p. 363, and the reader was Unitarians by their name quietly assume that no other Christians believe in the unity of the Godhead. It is scarcely reasonable to refuse the name Socinian, which was derived from one of the early Reformers, and was adopted by the body in Poland, where first they formed congregations. The Sozzini were respectable men, and even if they retained too much of the old superstition, their opinions were sufficiently free to gain them the distinction of giving their name to all persons not recognising the proper Deity of Christ. The defendants in the Hewley case used Calvinisfc, p. 2 >, and oddly enough seemed to consider it as synonymous with Independent. left to interpret it for himself. All evidence to show Lady Hewley's opinions otherwise than as one of the Presbyterian body seems to have been rejected, as also was the evidence of theological experts, (as to which see note p. vii), but books of the chapel building period were received without being given in evidence, as matters with which the Judges were supposed to be familiar ; see Lord St Leonard's expressions p. 441, and the remarks of Lords Cottenham, Brougham, and Campbell in the General Fund case in 1849, p. 829. Mr Gordon thinks that "the evidence of Trinitarian worship drawn from the toleration act will in future be rejected, and the proof will thereby be so far lessened as to be practically unavailable," because as he adds, " the intentions of a deno- mination, which never in any corporate form declared its intentions, cannot be ascertained when the testimony of individual opinion is excluded." This is entirely to misunderstand the effect of the cases and of the act. Lord Cottenham founded his judgment in Shore v. Wilson on evidence properly admitted, and the same evidence was given in A.G. v. Pearson. The only effect of the Act as to the old chapels is to give validity to twenty-five yeai-s' usage in the cases provided for ; it leaves the rules of evidence and construction undisturbed, except as the first section prevents the illegality of Anti-Trinitarian worship before 1813 from affecting chapels built by persons proved to have been of Anti-Trinitarian opinions. The principle maintained by the relators in the A.G. v. Pearson, was that the intentions of the founders of a chapel, if anywise ascertainable, should be carried out; and the point decided by it was that these intentions if manifested by the deed would be enforced by law. This principle was never more broadly stated than by Lord Lynd- hurst in the Hewley case, p. 311. "In every case of charity it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intent of the founders. It is a matter of fact. It can scarcely be necessary to cite authorities in support of these principles, they are founded in common sense and common justice. ... I look upon it that these principles are clear and established, that they admit of no doubt whatever." English charities from the Revolution until the Mortmain Act (9th George 2nd) were regulated by the Statute of Charitable Uses (13rd Elizabeth), which was always construed with the special view to avoid the evil stated in the preamble, that "lands etc. have not been employed according to the charitable intent of the givers." Puritan foundations in connection with the Establishment, as for the support of a preaching minister or a lecturer, had before 1688 been upheld by Chancery in accordance with the statute ; and while misappropriation by 7 beneficiaries had been prevented, applications cy pres, that is to a kindred object on failure of the original purpose, had been frequent. The Presbyterians of the chapel-building period might therefore leave their chapels to the protection of the law, notwithstanding the general and indefinite expressions of their trust deeds, in perfect confidence that they would always be devoted to promote their own faith. The change of their ecclesiastical system for that of the Independents, (the effect of which is stated pp. 59, 512, and would not affect the worship,) would, after the union of the denominations throughout the country, take place, for want of persons to support the old state of things, when the congregation desired "church government," in Milton's phrase; and it received the sanction of the courts of law in Lord Mansfield's time, according to the equitable doctrine, p. 802. Equity would have decided such cases more satisfactorily, but the cost would have been too great.* If the Common Law Judges consulted in the Hewley case had been accustomed to carry out trusts cy pres, they would not have applied the rules of evidence so as to shut out the preamble of the founder's will in executing a vague trust for religious charity, but would have been glad to establish the admissibility of any such evidence of his opinions, in order to guide a court in the exercise of a duty so anxious and onerous as giving effect to his intentions under a change of circumstances. Accord- ing to their notions, Dr. Daniel Williams's treatises supporting Calvinism against Antiuomianism, or his sermon at the ordination of Samuel Clark, could not be referred to in order to ascertain the Pres- byterianism which his will was intended to support. The act of 18-14 set aside founders' intentions, even where manifested by their deeds, as in the Wolverhampton case, unless particular doctrines ai'e on the face of those deeds, in express words, or by reference to some book or other documents, required or forbidden to be taught. This effect of the bill, and the provisions of the old chapel deeds above adverted to, were not brought before the consideration of either House of Par- liament ; nor indeed were the details of the Wolverhampton case alluded to in the debates, though it was the only one relating to an English chapel. The Hewley case, as to which the act would in no case have had any operation, was enlarged on, and shamefully misrepresented, by Lord Lyndhurst; and the endowments of the Dublin chapels (for a prudent * It was urged as an argument for the bill of 1844 that a suit was necessary to determine the right occupation of each chapel, and that all the chapels must have been sold, like that at Wolverhampton, to pay costs. This was conclusive against the principle of a period of limitation in such a state of the law. Parliament should, at any rate, have provided a cheap method of redress, for a reasonable time, before they confirmed the title of wrongful possessors. 8 silence was preserved as to the chapels themselves), or rather those of the Strand Street chapel, the facts of which had never been ascertained by a hearing, were the themes of almost every speaker. Lord Lyndhurst, p. 315, showed that the admissions which the defend- ants in the Hewley case felt themselves compelled to make were conclusive against them; and it will be equally found that his own judgment disposes of all that he or others said in the debates in support of the bill. Never- theless, Parliament being misinformed and careless, the fraud and falsehood of the government triumphed, but only to pass an act self- convicted of injustice and absurdity, inasmuch as it set aside founders' doctrines (judicially ascertained as to the whole Presbyterian body), in order that chancery might extract a creed for each chapel separately, from the last twenty-five years' usage of the congregation. The rule as to the inviolability of founders' intentions was not indeed disputed in the courts, whether English or Irish, but the Anti-Trini- tarians contended that the Presbyterians in either country did not intend to devote their chapels to their own opinions. The position of the Socinians stated in p. 49 is not acquiesced in by Mr Gordon, but it is supported by the sentence from the Proofs quoted p. 70, by the passages collected at p. 554 from the statements of the Socinian defendants in the several cases, and by Mr Hincks's evidence, p. 283 ; and it appears from the remarks of Baron Alderson, pp. 309, 310, Lord Lyndhurst, p. 318, and Justice Coleridge, p. 354, that it was insisted on with regard to Lady Hewley, on the sole ground of her being a Presby- terian. It will also be found to underlie all the reasoning by or on behalf of the Anti-Trinitarians noticed in the preceding volume, and it is in fact the only possible foundation, without an express stipulation in the trust deed, for a congregation having such a power over a chapel as is contended for. If however we may adopt the admission (made in the appeal case of the Hewley trustees, p. 206) that the Presbyterians of the Revolution did not look with indifference on views of Christian truth opposed to their own, but embraced and adhered to their principles with as much warmth and sincerity as other classes of Christians, common readers (agreeing with Lord St. Leonards, p. 451) will not believe that it is in accordance with their intentions that their pulpits are now filled by Socinians. Certainly - such a state of things would not have comported with the purposes of Baxter, who in 1683 held that the doctrine of the Trinity was the sum of all the Christian religion p. 148 ; of Calamy, who in 1719 held that the sum of Christian doctrine might be reduced to it p. 159 ; or of the Non- subscribers at Salters' Hall in 1719, who held that it lay at the foun- 9 dation of Christianity, and ran through the whole of it, p. 113 ; yet Baxter and Calamy, of all Presbyterian authors, were those most frequently quoted on the Sociniaus' side, as if most favourable to their cause ;* and the Non-subscribers have always been treated by them as their great forefathers. But those we have to contend with do not reason like other men, and they give these three reasons why they consider themselves rightly in possession of the old chapels : (1) that the Presbyterians did not prescribe any doctrines in their trust deeds ; (2) that they did not practise subscription to any formula of faith ; (3) that they did not require from the members of their churches any confession of faith such as that common among the Independents. Such arguments seem certainly disposed of by the facts that the Independents of the same period, who are admitted to have been zealous for the old faith, and to have taken all precautions which seemed to them necessary for guarding it, neither (1) prescribed doctrines by their trust deeds, nor (2) provided for subscription of any formula by their ministers or church members : and (3) that a confession of faith has never been taken from communicants by Presbyterians even in Scotland. The pre- caution which the English Presbyterians, who devolved all on their ministers, did take was to require from them previously to their ordina- tion an affirmative answer to the question : Do you promise you will be zealous and faithful in the defence of faith and unity against error and schism 1 The early Chapel deeds were necessarily vague. Of the faith there was no question, for with the exception of a few scattered individuals all parties held the doctrinal Articles of the Establishment, and outside the Anglican communion there was no doubt of their Calvinistic meaning. Until after Anne's death only one attempt was made to establish worship not according to the creed of the Establishment, and that produced a remonstrance from the lower house of Convocation to the Queen. The objection to subscription in Geneva and Holland, at and previously to the beginning of the eighteenth century, had reference to Calvinism, not to the doctrine of the Trinity. Mr Halliday, licensed in Holland in * Quotations l>y heterodox writers from such authors never serve the purpose intended, for there will be found either in the very words cited, or if not in them in the context, expressions subversive of the argument in support of which they are adduced ; or the citations will prove to be unguarded references or allusions in direct opposition to writings of the parties in which they dealt directly with the subject. Such are the quotations in the Proofs, reprinted and commented upon, (pp. 64 to 213), and Mr Gordon's additions to them will not be found more conclusive. The Non-subscribers' vote is fully explained at p. 530. 10 1706, and ordained in Geneva in 1708, was admitted to a seat in the Synod of Ulster in 1720 without subscription, on the ground of his undoubted orthodoxy. Nor was there any occasion to define discipline ; the Presbyterians had none to define ; and in the case of Independents it was enough to say that the minister should be chosen, with perhaps the addition that he should be removable, by the church. Accordingly it is very rare to find in Independent deeds dated thirty years ago any directions expressed as to church members or church officers, or in those dated before the middle of the eighteenth century any reference to doctrines or formularies. The protection given by the law to worship not according to the Establishment was so entirely novel at the end of the seventeenth century, with the exception of the liberty enjoyed during the Protectorate, and until the Hanoverian succession remained so precarious, that the chief care was to provide what should be done with the chapels if the toleration were withdrawn. It has been moreover contended that the congregational system, admitting of no control from without, devolves absolute power on the congregation, or the church, for the time being ; and that provisions in trust 'deeds to the contrary are void, as subversive of the primary prin- ciple of the polity. As soon however as a church or congregation possesses itself permanently of a place of worship, property is gained for the public, and a public foundation must continue as constituted, unless a power of change is provided by the instrument providing it. When it is considered how certainly, and within how shoi't a time, a congregation attached to the old faith is driven away from a chapel of congregationalists or quasi congregationalists, without the exhibition of heterodoxy, by the mere suppression of evangelical truth, it will be seen that in every such case justice and honesty dictate an appeal to the law, if the founders have not expressly given the congregation or church for the time being the power to change the nature of the foundation. The trustees of a chapel have no more right to permit a change of the doctrines preached in it without express authority given them by the deed, than they have to alienate it and appropriate the money to their own use. It is not merely the affair of themselves and the congre- gation ; the founders intended to benefit the locality by the particular method of preaching the doctrines they themselves held. If it is wished to promote other opinions they should not misapply trust property, but compel the persons desiring the change to found a chapel at their own cost. This is a simple question of common honesty, freedom of opinion and the right of private judgment have nothing to do with the matter. 11 Mr Gordon mentions that Mr Robertson published two pamphlets respecting the Wolverhampton case, one entitled " Religious Liberty, applied to the case of the Old Meeting House, Wolverhampton j" and the other " Infringement of Religious Liberty exposed in the case of the Meet- ing House, John Street, Wolverhampton, in answer to the appeal of the nine Dissenting Ministers who patronized that case," and that Mr Pearson also published on the subject. None of these pieces seem to be in Dr. Daniel Williams's Library, they would have been noticed at p. 577 if they had been known. It should have been stated, p. 588, that the answer to Mr Joshua Wilson's pamphlet was entitled "English Presbyterian Charities." Mr Gordon thinks that the philosophical analysis of Mr Wilson's quotations which it contained, deprived them of all bearing on the dispute, but the passages cited in both pamphlets were reproduced at the last hearing, and the result will be found in the words of Mr Justice Coleridge, p. 354. Indeed for the most part they were the same as those given in the Proofs, and as to them the reader of this volume may satisfy himself. Mr. Gordon publishes remarks by a friend on the lists of the Socinian Chapels given in pp. 575, 6, and at the end of his pamphlet he reprints the names in those lists, distinguishing by italics those which he considers wrongly included, and from that it would seem that the following chapels are not old Presbyterian foundations, subject however to doubt in the corrector expressed here by (]) : Boston (?), Dewsbury, Diss, Halstead, Heywood, Huddersfield, Idle, Mossley, Mottram, Newark, Newchurch, Oldham, Padiham, Pudsey, Royston (?), Southampton, Stratford-le-bow, Todmorden, Accrington, Burnley, Heap Bridge near Bury, Middleton in Teesdale, Pepper Hill W. R., Salford, Swinton, Altringham, Ash ford Kent, Ballast Hills North- umberland, Barnard Castle, Bedford, Cressbrook, Flagg, Gateshead, High Garratt, Oxton, Styal, Welbnrn, Heyrod, near Mossley. These lists were revised when Dr. Evans's manuscript had been printed, and the correction was begun alphabetically in p. 818, (Cockey Moor Ainsworth is mei'ely a mistake in pointing), but it was not finished through mistake and accident. There are many evident errors in the remarks communicated to Mr. Gordon, which indeed, are scarcely intelligible. These circumstances may be received as excusing the faulti- ness of lists which were necessary to show the effects of the act. Mr Gordon complains of the use of harsh expressions in the foregoing pages ; if he had given the entire passages, readers, even if not of the Author's opinions, might have thought them not undeserved. Mr Gordon's own style of controversy is left to speak for itself. ADDITIONS TO ERRATA, p. 845. P. iv., second line from bottom, for third read fourth. p. viii, 1. 16, dele even. p. 31, 1. 18 from bottom, for confessions read confession. p. 38, 1. 13, for Associations read parties. p. 41, 1. 11 from bottom, for always read generally. p. 44, 1. 5 from bottom, add at end in many chapels. p. 45, 1. 5 from bottom, for his read the late pastor's. p. 46, 1. 20, dele in some degree. p. 52, 1. 8, for denying read rejecting. p. 52, 1. 21, dele it. p. 52, 1. 27. for habits read habit. p. 57, 1. 19 from bottom, for are read were. p. 57, 1. 17 from bottom, for Acts read Act. p. 58, 1. 5 from bottom, for Foxteth read Toxteth. p. 61, 1. 18 from bottom, for congregations read congregation. p. 75, 1. 21 from bottom, for says read is made to say. p. 82, 1. 19, for on read as. p. 98, 1. 12 from bottom, for philanthropus read philanthropos p. 126, 1. 7, for their Hcywood read Oliver Hcyivood's. p. 157, 1. 30, for passages read quotation. p. 175, 1. 5 from bottom, dele that. p. 188, 1. 25 for they are read the rejection is. p. 201, 1. 15, after yet insert would, p. 203, 1. 22 from bottom, for advisoi's read advisers. p. 218, 1. 14 from bottom, for them read themselves. p. 226. 1. 16 from bottom, for repeated read reported. p. 227, 1. 17, for gives read uses. p. 227, 1. 7 from bottom, fill up blank with 176. p. 249, 1. 19, for o/read to. p. 331, 1. 7, for arts read art, p. 366, 1. 11 from bottom, for that read than. p. 367, 1. 12, for the same as in read and. p. 376, 1. 13, add the same, with the exception of Sir E. B. Sugden. p. 420, 1. 25, for the minister read Mr Jarvis, one of the ministers. p. 424, 1. 20, for decree read doctrine. p. 458, 1. 8 from bottom, for consultation read consultative. p. 486, 1. 15, for wating read ivaiting. p. 496, 1. 15, dele not. p. 496, 1. 16, for but read or. p. 496, 1. 10 from bottom, before principles insert original. p. 500, 1. 8, for served read promoted. p. 502, 1. 26 from bottom, for were read ivas. p. 503, 1. 20 from bottom, for the second the read a. p. 505, 1. 10 from bottom, before to insert so. p. 545, 1. 6, for motion read notion. p. 573, 1. 18 from bottom, for diaphorist read adiaphorist. p. 590, 1. 10, for it read the first information. p. 604, 1. 6, for 200 read 2000. p. 609, 1. 21, for an affidavit read a state of facts. p. 624, at end of 1. 8 from bottom, add father. p. 644, 1. 2, for Bill read Act. p. 644, 1. 17, for Uniformity read Toleration. p. 648, 1. 7, before About insert In. p. 648, 1. 20 from bottom, for surrounded read surmounted. p 720, 1. 5 from bottom, after 51 insert, 1761. p. 783, 1. 13 from bottom, after told insert truly. p. 785, 1. 6, before ivhich insert most of. p. 798, after line 11 insert John Locke, 1630-1704. p. 800, 1. 10 from bottom, for on read see. p. 802, 1. 23 from bottom, for 8th read 3rd. p. 805, add at end of 1. 19, see 5 Protestant Dissenter's Magazine, 286. p. 807, 1. 16, for given more at length read set out more fully. p. 820, 1. 16 from bottom, for 663 read 632. 1. 5 from bottom. p. 820, 1. 4 from bottom, for Chaplain read Clajiham. p. 828, 1. 12 from bottom, for ffl read the ; after would add if the point had been taken before them, p. 839, 1. 20 from bottom, dele either. p. 850, at end of 1. 22 add 828. Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 1 1012 01236 1046 DATE DUE _— m -May ^ j t ***R*fc«^ ""*y*9F^j w taKM!-*, '" "*'*.-„ 1 I I I GAYLORD PRINTEDIN U.S.A.