WB'W^ 
 
p 
 
 >/ 
 
 0^ 
 
 <\ 
 
l-:ngravcd bv John linll fioin .ui cTiifiin.il I'l.mre 
 in ilio porsdsion of MT Clladndd. 
 
 Il'/n' ifuu iy'r-r/e( /h>//i //ir- .^^iitr.,// KVi,nr/i „/'. //r, „r/ii:i /r > J. A. D. /0f)'2. 
 I//.' n't,., „ ///>.///^./ a,,,/ ,f ../-////<./ /<'//// ^! //'">r/>r:./,-; ■/_ ., 
 
 DIff//, ( rl/lf'r//rlH///./ r/ff>/// //r/y'f Af //// //r .'. //fr // ////I .'///■//> /r/.\ .///////// f//ri>'/m;. 
 
 . \,'trr„„,,- . a/Tf //// /,r,y/,/;.„>.i .'/,/r/,,-f ,r /,,/.,'/„■,'>,., o ,/. >r// f/' l'//l^e-^i^ 
 t///i'/r . //rrr'r /y // f/iwAJi-^/ rir/ii//i.i/ //tiy .' 
 
 Ri-vfJoTntrMnn.J'rfiih;' fi C/>ff/1t»ns unirrni SfrmOn fer NfWcomf . 
 
SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY; 
 
 WITH 
 
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, 
 
 AND 
 
 AN APPENDIX. 
 
 " It is required in Stewards, that a man be found faithful." 
 
 1 Lor. iv. 2. 
 
 " Qui autem omnia metiuntur emolumentis et commodis, neque ea volunt 
 praeponderari honestate, hi'solent in deliberando honestum cum eo, qucxl utiie 
 putaut, comparare ; boni viri non solerit. Itr.que e.xistimo, Pansetium, quum 
 dixerit, homines solere in liac comparationo dubitave, hoc ipsuni seiisis.se, quod 
 dixerit, solere moilo ; non etiam oportere : elenim non modo phiris putare 
 quod utile videatur, quam quod hoiieslimi, sed haec etiam inter se compnraro, 
 et in hit addubilare, turpissimtim e.«t." 
 
 Cicero de Officii s, Lib iii. 
 
 I>0N DON 
 
 / 
 
 PRINTED FOR FRANCIS WESTLEY 
 
 10, .STATIONEHS' COllllT, AND AVE-MAKIA I.ANK, AND .SOl.U 
 
 BY C. .1. VV E S T L K Y AND G. T Y R R R I, I., 
 
 II, I.OWrr, SACKVILLZ STREET, [HBLIN 
 
 1 8-25. 
 
Milne and Bit nfic Id, rrinturs, 76, Fleet Slreef. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The Appendix to this Publication contains, 
 a LIST of the CHAPELS in ENGLAND, 
 WALES, and SCOTLAND, notv in the posses- 
 sion of UNITARIANS; an ACCOUNT of the 
 MANCHESTER COLLEGE, YORK; and of 
 the CHARITIES of DR. DANIEL WILLIAMS 
 and LAD Y HE WLE Y. 
 
ERRATA, 
 
 Page 34, line 36, dele the first and. 
 
 40, Note, for Colleges^ read College. 
 
 48, line 31 , for this, read their. 
 
 73, 15, for anxiliary, read auxiliary. 
 
 1 26, 1 , for Middeton , read Middleton , 
 
 135, Note, for Berry, read Bury. 
 153, line 1, for Rawtonstall, read Raiotoiulale. 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 »«eee9o« 
 
 The occasion of the following Publication is an 
 important part of its history. An Unitarian mi- 
 nister having intimated his intention to remove 
 from Manchester, his friends resolved to testify 
 and alleviate their sorrow on account of his depar- 
 ture, by presenting to him " A Silver Tea Ser- 
 vice/' and by accompanying that presentation with 
 extraordinary solemnities. As the Reverend Gen- 
 tleman^'s removal was no less a public than a private 
 calamity, and according to one of his admirers, 
 equivalent to " the death of a Roman Emperor," 
 the public grief was proportionally intense : and 
 as " a Tea Service of Silver" is ^' a noble present,'* 
 according to Mr. Grundy himself, a testimonial of 
 regard immemorially superior to any given by a 
 Congregation to a Minister before, a public Meet- 
 ing was indispensable, and a public Meeting was 
 accordingly decreed. 
 
 Why a public Dinner, which necessarily excluded 
 the Ladies, was preferred to a public Dejeune, or 
 rather Tea, which might have been enlivened and 
 adorned by their presence, and why the " Silver 
 Tea Service"' was given to Mr. Grundy b> the 
 ' b 
 
u 
 gentlemen, instead of being presented to Mrs. 
 Grundy by her female friends, although questions 
 of great delicacy and interest, unhappily are not 
 now to be answered ; and the anxieties so natural 
 in an affair of such moment, can receive only the 
 allay of plausible conjecture. 
 
 Yet the Ladies may be allowed to remark, that 
 the introduction of a Tea Service, even though " a 
 Tea Service of Silver,"" was not perfectly appro- 
 priate at a Dinner, or calculated to exhibit the 
 gift to its best advantage ; and to suggest, that for 
 gentlemen to reciprocate Tea-things in the absence 
 of those who alone could impart to the ceremony 
 its propriety and expression, has very much the 
 air of a design to invade the Female prerogative. 
 
 Uninfluenced by these considerations, important 
 as they are, the party assembled, the dinner took 
 place, and on the removal of the cloth, the ^' noble 
 present" was introduced. On its appearance, the 
 Chairman rose '' jnuch affected ;" but having dis- 
 charged the duty of ti*ansmitting it to the custody 
 of the person for whom it was designed, he dried 
 his tears, recovered his feelings, and gave the tone 
 to the Meeting in a speech composed of strong- 
 animadversions on the memory of the Reverend 
 Gentleman's deceased predecessors, and some 
 compliments quite of the tea-table sort, to the 
 Reverend Gentleman himself. The guests in their 
 order, adopted the complimentary style of their 
 President, with the exception of Mr. Naylor, the 
 incense offered by whom, was worthy to have per- 
 fumed " a Silver Service" for Dinner. 
 
 The hero of that evening, however, was not Mr, 
 
Ill, 
 Grundy, nor was it more than the ostensible object 
 of that meeting, to give him a public farewell. 
 Had not other pHrj30ses and designs developed 
 themselves in the published addresses of the per- 
 sons then assembled, their flight to immortality or 
 their descent to oblivion, had been alike un- 
 disturbed and unremarked. The principal part 
 was actually assigned to the Rev. G. Harris, 
 of Bolton-le-Moors , a man distinguished by his 
 ardour and efforts on behalf of that anomaly which 
 its advocates choose to denominate "Unitarian 
 Christianity." So mighty is he, that he undertakes 
 in a pamphlet of the common dimensions, to de- 
 molish a long list of Orthodox opponents ; and so 
 accomplished, notwithstanding the coarseness of 
 his Speech, that he is a public lecturer on polite 
 literature. In fact, Mr. Harris is regarded as a 
 pure specimen of the thoroughgoing undisguised 
 Unitarian ; and his hosts for that day, meditating 
 an attack upon the principles of Orthodoxy, were 
 aware that tlieir dinner would be insipid and their 
 speeches tame, without a prevailing infusion of 
 '^ the zeal which the Rev. G. Harris has been in- 
 strumental in kindling." Nor did he deceive their 
 expectations. They gave him the appointed Toast, 
 and he gave them the Harangue which he had pre- 
 pared for the occasion,* a harangue so adapted 
 to the taste of his hearers, that the liveliness of 
 their sympathy exploded in a tunmlt of applause. 
 The true character and design of that speech are as 
 evident as the p\u"pose for which its composition 
 
 * 5pe Mr. Harris's Spcfcli. p. ^. 
 
IV 
 
 and delivery were solicited : but it is possible, 
 that the conductors of the Meeting, did not then 
 foresee all the consequences in which it would 
 result. 
 
 The provocation by which the Unitarians of Man- 
 chester were induced to ofter through this individual, 
 so gross and outrageous an attack on the professors 
 of Evangelical religion, remains undisclosed. 
 Why the subject was at all introduced, and why, 
 if unnecessarily and in bad taste introduced, it was 
 made an occasion for the display of hatred and 
 scorn, no one but themselves can tell. Mr. G. W. 
 Wood in his first letter which he signs " An Uni- 
 tarian Christian,'' says ^'^that the Unitarians as a 
 body are not deficient in a spirit of kindness and 
 charity towards their Orthodox brethren/' and 
 adds " Perhaps they do not always meet with a 
 return of that good will, which it is their earnest 
 wish and uniform endeavour to exhibit towards 
 others :" but how does this consist with the cha- 
 racter of the very meeting which sanctioned and 
 adopted the speech of Mr. Harris '^ How do these 
 statements of Mr. Wood accord with the fact, that 
 one hundred and twenty Unitarians, of whom several 
 are ministers, assemble professedly for the purposes 
 of friendship and valediction : but although nothing- 
 occurs, or is known to have occurred, to irritate 
 the temper or to provoke discussion, and at the 
 very moment when their hearts might be supposed 
 to be susceptible of the kindlier influences, they break 
 out into the most opprobrious language (which they 
 afterwards publish in a Newspaper) concerning all 
 those from whom they differ in religious sentiment, 
 
V 
 
 and whose absence ought to have been, for that time 
 at least, their protection ? 
 
 If indeed the whole of these proceedings were 
 devised and arranged, under the disguise of good 
 fellowship, for the very purpose of making a de- 
 monstration of hostility against the Orthodox, and 
 by accusing them of being actuated by every 
 vicious principle, to bring upon them the public 
 indignation; thenare the Unitarians justly rewarded. 
 They have brought on themselves detection and 
 exposure ; they are smarting from the recoil of 
 their own weapons; — their own firebrands have 
 kindled their own premises ; — they have " made 
 a pit and digged it, and are fallen into the ditch 
 which they made/' — Ps. vii. 15. 
 
 Had the Unitarians shared as much as was pre- 
 viously supposed, in the general increase of light 
 and of liberal feeling, they would have obeyed the 
 dictates of good breeding, even if they had refused 
 to yield to emotions of good will : but these pro- 
 ceedings throw us ages back, and convince us, that 
 whatever Unitarians may be as individuals, as a 
 body they have been slow to improve in the ob- 
 servances of well regulated society; — and that 
 they have much to learn and much to feel, before 
 they will occupy the same degree on the social scale 
 with other denominations. To this tardiness of 
 improvement alone, could it be owing, that by the 
 cold and artificial ceremony of a Toast, to the very 
 persons whom they subsequently accused of every 
 thing immoral, unjust, and impious, they invested 
 insult with mockery, and infused wormwood in a 
 cup which was more than sufficiently f)itter before. 
 
It will occasion no surprise that an outrage so 
 premeditated and offered under such circum- 
 stances, immediately attracted the notice of the 
 Orthodox mhabitants of Manchester, and a letter 
 soon appeared in the Newspaper* which re- 
 corded those proceedings, referring particularly 
 to the Speech of Mr. Harris, denying the accusa- 
 tions it conveyed, and giving to his constituents 
 the opportunity of disclaiming its spirit and terms. 
 Every overture to that effect has been disregarded 
 by the only competent authorities, and these accu- 
 sations gross and false as they are, remain as much 
 as they were in August last, the obloquy of the 
 Unitarians against the Orthodox. 
 
 The vindication of the Orthodox from charges as 
 groundless as they are malicious, very naturally led 
 to some inquiries concerning those by whom they 
 were thus calumniated. The Unitarians have 
 claimed almost a monopoly of moral feeling and 
 social rectitude, their delight has been to declaim 
 after the manner of Mr. Harris on " the direful and 
 demoralizing effects of Orthodoxy," as if they, and 
 they alone, had pure hearts and clean hands : but 
 how does their boasting endure an impartial scru- 
 
 * To prevent misconception, and in justice to Mr. Archibald 
 Prentice, the Editor of the Manchester Gazette in which tliese 
 proceedings were published, it should be mentioned that he has 
 no religious connexion with the Unitarians, but is an Elder of 
 the Scotch Secession Church in Manchester. From a little 
 volume which he has lately published entitled " Tlie life of a 
 Scottish Covenanter," it appears that Mr. P. is the great grand- 
 son of Aixhibald Prentice and Alexander Reid, both of whom 
 fought on the side of the Covenanters, in the disastrous engage- 
 ment at Bothwell Bridge, in 167a. 
 
tiny? — in wliat is their system IbLUidcd? — and by 
 what do they uphold it? These inquiries natu- 
 rally introduced that which soon became the prin- 
 cipal and absorbing topic of the Correspondence, 
 viz. The misappropriation of those funds and 
 endowments, lohlch tvere bequeathed by Ortho- 
 dox persons for Orthodox purposes, but which 
 have unhappily fallen Into the hands of Utiita- 
 ria?t Trustees. For the elucidation of the 
 Principle ofUnitarianism, the Reader is refeiTed to 
 the late Rev. Andrew Fuller's " Calvinistic and 
 Socinian systems compared with respect to their 
 Moral Tendency;" and for the Practical Opera- 
 tion of that Principle, he is referred to the follow- 
 ing Correspondence, and the papers which com- 
 pose the Appendix. 
 
 A Controversy on topics so interesting to every 
 friend of justice, and especially to the Dissenting 
 Body, was not long before it excited attention 
 considerably beyond the circle of those who were 
 immediately concerned ; and the Evangelical Ma- 
 gazine for January, 1825, contained the following 
 clear and compendious statement, viz. 
 
 UNITARIAN CHAPELS. 
 
 " From a spirited controversy, commencing laxt August, 
 and still continued in the columns of the Mtmchester Ga- 
 zette^ it appears that the self-styled Unitarians are under- 
 going a very severe but most deserved castigation. The 
 brief history of the case is as follows: —Upwards of a hun- 
 dred Gentlemen of that denomination held a friendly con- 
 vivial meeting at the Spread Eagle Tavern, for the purpose 
 of presenting a service of plate to their Jiiinister, the Rev. 
 John Grundy, as a token of respect, on the occasion of 
 
VIU 
 
 his removal from Manchester to Liverpool. Among 
 the number of toasts in the course of the evening, the 
 health of the Rev. George Harris, formerly of Liver- 
 pool, now of Bolton, was proposed and received with 
 acclamation. The Reverend Gentleman, in acknow- 
 ledging the honour conferred upon him, took occasion to 
 eulogize Unitarian Christianity contrasted with Orthodoxy, 
 in a long list of particulars : epithet was heaped upon epi- 
 thet, to show that the former is the paragon of excellence, 
 and that the latter is below contempt. This speech was 
 received at every point with thunders of applause ; and that 
 the impression might not die with the moment, nor be con- 
 fined to the select assembly present, the report of the 
 meeting, of the several speeches, and particularly that of 
 Mr. Harris, was Gazetted^ with the minutest accuracy, on 
 the following Saturday. 
 
 This recorded specimen of Manchester Unitarianism pro- 
 duced a most astounding effect. " An Orthodox Dissenter" 
 indignantly, but temperately replied, appealing to Mr. 
 Harris's own speech as the most direct refutation, both 
 of his gross calumnies and his vaunting pretences. " Ano- 
 ther Orthodox Dissenter" followed up the charge, with 
 " An Orthodox Observer" and others in the rear. 
 
 At the very commencement of the controversy, the Uni- 
 tarian fraternity perceived that their zeal had betra5'^ed them , 
 and that the speech of their applauded orator did not sound 
 so harmoniously in the ears of the public as it had done in 
 their own. In their replies therefore, they deprecated all 
 further discussion, sounded a retreat, acknowledged the in- 
 temperance of Mr. Harris, and expressed their readiness to 
 toss him overboard, to sink or swim, responsible for his 
 own opinions and expressions, if the impending storm 
 might be thereby allayed. These concessions,* however, 
 connected as they were with Unitarian bravado, have been 
 hitherto unavailing. 
 
 In the management of the Controversy, the Orthodox 
 party have wisely abstained from theological discussion, as 
 
 ♦ These were the concessions of individual Wnters---the Dinner Autho- 
 Rir/Es were completely silent. 
 
IX 
 
 unsuited to a Newspaper. They have confined their at- 
 tacks principally to two distinct points, shewing by refer- 
 ence to historic facts, first, That Unitarians are not entitled 
 to that claim of candour, of liberality, and of steadfast adhe- 
 rence to the principles of civil and religious liberty of which 
 they boast : — and secondly. That however respectable they 
 may be in their private commercial concerns, they do, as a 
 body, most flagrantly violate the principles of moral inte- 
 grity, by the mal-administration of trusts, appropriating to 
 the support of their own system numerous chapels, with 
 endowments and funds to a vast amount, originally^in- 
 tended for Orthodox purposes. In confirmation of this 
 charge, the List of Chapels occupied by Unitarians in 
 Cheshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and 
 the West Riding of Yorkshire, is reported to be eighty^ of 
 these siorty-nine were originally orthodox ; three are doubt- 
 ful ; and eight only of Unitarian origin. 
 
 Should this controversy hereafter appear in the form of 
 a pamphlet, it will deserve a careful review. It has already 
 we are informed, produced a very wide and powerful im- 
 presssion ; and we apprehend, it will ultimately lead to the 
 rescue of property to a considerable amount, from the trust 
 of Unitarians, by legal process, except they adopt the more 
 honourable alternative of voluntarily surrendering it to the 
 purposes for which it was originally intended." 
 
 In " The Monthly Repository of Theology and 
 General Literature," which has long been the of- 
 ficial periodical publication of the English Unita- 
 rians, and the organ of their sentiments, this paper 
 in the Evangelical Magazine, is noticed in the fol- 
 lowing highly significant language, which will 
 afford the reader an example of that rigid mo- 
 rality, sobriety of temper, and modesty of expres- 
 sion, by which Unitarianism is invariably distin- 
 guished. 
 
X 
 
 " EVANGELICAL" DECLARATION OF WAR 
 AGAINST THE UNITARIANS. 
 
 " The " Evangelical Magazine" ushers in the new year 
 with sounding the war-whoop of bigotry and persecution. 
 For a long time this Work represented the " Socinians' 
 as dwindled to nothing ; with but few chapels, (places of 
 worship they would hardly he called,) and those nearly 
 empty. This artilice failing, and in despair of answering 
 Unitarian arguments, it is now seriously proposed to the 
 Evangelical world to try to rob Unitarians of their Meeting- 
 houses ! 
 
 The notable project has been started in Lancashire, in the 
 coarse of a Newspaper controversy growing out of the re- 
 port of proceedings at the Dinner given to Mr. Grundy, at 
 Manchester, (See Mon. Repos. xix. p. 574.) It is taken 
 up deliberately in the " Evangelical" for this Month in an 
 article of Intelligence headed (not Socinian, but) " Unita- 
 rian Chapels" from which we shall now extract a passage 
 (pp. 23, 24.) to which we beg the reader's attention. [^Here 
 apart of the preceding Article fi^om the Evangelical Maga- 
 zine, is introduced.'] 
 
 Having recorded this specimen of intolerance and perse- 
 cution, as far as the m.ind of the conductors of the Evangeli- 
 cal Magazine is concerned, we are contented. It would 
 he ridiculous to argue against the principle assumed in the 
 menace, it would be worse tlian ridiculous to say a word 
 upon the result of the meditated " legal process." Let the 
 Calvinists begin their holy war, and they will then under- 
 stand " the signs of the times." But the only thing of 
 consequence, at present, is to set down in print the memo- 
 rable design. Here, in the 19th century, in the metropolis 
 of Great Britain, in a Magazine supported chiefly by Pro- 
 testant Dissenters, a Magazine too which professes to be, 
 by way of distinction, " Evangelical," and to be devoted 
 peculiarly to vital Christianity : in this Work, at this time 
 of day, it is proposed to drive a multitude of Protestant 
 
XI 
 
 Dissenting Congregations (not less than seventy in one 
 district) out of their places of worship inherited from their 
 fathers, because it is alleged they do not believe all that 
 their fathers believed ! It is intended of course that the 
 emptied chapels shall be occupied and their endowments be 
 enjoyed (here is the temptation) by the true belli vers ; for 
 dominion is founded upon grace. The inujuity of the 
 scheme may pass : but the cool blooded assurance with 
 which it is announced is instructive. This is the " Evan- 
 gelical Magazine ;" this is the spirit of some Calvinists ; 
 and this we are entitled to consider as the effect of Cal- 
 vinism, unless the Dissenting Ministers, whose names are 
 j)ublished as the contributors of the Work, and the distri- 
 butors of its gains, come forward and disavow the Editor's 
 project of contending with Unitarians by " legal process" 
 and of upholding and enriching Calvinism by a swe(^ing 
 ejectment and spoliation . ' ' 
 
 Alonthlfj Repository, No. 229, p. 5G. 
 
 When the patient writhes and screams beneath 
 the probe, the surgeon knows that the ulcer is pe- 
 netrated to its core ; and nothing can be more in- 
 telligible and explicit than this Unitarian outcry. 
 Certain trustees are required to administer up- 
 rightly the trusts to which they are appointed — 
 nothing more than the faithful discharge of their 
 duties is expected or desired — yet roused and ir- 
 ritated by a requirement so reasonable and so just, 
 they exclaim ^^ you declare war against us ; you 
 design robbery; you wish to enrich yourselves 
 with our spoils.'"'' If the property they hold in 
 trust, be actually devoted to its legitimate pur- 
 poses, they can have nothing to fear from '^ a le- 
 gal process ;" — why then are they so angry and so 
 alarmed ? 
 
Xll 
 
 Nothing more is said to them than this ; " Ho- 
 nestly administer the deeds which entrust you — 
 keep by all means that which is your own; but 
 restore that which you have taken away :" and this 
 they stile " a declaration of war, a purpose of 
 robbery, a design of spoliation /" They actually 
 impute to the men who intreat them to be honest, 
 a '^ cool blooded assurance /" 
 
 Is theirs the language of men safe and ti'anquil 
 in the consciousness of integrity? Do faithful 
 stewards when called to account for their stew- 
 ardship, complain of injury ? Why then do these 
 ostentatious advocates of free inquiry, shrink and 
 tremble at the mere proposal of investigation? 
 Are these invectives the self-accusations of re- 
 morse ? — and are we to receive these paragraphs 
 as the Public Confession of the conscjence- 
 STRICKEN Unitarians ? The dispassionate reader 
 will determine, v/hether this be not indeed their 
 own recorded plea of " guilty," and whether 
 they can evade the consequences of that plea. 
 
 It could not have been anticipated that the at- 
 tempt to illustrate and enforce the simple but sacred 
 and inviolable principle, that it is the duty of all 
 trustees to execute uprightly and faithfully their 
 trust deeds, would have excited this fierceness 
 of resentment among those who boast of a rigid 
 morality; and surely this principle which is of uni- 
 versal application, is not to be set aside in the 
 case of those funds and endowments which were 
 raised and settled by the Orthodox of former days, 
 for the purpose of promoting the cause of Evan- 
 gelical Truth. If when it is said to the actual 
 
XIU 
 
 Trustees " fulfil the intentions of the founders, 
 act only as you would wish succeeding Trustees 
 to act supposing you yourselves to invest your 
 property in trust," they choose to meet this by the 
 angry but candid confession, that to be thus faithful 
 in the exercise of the confidence reposed in them, 
 would necessitate an entire change from the pre- 
 sent application of the funds (so much so as to be 
 equivalent to a surrender of the property) let 
 them not be surprised if to plain understandings, 
 this confession amounts to a public acknowledg- 
 ment that these funds are at the present moment, 
 perverted and misapplied. It is not unreasonable 
 therefore, to call upon them for restitution, when 
 they have confessedly done wrong. They ought 
 to think it no hardship to be as other Dissenters, 
 who by their own voluntary contributions, sup- 
 port their own respective systems : but they ought 
 to feel that it is grievous, that it is iniquitous in 
 the sight of God and man, to usurp and misap- 
 propriate the bequests and endowments of the 
 pious dead. 
 
 Let them build and endow as many chapels as 
 they please, — let them employ every fair and ho- 
 nest method to disseminate their opinions, — let 
 them plant vines and fig-trees, and sit unmolested 
 beneath them : but why do they retain the vines 
 and fig-trees of which the rightful owners have 
 been dispossessed ? — why do they continue to oc- 
 cupy vineyards, which are not, and cannot be, 
 justly theirs? If indeed these trustees are pre- 
 pared to assert, that there is no dejiarture from 
 the intentions of the Founders, — Ihat there is no 
 dereliction of the letter or the s{)iritof the Deeds, 
 
XIV 
 
 and to substantiate that assertion by an unreserved 
 exhibition of the necessary documents, — we are 
 quite open to conviction. And, when they have 
 thus shewn that all the Chapels they occupy were 
 built and endowed by Unitarians, and that all the 
 Benefactions they enjoy, were settled in Trust for 
 the propagation of Unitarian doctrines, our ap- 
 plauses shall accompany their vindication, and we 
 shall claim their gratitude as the reward of our 
 exertions in this Inquiry. But this is notoriously 
 impossible; and they have not even attempted to 
 deny the charge. 
 
 Yet although they practically admit the truth 
 and justice of the statements made against them, 
 and actually acknowledge that " it ivould he ridi- 
 culous to arg2ie against the Principle"* we main- 
 tain, they endeavour to engage on their side the 
 feelings of the charitable and humane, by accusing 
 of harshness and severity, those who press upon 
 them the duty of faithfully discharging their Trusts. 
 Their complaint is, that they are to be driven out 
 of '^^ places of worship inherited from their fathers :" 
 but the truth is, that they are required to be faith- 
 ful Stewards of property, which is indeed com- 
 mitted to their charge, but which neither they nor 
 any one living can possibly inherit. The pretence 
 of inheriting property which is vested in Trust 
 for certain purposes, is by its absuidity its own 
 refutation : but men who are drowning catch even 
 at straws. Thus the Modern English Unitarians 
 style themselves '^ The genuine Representatives 
 of the Englisli Presbyterians," than which nothing 
 
 * See p. \. 
 
cau be more puerile or contrary to Fact ; for, even 
 if we could possibly admit the monstrous princi- 
 ple which they would impose upon us, viz That 
 siipposing them to be the descendants of the 
 original founders and contribntors, they would 
 thereby be entitled to dispose of the Property 
 as they may now see fit — yet that admission 
 would avail them nothing. The pretext of their 
 being those descendants, is altogether untenable 
 and false. Let it be granted that the posterity of 
 those who devote their property by Trust deeds 
 to certain purposes, have a right to dispose of that 
 property for purposes directly opposed to the 
 intentions of their progenitors and the stipulations 
 of the Trust deeds which alone can empower them 
 to dispose of that property; (for these Trustees 
 claim a right in direct opposition to the very legal 
 instruments to which they refer as actually giving 
 them their title) and even this large and unbounded 
 allowance will fail to serve the purpose of the 
 Unitarians. 
 
 ^'^ An ancestor of my own" says Mr. Samuel 
 Kay "^ was one of the original founders of Cross 
 Street Chapel" Manchester. If all who like Mr. 
 Kay can shew their pedigree, were assembled, we 
 should find, instead of the descendants of the 
 founders, only an insignificant minority, a 
 minute fractional portion, the addition or abstrac- 
 tion of which, would be alike unperceived. The 
 congregation now worshipping in Cross Street 
 Chapel, is according to Mr. G. W. Wood, "vir- 
 tually the same that worshipped there when its 
 w-alls were fresh from the hand of tiie builder." 
 
XVI 
 
 What Mr. Wood particularly means by ''virtually 
 the sa?ne^' does not appear : but if the curious in 
 this inquiry were to enter Cross Street Chapel, 
 one of the largest and most numerously attended 
 of all the places of worship now in Unitarian occu- 
 pation, they would find there — Emigi*ants from the 
 continent of Europe, both Jews and Gentiles — 
 Strangers from the Northern division of our Island 
 — and others who were attracted by the eloquence 
 of the late Dr. Barnes, whose memory receives such 
 scanty indulgence fi'om Mr. Richard Potter; — but 
 there w ould be little to reward their straining eye- 
 sight in searching after " descendants of the ori- 
 ginal founders!^ The descendants of the old 
 English Presbyterians and Independents, are no 
 where so scarce, as in Unitarian Chapels, or on 
 the lists of benefactory funds administered by Uni- 
 tarian Trustees. 
 
 The almost incalculable majority of the de- 
 scendants of those who contributed to the erection 
 of those chapels, and of the congregations who 
 first worshipped within their walls, are now 
 chiefly among the Orthodox Dissenters. Among 
 them their forefathers found an asylum, when ex- 
 pelled by those who though few in number, were 
 unhappily great in power, and who drove out 
 "■ the genuine representatives of the English Pres- 
 byterians'" by a remorseless intrusion of the So- 
 cinian doctrines ; — and while a few descendants of 
 original Trustees (who are Trustees also them- 
 selves) may yet attend the ancient Chapels, they 
 who are allied by religious sentiments as well as by 
 consanguinity, to the Founders, are no longer there. 
 
XVll 
 
 It is only with respect to Chapels, that this sub- 
 terfuge deserves a moment's notice ; for surely, 
 Samuel Shore,* Esq. of Meersbrook, and The 
 
 * Tlie occurrence of t)iis Gentleman's name, gives the oppor- 
 tunity of introducing- the following interesting documents relative 
 to the originally orthodox chapel at Stannington (see Appendix, 
 p. 173.) ^vith which the Editors have been furnished by a highly 
 respectable correspondent at Sheffield. It appears that the Man- 
 chester Controversy, had given an impulse to the friends of 
 truth and justice in the large and populous town of Sheffield and 
 its neighbourhood ; and as the case of Stannington Chapel is 
 one of most flagrant perversion, and Mr, Shore the acting 
 Trustee enjoys a high reputation for uprightness and benevolence, 
 it was resolved to memorialize that gentleman on the important 
 subject, in order that an appeal to his justice, might supersede 
 the necessity of resorting to any other means of recovering the 
 Chapel to its legitimate uses. From the manner in which Mr. 
 Shore received the Deputation, and from the evident effect pro- 
 duced upon him by the conversation, and by the reading of the 
 memorial, the parties aggrieved were not mthout hope of success. 
 This hope however Mr. Shore, having conferred with his col- 
 leaoues, saw fit to disappoint. The followdng are — The Memorial 
 which was presented to INIr. Shore on behalf of the inliabitants of 
 Stannington who are prevented from attending at the Chapel by 
 the doctrines which are preached there ; and the r.ccompanying 
 LETTER — Mr. Shore's answer — and the reply of the Deputation. 
 
 To SAMUEL SHORE, Esq. of Meersbrook, in the Parish of 
 Norton, in the County of Derby, the Trustee or Guardian 
 of Stannington Chapel and its Endowments, and to any other 
 Trustee or Trustees of the same. The Petition of the inhabi- 
 tants. Householders, and others, of the Township of Stanning- 
 ton, in the ('hapelry of Bradfield, and Parisli of Ecclesfield, 
 respectfully 
 
 Sheweth ; 
 1st. That one Richard Spoone, of Stannington, by his will, 
 dated the 20th day of May, IG52, among other charitable be- 
 quests, devised certain l.uids, and othir properly. '' for and to- 
 
XVllI 
 
 Rev. T. Belsham, with their colleagues, will not 
 pretend to have suceeeded by heirship to the pro- 
 perty of Dr. Daniel Williams and Lady Hewley. 
 
 wards the maintenance of such a preaching minister, in the 
 Tow^lship aforesaid, as three of the next neighbouring- Ministers 
 to the said town, or the Testator's Feoifees, or the greater part of 
 tliem, should approve of for honesty of life, soundness in doc- 
 trine, and dilio-ence in preachino-." And what the Testator him- 
 seif understood by the phrase " soundness in doctrine" is appa- 
 rent, from the following words in tlie preamble to his will. " / 
 desire, hi the name of Jesus Christ, to bequeath viy soul into 
 the hands of God that gave it, hoping assuredly to be saved 
 
 BY THE DEATH AND PRECIOUS BLOOD-SHEDDING OF JeSUS ChRIST 
 MY REDEE3IER, AND BY NO OTHER MERITS. 
 
 2d. Tliat from a record in the Herald's College, it appears 
 that Richard Spoone established a place of worship at Stanning- 
 ton, about the year 1652 or 1653— and from other evidence, that 
 the said place of worship was designed for an Episcopalian Cha- 
 pel, being built in the form, and fitted up in the manner usually 
 adopted in such erections, and tliat thirteen Episcopalian Minis- 
 ters, in regular succession, performed Divine Service in the said 
 Chapel, agreeably to the rites a d ceremonies contained in the 
 Book of (_'ommoa Prayer, and that, although the said place of 
 worship and its Endowments afterwards passed into the hands of 
 Orthodox Dissenters, through the influence of an opulent indivi- 
 dual long iince deceased ; yet the discipline of the Established 
 Church was more or less maintained, and part of its services re- 
 gularly performed, until the Chapel became unfit for the purpose 
 of public worship, which happened about the year 1740. And 
 it further appears, that, during the period the Chapel was under 
 the management of the Dissenters, Mr. Thomas Marriott, of Ug- 
 hill, gave additional lands towards the maintenance of a minister 
 at Stannington. 
 
 3d. That, so soon as Spoone 's Chapel became completely 
 dilapidated, one Thomas Mamott, an orthodox dissenter, and 
 nephew of the former Marriott, purchased a small plot of ground 
 immediately adjoining Spoone's land, and, with the aid of a few 
 friends, caused a new chapel to be erected thereon, to be used in 
 
XIX 
 
 Let it be supposed that certain Trustees who 
 are appointed to act for tlie benefit of an orphan 
 family, eject the triie heirs from their lawful pos- 
 
 the propagation of that form of orthodox dissent, usually known 
 by the term Independent, or Calvinist. And further that the said 
 Thomas Marriott appointed Mr. Smith (a preacher of this deno- 
 mination.) the first minister of the said chapel, who held the 
 office of pastor about twenty years. It is also found, that this 
 gentleman was succeeded by a Mr. Hall, a native of the district, 
 who at that time resided in the immediate neighbourhood, and 
 although he professed himself a Trinitarian when he was ap- 
 pointed, yet he afterwards became an Arian, and, after preach- 
 ing about nineteen years, having disgraced himself, he departed 
 to Rotterdam. After his departure, Mr. Rhodes, a Calvinist 
 Divine, was appointed by the major part of the inhabitants, 
 with your concun-ence, in the year 1780, and he continued pas- 
 tor of a very numerous congregation till the year 1785, when he 
 removed to Sutton, in Warwickshire. 
 
 4th. That after Mr. Rhodes's removal, two gentlemen, un- 
 derstood at that time to be Trustees, appointed Mr. Gibson, an 
 Arian or Unitarian Minister, contrary to the earnest and respect- 
 ful solicitations of nearly the whole congregation, who desired to 
 have an orthodox pastor. When their request was denied, most 
 of them left the chapel, some of them began to frequent the 
 Church at Bradfield, others that at Ecclesfield, and the rest left 
 the neighbourhood, and became members of the Independent 
 congregation in Queen-street, of whom some are alive at this 
 day. It further appears, that ever since Mr. Gibson's appoint- 
 ment, which occasioned sucli a general dispersion of the con- 
 gregation, the chapel has been served by Unitarian Ministers, 
 who, during the labours of forty years, have scarcely made a 
 score proselytes. And, even at this very time, the congregation 
 consists of about thirty or forty individuals, witli a chapel capable 
 of containing about 400 or 500 jjersons, in a district, the popu- 
 lation whereof is near 2,000 souls, who have no other accommo- 
 dation for public worship within a considerable distance, except 
 a small Wesleyan Chapel, erected in 1821. 
 
 .">tli. I'hat ill iliieet opposition to th«; well kiiowii wishes and 
 
XX 
 
 sessions, and those heirs with their posterity, either 
 decline into poverty, or acquire fortunes elsewhere 
 — and that those Trustees enjoy the undisturbed 
 
 intentions of those who founded Stannington Chapel, we, the in- 
 habitants, are precluded from the privilege of public worship in 
 a place built expressly for our accommodation, by the appoint- 
 ment of a Minister who teaches doctrines contrary to the honest 
 convictions of our consciences, and such as were never con- 
 templated by those who gave the lands and other property, for 
 the maintenance and sujDport of a minister. 
 
 6th. That we are advised, that by the law of the land, neither 
 the Trustees, nor the majority of a congregation have any power 
 to apply trust-property whether consisting of a chapel or endow- 
 ments, to the maintenance of doctrines contrary to those for 
 which the property was set apart by the founders. The follow- 
 ing opinion has been given by the Lord Chancellor, viz. " If 
 the institution was established for the express purpose of such 
 form of religious worsliip, or the teaching of such particular doc- 
 trines, as the founder has thought most conformable to the prin- 
 ciples of the Christian religion, I do not apprehend that it is 
 in the power of individuals having the management of that in- 
 stitution, at any time to alter the pui-pose 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 
 prescribed 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.' 
 
 We confidently submit, that nothing can be more explicit 
 than the directions contained in Mr. Spooue's Will, or more cer- 
 tain than the well known religious sentiments of IMr. Marriott, 
 or more evident than that the appropriation of the chapel and 
 endowments to the maintenance of Unitarian doctrines, which are 
 tauo-ht by the present minister, is illegal and unjust, and con- 
 trary to the wishes of a very great majority of the inhabitants. 
 
 We, therefore, the inhabitants of Stannington aforesaid, re- 
 spectfully solicit your attention to the preceding statements. We 
 are inclined to believe you have hitherto been a stranger to the 
 
XXI 
 
 possession of the property thus acquired, during their 
 own lives, and then are succeeded by their chil- 
 dren, who likewise bequeath it to theirs, and so on: 
 
 more important facts of the case ; we cannot for a moment sup- 
 pose you would tvilfully counteract the designs of tlie pious dead, 
 or violate a sacred trust ; we will not entertain the idea that 
 you could knoivingly alienate our rights and privileges ; nor do 
 we imagine that you can sanction the perversion or misapplica- 
 tion of trust property. On these grounds^ therefore, we confidently 
 make our appeal to you, and earnestly entreat that the chapel, 
 lands, &c. may be restored to their right owners, and applied 
 to the purposes for which they were intended. We beseech you, 
 then, by your love of truth, by your regard for law, justice, and 
 equity, by the high character you sustain, by all that is dear to you 
 as a man, a parent, and a Christian, listen to our reasonable requests ; 
 and since your authority was made available for (he appointment of 
 the present Minister, let it be successfully exerted for his removal. 
 We respect your aged person, we venerate your hoary hairs, and 
 would not that any thing should embitter the closing scene of 
 your life : we would rather your last days should be your best 
 days, that your sun should set in splendour, and your memory be 
 blessed. 
 
 N. B. The persons whose names are inserted under the head 
 " Unitarians" are understood as expressing their wish 
 for the continuance of the present minister, and as ob- 
 jecting to this petition." 
 
 Copy of a Letter which accompanied the Memorial to 
 S. Shore, Esg. 
 
 Sir,— It may be necessary to accompany the petition now pro- 
 duced, from the inhabitants of Stannington, with a k-w exjilana- 
 tory remarks. 
 
 It will be observed, that the columns for signatures arc divided 
 into two classes— the one headed Trinitarian, and the other Uni- 
 tarian. We believe application for names has been made in 
 
XXll 
 
 — but at length the public attention being excited, 
 the descendants of those Trustees are required to 
 administer righteously the Trusts to which they 
 are appointed. If the actual Trustees were then to 
 claim this property as theirs by descent, and say, 
 
 every family within the prescribed limits ; and those who approve 
 of the prayer of the petition have signed under the title Trini- 
 tarian, while those who wish the present minister to remain have 
 subscribed their names und; r the title Unitarian. Every signa- 
 ture, whether for or against the petition, is the voluntary act of 
 each individual respectively : no undue influence, threat, persua- 
 sion, or intimidation has been resorted to, for the purpose of pro- 
 curing names. The Chapel may be considered as the centre of 
 the district throughout which the canvass has been made, and it 
 has not been extended beyond a mile in any direction, except in 
 that towards Bradfield : in this latter direction, the canvass has 
 been carried half way between the Chapel and Bradfield Church, 
 which are four miles asunder. According to the best information 
 that can be obtained, we find, that, within the limits of the can- 
 vass, there are about 390 persons twenty-one years old and up- 
 wards, and these were all considered eligible to sign the petition. 
 Of this number, 340 have signed in favour of the petition, 27 
 have signed against, and about 15 have expressed a wish to re- 
 main neutral ; their reasons for adopting this course can be given 
 by the parties who made the canvass, if required. 
 
 It may be proper to add, that many houses, situated in the 
 more remote parts of the district, knowTi by the name of Stan- 
 nington, (and so designated by the collector of the King's taxes,) 
 are beyond the limits prescribed to those who were employed to 
 collect signatures. It was thought more advisable to take the 
 opinions of those persons who are most interested in the busi- 
 ness, as being residents in the immediate neighbourhood of the 
 Chapel, and subject to the greatest inconvenience, provided they 
 are not satisfied with the present order of things. The result of 
 the canvass, which has been conducted in the most honourable 
 and impartial manner, shews clearly what sort of feeling prevails 
 amongst the inhabitants : and those of them who have managed 
 the business are quite anxious that their conduct should undergo 
 
xxiii 
 
 " Would you deprive us of that which we inherii 
 
 from our fathers ?" " You declare war against 
 
 us, you are robbers, and wish to enrich yourselves 
 
 <he strictest scrutiny, being confident, that your approbation of 
 what they have clone will rise in propoi'tion as you become more 
 and more intimately ac(juaintcd with the manner in which it has 
 been done. 
 
 To Samuel Shore, Esq. Meersbrook. 
 
 Mr. S/iore's Ansioer to the- Memorial and Letter. 
 
 Meersbrook, May 9th, lb25. 
 
 Mr. James Wilson, Solicitor, Sheffield. 
 
 Sir, — -Ks an answer was desired to the Papers left with me, 
 when you lately called here, with a number of the Inhabitants of 
 Stannington. If the object of the application be for the disnussal 
 of the Rev. Mr. Wright, whose character was admitted to be a 
 good one, and to obtain the disposal and possession of the Chapel 
 at Stannington with its endowments. I liave to inform you, that 
 the other Trustees agree with me that it would be acting contrary 
 to our duty to give any countenance to those propositions, and I 
 anj. Sir, your most obedient Servant, 
 
 SAMUEL SHORE, 
 
 The Repbj of the Deputation to Mr. Shore's Letter. 
 
 TO SAMUEL SHORE, ESQ. 
 
 Stannin'^ton, May 21, 1«2;5. 
 Sir, — We, the de; utation who waited upon you on the 27th of 
 April last, with a memorial from the inhabitants of St;miiington 
 liave to acknowledge the receipt of your answer. We have also 
 to express the sur[)rise of the inhabitants that you should enter- 
 tain any doubt respecting the object of their petition. Permit 
 us, therefore, to say, that their sole aim is to harelht Chapfcl and 
 
XXIV 
 
 with our spoils :" — would it not be perfectly rea- 
 sonable in reply to these exclamations, to say, 
 " No man can give what he does not possess ; your 
 
 its Endovvmeuts devoted to the pui'poses for which they were de- 
 signed ; being perfectly satisfied, that the application of them to 
 the maintenance and propagation of Unitarianism is contrary to 
 the original intentions of the founders, at variance with the law 
 of the land, and in opposition to the doctrinal sentiments of the in- 
 habitants. We also respectfully submit, that the private interests 
 of Mr. Wright, the present Minister, ought not to be put in compe- 
 tition with the sacred rights of the Public, more especially by the 
 Trustees, who are bound to defend (hose rights from every species 
 of violation. We add further, that the inhabitants are greatly 
 disappointed at the result of their appeal to the Trustees, since 
 they had the utmost reason to expect a favourable reply: at least, 
 they entertained sanguine hopes of finding in you a real friend. 
 Your high character, through a long life, had warranted the ex- 
 pectation that no refusal of their just rights would have obtained 
 your sanction, particularly after the declared sentiments of the 
 population had been so fully ascertained, and when it is found 
 that the advocates of Unitarianism do not amount to one thir- 
 teenth part of the number of Trinitarians. And, besides, the 
 disparity of numbers is, in reality, much greater ; for although 
 twenty-seven persons signed the petition in behalf of Unita- 
 rianism, it is confidently believed, that not more than five indi- 
 viduals have imbibed such sentiments. With this decisive evi- 
 dence of the religious cpinious of the population, and possessing 
 indubitable proofs that the Chapel was founded by men of like 
 sentiments, and for the maintenance of Trinitarian doctrines, the 
 petitioners consider themselves injured, in an infinite degree, by 
 those who withhold from them their own peculiar place of public 
 worship ; and they deem it impossible for any one to conceive, 
 that the founders ever intended to authorize the Trustees to im- 
 pose upon them such sentiments of religious doctrine as they (the 
 Trustees) might choose to adopt, equally hostile to those which 
 are entertained by themselves, and are still maintained by the 
 inhabitants at large. The petitioners, therefore, cannot forbear 
 pressing upon you and the other Trustees, the important fact^ 
 
XXV 
 
 fathers therefore could place you only in the situa- 
 tion which they themselves occupied — they were 
 not Proprietors, but Trustees ; and it is Trustee- 
 ship and not Property to which you have suc- 
 ceeded. We do not question your authority as 
 Trustees, but call upon you to act honestly accord- 
 ing to the Trust Deeds V Could the Unitarians 
 object to such reasoning as this ? And yet this 
 
 that the present and future welfare of a whole district are deeply 
 involved in the question; and that, under existing circumstances, 
 they owe it as a duty to themselves, to tlieir families, and to pos- 
 terity, to submit the matter to their friends, and their future con- 
 duct in the business will be regulated by the advice which they 
 shall receive. 
 
 We are. Sir, your very obedient sen'ants, 
 John Dyson, Churchwarden. George Thompson, Jun. 
 George Thompson, Jonathan Earnshaw, 
 
 William Trickett, Isaac Bradley, 
 
 George Eyre, George Ronksley, 
 
 Jonathan Marstin, Thomas Trickitt, 
 
 George Priestly, 
 It, therefore appears, that to accommodate five Socinians, 
 the Trustees of Stannington chapel consider it to be their Duty 
 TO DEPRIVE an ENTiRii DISTRICT of the benefit of the chapel which 
 was unquestionably built an '» endowed for the accommodation of 
 the Inhabitants by Orthodox men, and for the promulgation of 
 Orthodox doctrines ! ! ! The Trustees tell those inhabitants in 
 effect, " you shall either become Unitarians, and deny the doc- 
 trines on wjiich you jilace your hopes of eternal salvation, or you 
 shall not enjoy the advantages intended for you by the Founders." 
 These are grievous terms : but it is cheering to learn that, after 
 fifty years perversion of this property to Unitarian pm-poses, there 
 are only five Unitarians in this village, and that the rest of the 
 inhabitants maintain a steadfast adherence to the truth. On 
 the autliorily of the Chancellor's judgment above referred to, 
 and which is peculiarly applicable to this case, we may safely 
 pronounce the conduct of these Trustees to be as illegal 
 AS it is unjust. 
 
is exactly the case, with the present Trustees of 
 the property which was devoted to religious pur- 
 poses by tlie Orthodox of former days. If all 
 these Trustees were able to trace their descent 
 from the original Trustees, yet they cannot 
 possibly be the Owners of the property so de- 
 voted and put in Trust for special purposes. No 
 one wishes to interfere withiheir title to administer 
 these funds as Trustees : but when they describe 
 themselves as the Heirs, they assume a name and 
 usurp a right to which they have no equitable or 
 reasonable claim. 
 
 But if it were even admitted in opposition to 
 reason and to fact, that they are the heirs of the 
 contributors to these erections and the founders of 
 these endowments, would they therefore have the 
 right to divert that property from its original pur- 
 pose and design, and without blame or responsibi- 
 lity, to employ it in such a way as might seem best 
 to themselves ? Is this the Nature and Tenure of 
 Trust property ? Are Trust Deeds merely soiled 
 parchment, and are Trustees, as such, the posses- 
 sors of an unentailed and unrestricted Freehold ? 
 If Trustees are not amenable to Trust Deeds, but 
 Trust Deeds are to be subservient to Trustees, 
 why incur the expence, why practise the imposture 
 of preparing Trust Deeds at all ? Is the public 
 mind prepared to admit, that it is in vain for persons 
 who bequeath property to religious or charitable 
 uses, to specify the purposes and design of their 
 endowment? — that the sanction of the Law, is in- 
 sufficient to secure tie validity of a legal instru- 
 ment? ' Do the Unitarians themselves recognize 
 this disorganizing, this chaotic principle, in the few 
 
XXVll 
 
 Chapels which they erect ? Do they, when pro- 
 viding for the appropriation of the funds which 
 they so employ, act as if there were neither mean- 
 ing nor validity in a Trust Deed ? 
 
 If the original proprietors had the right to de- 
 vote and set apart this property, in the terms em- 
 ployed, and for the purposes described, in the 
 Trust Deeds, it is impossible in the nature of 
 things, for any persons, whether lineally descended 
 or otherwise, to have an opposite right. In that 
 case, the second right would annihilate the first ; 
 and to justify the principle which the Unitarians 
 would fain establish, two absolute contraries must 
 be equally true. But if it be legal, honest, and 
 righteous to make a Trust Deed, it cannot be 
 legal, honest, and righteous to break a Trust 
 Deed ; nor will any pretence whatever short of 
 legal or physical impossibility, justify a departure 
 either from its spirit or letter. 
 
 As the Deed which gives to one man a Title to 
 an Estate, cannot possibly give to another man a 
 right to take it from him : so the Deeds which de- 
 vote property to certain purposes, cannot possi- 
 bly authorize or permit the employment of that 
 property for contrary purposes. To say, as the 
 Unitarians do, (Monthly Repos. March, 1825, p. 
 158.) That when it is "inexpedient"* to fulfil 
 exactly the intentions of the founders, the Trustees 
 have a right ^'to consider what might prohaJily 
 have been the views of the founders under the 
 
 "*■ Their phrase is "impracticable or inexpedient:" they know 
 it is not impracticable ; but no one is surprised that they deem 
 it inexpedient. 
 
XXVlll 
 
 new circumstances which may have arisen, and 
 what upon the whole is best to be done,*' is to 
 teach a doctrine, which, if it prevailed, would re- 
 duce mankind to a state of lawless barbarism, 
 without recorded rights, and without a standard 
 of justice. It would destroy all social confidence, 
 and render our Tribunals and judicial proceedings 
 a solemn mockery.* 
 
 * The pious and learned Dr. J. Pye Smith, has in a Letter to 
 the Editor of the Monthly Repository for April, 1825, with his 
 usual clearness and force, laid down the following undeniable 
 maxims on this subject; viz. 
 
 I. As all sound writers on morals maintain that oaths are to be 
 understood according to the mind of the imposer, so all other 
 promissory engagements are to be understood, undertaken, and 
 fulfilled according to the mind of the requirer. 
 
 II. Trusteeships, whether created by deeds of gift, or by wills, 
 are a species of promissory engagements. 
 
 III. Trustees are bound to fulfil the known intentions of 
 founders or testators, faithfully and strictly, unless they be im- 
 moral, in which case the engagement is void from the beginning ; 
 or have become, from change of circumstances, physically im- 
 possible. 
 
 IV. If, in any case, such an impossibility have accrued, it is 
 the duty of trustees to approximate as closely as possible to the 
 known intention of the trust. 
 
 Your correspondent truly states that " the intentions of the 
 pious and benevolent founders of institutions cannot be always^ 
 exactly fulfilled :" and he therefore conceives, " that trustees who 
 hold property of this kind have a right, when the exact fulfilment 
 of the intentions of the founders is impracticable or inexpedient, 
 to consider what might probably have been the views of the 
 founders under the new circumstances which may have arisen, 
 and what upon the whole is best to be done." Readily granted, 
 when the exact compliance can be truly and honestly said to be 
 impracticable : yet surely, in such case, reason and justice say, 
 approach to it as nearly as you can. But I cannot concede that 
 trustees have a right to set up what they may deem expedient, 
 and substitute tliat for the intention of their trust. Is it not 
 
XXIX 
 
 From the moment in whfch this property was set 
 apart to the purposes specified, it ceased to be- 
 long to, or to be at the discretionary disposal of, 
 any persons. The Original Trustees were ap- 
 pointed to fulfil those purposes and those pur- 
 poses only ; they had no other power over the 
 property, nor can their successors have more tlian 
 they possessed. If therefore the trustees fail at 
 any time to fulfil, and more especially if they con- 
 travene and destroy, the purposes of their Trust, 
 they commit a most aggravated injustice against 
 those who are no longer living to vindicate their 
 rights, and have an awful account to render unto 
 God, who will bring into judguient every secret 
 thing, and who will severely punish an injustice 
 which is more inexcusable than even removing " a 
 neighbour's land mark/' 
 
 Nothing could extenuate this conduct on the 
 part of any persons ; but in these pretenders to 
 lineal descent, it has a guilt equivalent to that of 
 intentional parricide. They inllict a deadly wound 
 where alone those whom tliey call their progeni- 
 tors are now vulnerable, and do that which were 
 they still living, would bring their " gi'<?y hairs 
 with sorrow to the grave." When those pious per- 
 
 most eAident that this is a principle subversive of all truth 
 and fidelity ? Was there ever an act of injustice, fraud, or 
 plunder perpetrated which did not .ippear to the dorr of it 
 highly expedient ? 
 
 With respect to calculations upon " what might prohahiy have 
 been the views of the founders, under new circuuistances," 1 can 
 scarcely conceive of any principle of conduct more precarious, 
 more hazardous, or. more flexible to inelinniiou and interest.'''' 
 
XXX 
 
 sons so carefully prepared their Deeds, and placed 
 such confidence in individual integrity and the in- 
 violability of legal documents, they little thought 
 that these very endowments would be employed 
 for the purpose of destroying the Cause which 
 Mas most dear to them ; and that thus, while de- 
 signing blessings, they were through unanticipated 
 perversions, preparing curses for the Church. 
 How would their righteous souls have been 
 grieved, could, they have foreseen, that they who 
 now deny the Deity and Atonement of Christ, and 
 vilify " the faith once delivered to the saints,** 
 would employ for those purposes, the Chapels, 
 the Funds, and even the very Name, which once 
 were theirs ! If any thing could impair the hap- 
 piness of " the spirits of just men made perfect," 
 it must be such scenes as these. Thus the pre- 
 tence of heirship, even if it were not groundless, 
 so far from excusing these misappropriations, 
 would aggravate the injustice by giving to it a 
 new and more enormous character. 
 
 Were the deviation from the intentions of the 
 founders only slight, and were the original objects 
 and purposes, though with some variation of senti- 
 ment and in an inferior degree, still pursued, it 
 would yet be the duty of the Trustees to return 
 to a strict and rigid observance of the Trust 
 Deeds. No departure whatever can be justified, 
 nor can any Deed provide for even the smallest 
 relaxation of its own requirements. In common 
 life every Trustee of honourable mind or of ho- 
 nest feeling, is jealous for the testimony of his 
 own conscience and of his fellow citizens, that 
 
XXXI 
 
 not one jot or tittle of" the Deed, is opposed or 
 evaded ; and is it in religious affairs alone, tliat 
 a violation of this rule is to be allowed ? The 
 abuses of Charitable Endowments are denomi- 
 nated usurpation and fraud — by what terms are 
 we to describe the abuses of Religious Endow- 
 mefits ? 
 
 Yet if no very material alteration had taken 
 place, though the duty of the Trustees would re- 
 main the same, it might be doubted whether the 
 public agitation of the question would be neces- 
 sary or wise. The remedy of the evil if not 
 very malignant, might have been left to tlie con- 
 sciences of the Trustees themselves ; and the Pub- 
 lic nn'ght have been content to wait the slow pro- 
 cess of internal reformation. It is far however 
 from being thus. 
 
 The Editors of the Monthly Repository (No. 
 229) say concerning the body which they repre- 
 sent, " it is alleged they do not believe all that 
 their fathers believed:' but the allegation is that 
 they deny all that was believed by those whom 
 they call their fathers. The contrariety of sentiment 
 is as great as possible ; — it amounts to actual 
 antipathy, and nothing will satisfy the Unitarians 
 but '^ nprooting the belief of all that whicli 
 the founders planted and watered with such af- 
 fectionate assiduity and care. Socinianism is a 
 system which can exist and flourish only by the 
 extinction of Orthodoxy. This diametrical op- 
 position has been clearly evinced by the? Unitari- 
 ans tiiemselves, who boast of differing more from 
 Orthodox Christians than Protestants do from 
 
XXXll 
 
 Papists. In truth, every doctrine which was held 
 by the founders, is by the present occupants of 
 their Chapels and Beneficiaries of their funds, 
 either denied, or held in so different respects as 
 to be equivalent to a denial. Can any thing 
 be more contradictory to the sentiments of the 
 Founders, than the opinions of the Unitarians 
 concernino- the Divine Existence — the Inspira- 
 tion OF THE Scriptures — the person and work of 
 Christ — the Holy Spirit — the nature of Chris- 
 tianity — the state of the departed — and the fu- 
 ture LIFE ? And besides these fundamental 
 points, what remains in which they can either 
 differ or agree ? Thus it is evident, that the de- 
 sign of the authors of these Funds and Endow- 
 ments could not be more completely frustrated, 
 and that a stronger case of the necessity of in- 
 vestigation and correction could not possibly 
 occur.' 
 
 There is no distinctive appellation, rn which the 
 gentlemen whose administration of the funds for 
 religious uses which have fallen into their hands 
 is now in question, usually so much delight, as in 
 the term Unitarian. They are Unitarians jD«r ex- 
 cellence, and their religion is Unitarian Christian- 
 ity. At the Harris dinner, we hear only of Uni- 
 tarianism, and Mr. Grundy received. a " Noble 
 Present" for his zeal in the Cause of Unitarian 
 Christianity. When they build a Chapel it is 
 " the Unitarian Chapel at such a place ;" their 
 " Book Societies," their " Missionary Societies,'' 
 their " Associations," their " Funds'' v^hen they 
 raise any, are all Unitarian. But this is only 
 
xxxni 
 during a state of repose. " Presbyterian" is their 
 nom de guerre. When the important subject of 
 Trusts and Trust Deeds is agitated, when they 
 are reasoned with " of righteousness and judgment 
 to come/' all at once they are Presbyterians and 
 Presbyterians only. " The Founders/' say they, 
 ^'were Presbyterians and so are we/' This is the 
 " flattering unction" they would apply to their 
 own consciences ; this is the flimsy screen they 
 would interpose to ward off' inquiry. Thus in the 
 following Correspondence, the Gentleman who in 
 attempting an apology for the Dinner proceedings, 
 signs himself "An Unitarian Christian," when 
 he has to reply to " Another Orthodox Dissenter" 
 on the trying point of Funds and Endowments, 
 finds it convenient to change his name to ^'^ An 
 English Presbyterian ;'' and Mr. Samuel Kay his 
 coadjutor is also a Presbyterian, for no other de- 
 nomination is recited in the Deeds of Cross-Street 
 Chapel. If they could even beguile us into the 
 belief that they are actually and bond fide Pres- 
 byterians, that imposition upon our understand- 
 ing would avail them nothing ; for the Founders 
 of these Chapels and Endowments, thought very 
 littte indeed of the difference between Presbyte- 
 rianism and Independency, but they thought every 
 thing of the opposition between their own doc- 
 trinal sentiments and those of the Socinians. Of 
 so little moment was the distinction of discipline 
 deemed, that it was not uncommon for the same 
 Chapels to receive contributions from the funds of 
 both Denominations. This was the case at Needham 
 Market, previously to Dr. Priestley's settling there, 
 
 tl 
 
XXXIV 
 
 although the Doctor for obvious reasons, declined 
 receiving for himself any assistance from the Inde- 
 pendents. These gentlemen are therefore taking- 
 unnecessary pains ; for it is impossible to raise to 
 importance the mere point of church government ; 
 while the doctrinal senthne7it is all in all.* 
 
 * " The differences between the Presbyterians and the Congre- 
 gationalists or Independents at the time when the trusts referred 
 to were created, (a period which may be taken as from about 
 1670 to 1720.) were not '* considered matters of consequence by 
 our ancestors," in comparison with the differences of religious 
 sentiment between both those denominations on the one side, and, 
 on the other, tli* persons in their day, who hekl opinions resem- 
 bling or approaching to those of the Unitarians of the present 
 time. 
 
 The proof of this assertion is obvious to all who are acquainted 
 with the history and the writings of the English Presbyterian Di- 
 vines in the period referred to. I would refer " your con'espondent" 
 to paragraphs without end, and to whole treatises, in the w^orks of 
 the most distinguished Presbyterian fathers of the Dissenting in- 
 terest ; in particular, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Howe, Dr. Bates, Dr. Daniel 
 Williams, and Dr. Calamy. He will, perhaps, be surprised in read- 
 ing the mere title of a quarto pamphlet w^hich is lying before me : 
 " The Excellency of Unity ; being a Sermon preached by the ap- 
 pointment of the Ministers of the Congregational and Presbyterian 
 persuasion, at their Happy Union; on April 6, 1691, which was 
 a day set apart by them, partly to bewail former di\dsions, and 
 partly as a thanksgiving to God for ^tir present agreement ; and 
 now, at their unanimous request, made public by Matthew Mead, 
 Pastor of a Church of Christ at Stepney." The theme of this sermon 
 is rejoicing and gratitude on accomit of the visible and declared 
 union in a public association, of those who possessed already a 
 ** Oneness — in the inward principles and outward practice of re- 
 ligion,— as joint members of Chi-ist and one of another;" (ac- 
 knowledging) " one Spirit to enlighten and teach, to sanctify, to 
 direct and lead ; one Lord, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 whom we all worship and serve ; one faith, one system of Chris- 
 tian doctrine." 
 
XXXV 
 
 If they could succeed in proving themselves to 
 be Presljyterians, they would gain nothing ; if they 
 fail, as fail they must, they are but where they 
 
 " Allow me to quote also a passage from Dr. Calaniy, who was 
 among- the most zealous maintaiiiers of the Presbyterian plan of 
 discipline. It is from his, " Letter to a Divine in Germany, giv- 
 ing a brief but true account of the Protestant Dissenters in Eng- 
 land." London 1717. " There are some things in which they 
 differ among tht^mselves. For some of them are most desirous of 
 the Presbyterian form of church government,, as it is legally es- 
 tablislied in North Britain. Others are rather for the Congrega- 
 tional form of government, by each worshipping assembly within 
 itself; having no other reference to classes or synods than for ad- 
 vice in cases of need. But, notwithstanding these and some other 
 such ditferences among themselves, they generally agree in the 
 doctrinal articles of the Church of England, the Confession of 
 Faith, and Larger and Smaller Catechisms compiled by the As- 
 sembly of Divines at Westminster." (P. 44.) 
 
 From such evidences as these, I conclude that the difference on 
 Church Government between the Presbyterians and Congrega- 
 tionalists at the beginning of the eighteenth century, would have 
 been deemed by each of the parties lighter than the dust of the 
 balance, in comparison with those doctrinal views in which they 
 cordially agreed, and which they equally held to be of vital and 
 eternal moment. The former difference was no bar to ministerial 
 and ecclesiastical communion, or to a public and affectionate co- 
 operation : but from any who had differed from them as com- 
 pletely as the modem Unitarians do, the old Presbyterians woidd 
 unquestionably have maintained the most complete separation. 
 To every man who is acquaintf d with their character and \vrit- 
 ings, it is impossible for a doubt to exist, whether they would not 
 have shrunk with the deepest horror from the idea of permitting 
 their names, their property, or their influence, to go for the sup- 
 port of a system of doctrine which was suln crsive of all their o\^ti 
 faith and labours, and which they conscientiously believed to be 
 utterly ruinous to the everlasting welfare of mankind. Surely, 
 Sir, your correspondent .stated the case without rliu- reflection. 
 
XXXYl 
 
 were. In truth, they are no more Presbyterians 
 in government, than they are Orthodox in doc- 
 trine ; and the attempt to disprove their claim to 
 that ecclesiastical denomination, would be an in- 
 sult to the understanding of every man who is at 
 all acquainted with the characteristics of the differ- 
 ent forms of discipline. 
 
 Subsequently to the Restoration, Presbyterian- 
 ism was not systematized in England, as it was in 
 Scotland and in the foreign Reformed Churches : 
 for although Synodical conventions were attempted 
 in some parts of this country, yet those associations 
 were pm-ely voluntary and not permanent.* Al- 
 though the government in those churches was not 
 strictly speaking congregational, yet their different 
 places of worship had a separate management, and 
 were to a great degree, independent of each other. 
 They were called indeed Presbyterians, but that 
 was chiefly because they were not Independents, 
 
 when he wrote, " We diner somewhat from our forefathers on 
 matters of doctrine and of discipline." Wlio, in reading this 
 clause,, would imagine that the diminishing word " somewhat,''^ 
 represents a consideration beyond expression great, a distance 
 and opposition so %\ade that, in comparison with it, the dissent 
 itself, and all the imaginable varieties of order, discipline, and 
 rituals, sink into nothing ?" — Dr. J. Pye Smith's Letter to the 
 Editor of the Monthly Repository, April 11, 1825. 
 
 "^ The nearest approach to strict Presbyter ianism was made in 
 Lancashire and Cheshire ; (see Mr. Slate's Letter, p. 95.) but 
 even there it did not continue very long. There is also no doubt, 
 that many of the places of worship which now go under the com- 
 mon name of " Presbyterian Chapels," were built, endowed, and 
 originally occupied, by Cougregationalists. 
 
XXXVll 
 
 and no other name at that time occurred. Unhap- 
 pily too much power vested in the Trustees, who 
 by the possession both of the Funds and the 
 Deeds, were rendered -almost irresponsible. Had 
 these churches been Independenf, the people 
 would have had an imperative voice ; had they 
 been really Presbyterian, there would have been a 
 controlling power in the Presbytery and Sijnod, 
 by which means the purity of doctrine has been so 
 well preserved in the Scottish Churches : but in pro- 
 priety of speech, they were neither entirely Presby- 
 terian, nor entirely Independent, and therefore there 
 was no practical responsibility or supervision. Tlie 
 original Trustees were indeed pious and Ortliodox 
 men, and as long as they survived, the evil was 
 postponed : but they were succeeded by others of 
 a different character, yet of equal power. These 
 Trustees, regardless of the Trust Deeds, appointed 
 to the ministiy whom they chose ; and they chose 
 to appoint preachers, first of Arian, and then of So- 
 cinian sentiments. The Congregations, who had 
 no authority by their ecclesiastical constitution, and 
 who despaired of a successful appeal to the Trust 
 Deeds, withdrew from these erroneous preachers, 
 and either dispersed among other churches which 
 retained their Orthodoxy, or formed new ones, in 
 which the voices of the people was scripturally re- 
 garded. Thus the Chapels with their endowments, 
 fell into the hands of the present occupants, who 
 are Socinians in doctrine, and who are not Pres- 
 byterians in discipline.* 
 
 * " The modern Unitarian congregations arc not really Presby- 
 
XXXVlll 
 
 Ecclesiastical corruptions whether of doctrine or 
 of liturgy, have usually originated with the Clergy ; 
 nor does the present case furnish an exception. 
 During the reigns of Charles II. and his brother, 
 the dread of Popery and the operation of penal 
 laws, tended to preserve the purenfess of the word 
 and doctrine in the Dissenting Churches : but when 
 the apprehension of Popish ascendency was re- 
 moved by the Act of Settlement, and when the 
 fear of a general persecution was allayed by the 
 Act of Toleration, the calm and tranquillity which 
 followed, were characterized by a state of torpor 
 more than equivalent to the previous excitement; 
 and such a state is always favourable to the insin- 
 uation and progress of error. 
 
 When the Dissenting Ministers were no longer 
 liable to fines, imprisonment, and death, for 
 preaching the Gospel, there were many persons, 
 who from the most unsuitable motives, solicited 
 and obtained the ministerial office, and who feeling 
 no attachment to the doctrines of Christianity, re- 
 
 terian, and they are so designated only by a customary but im- 
 proper application of the term. 
 
 Are they not as completely Congregational and Independent as 
 we are ? Do they constitute ruling elders in each congregation, 
 to act in conjunction with their pastors^ for judging of the qualifi- 
 cations of communicants and other acts of discipline ? Have they 
 courts of review ? Have they classical, provincial, and syuodical 
 assemblies? Do they even, in general, maintain any kind of 
 church discipline whatever? How then can they, upon any prin- 
 ciple of truth and fairness, call themselves by an appellation 
 which has not the semblance of propriety ? In point of fact, 
 they are as little entitled to be considered as the successors and 
 representatives of tlie old Presbyterians, in relation to ecclesiasti- 
 cfil order, as they are with respect to the most important princi 
 pies of Docti'ine." — Dr. J, Pye Smith, as before. 
 
XXXIX 
 
 frained always from enforcing, and often from in- 
 troducing tliem in their sermons ; and thus, being 
 at first indifferent, they soon became latitudinarian, 
 and then altogether erroneous. The unsuspecting- 
 indulgence of some who were truly Orthodox, gave 
 an unhappy facility to this introduction of error, 
 while many of the children of the old Dissenters 
 began to sympathize with their contemporary 
 preachers and thus the Churches gradually as- 
 sumed a mixed character, without either party ac- 
 knowledging a necessity of separation. Young 
 men who had been destined to the ministry in 
 early life, and had actually entered upon that of- 
 fice without experiencing a change of heart, fos- 
 tered the growing evil ; and the Orthodox and He- 
 terodox continued to preach in one pulpit, and to 
 commune at one Table. Thus did unconverted 
 Ministers, introduce those anti-christian doctrines, 
 which were not resisted with sufficient zeal even 
 by the truly pious of those days, and which proved 
 so palatable to unconverted Trustees, as to induce 
 them to eml^race every opportunity of appointing 
 such ministers to the vacant pulpits of the Ortho- 
 dox. It was in the form of Arianism however, 
 that error first crept in. Socinianism broadly and 
 distinctly avowed, could not then have gained ad- 
 mission : but Arianism by preserving many of the 
 modes of Orthodox expression and behaviour, 
 was less shocking to the minds of the pious, and 
 more seductive to the hearts of the unstable ; and 
 thus Orthodox ministers, were willing to accept of 
 colleagues who held the Arian scheme, and Ortho- 
 dox church members, regarded their Arian fellow 
 Communicants as Christian brethren. 
 
Had this treacherous cahii remained undisturbed, 
 — could it have been contrived by continuing to 
 lull the suspicions of the OrthodoX;, to perpetuate 
 this incongruous association, this connexion of the 
 living with the dead, — there is reason to fear that 
 the whole body would have been paralysed beyond 
 recovery : but the premature explosion of Arianism 
 at Exeter, was overruled to prevent what other- 
 wise might have been, the silent, unexpected and 
 total extinction of piety in those churches. Then 
 the Orthodox were roused to a salutary alarm, and 
 began to perceive the folly of their previous indul- 
 gence of false doctrine. For a season the progress 
 of error was suspended : but it had gone too far 
 to be repressed by that discountenance which it 
 received too late. The Churches which the Ortho- 
 dox were constrained to abandon, being thus free 
 from all restraint, soon passed from Arianism to 
 Socinianism, and became what we now behold 
 them, the sepulchres of evangelical Truth.* 
 
 * A writer in the " Monthly Repository for March 1825" has 
 betrayed the weakness and poverty of the Socinian Cause^ by at- 
 tempting to fetch an excuse for this malversation of Trusts, 
 from the Period of the Reformation from Popery in England — 
 from the fact that some of the early Christians employed heathen 
 temples for Christian worship — and ' risum teneatis,' from the 
 Apostles having preached Christianity in Jewish synagogues ! 
 He then with stolid gravity, enquires concerning Lr. J. Pye 
 Smith, " What will the learned Doctor say to this ?" The Editors 
 are so satisfied with what that truly ' learned Doctor' does say, 
 that they give his reply, instead of any remarks of their oivn : viz. 
 
 " Your correspondent thinks that he presses me hard by ap- 
 pealing to facts in the first introduction of Christianity, and at 
 the Reformation. I feel no weight whatever in the argument 
 which he deduces from them. The Apostles never claimed a pro- 
 
xli 
 The days which preceded this separation, were 
 the best days of those who have thus departed 
 from the right way. While the Orthodox, either 
 
 perty in the synag-ogxies in which, according to undisputed usage, 
 they were admitted to preach the doctrine of Jesus ; and Chris- 
 tianity was not a rival system to the Mosaic dispensation, but 
 was its completion and perfection. The ancient heathen temples 
 were the jyroperty of the state, and the use of them was directed 
 by no assignments of trust. As little relevant do the confiscation 
 and new application of Roman Catholic foundations, at the time 
 of the Reformation, appear to me. Great injustice and cruelty 
 were exercised by Henry VIII. and other persons, while they 
 were throwing off a yoke of iniquity and oppression : but these 
 were acts of the legislature, and might have been conducted 
 with equity and liberality. Yet in either lindicating or con- 
 demning the conduct of the states which, at that time, burst the 
 fetters which ignorance, fraud, and force had forged, there are 
 numerous and complicated considerations to be taken into the 
 account. If yoiu* correspondent is not awai'e of them, I beg' to 
 refer him to Burnet's History of the Reformation : or, for a 
 sketch of them, to the introductory part of Schiller's History of 
 the Tliirty Years' War. 
 
 Rut all these facts, in the origin and the constitution of sectdar 
 church establishments, are remote from the case under considera- 
 tion, and can serve only to obscure a plain qu stion. Is not a 
 trust perverted, if it is administered knowingly and designedly in 
 contradiction to the intention of the person who created the trust ; 
 when there is no interference of legislative authority, nor any 
 impracticableness or even difficulty in the faithful observar.ice of 
 that intention ? In the instances referred to, I conceive that the 
 chief criminality lay with those trustees who, eighty or ninety 
 years ago, began the system of violating their obvious duty r but 
 I must confess myself unable to perceive that their successors 
 down to the present time, though not equally cluirgeal)le with tlic 
 blame, are free from the guilt of participation. I must, how- 
 ever, profess my conviction that, if any Unitarian were to intrust 
 to me his property, for the endowment of academical institutions 
 or places of religious worship, and 1 had the same kind and de- 
 gree of evidence of his will and intention as exist in the cases 
 
xlii 
 from ignorance of their true character, or from too 
 great indulgence for their erroneous sentiments, 
 continued them in their fellowship, they derived 
 from that association respectability and weight ; 
 until at length they found themselves strong 
 enough to reject the patronage which they had 
 courted, and even to expel those who had che-^ 
 rished them in their weakness. But when they 
 were detected, disowned, and abandoned by the 
 Orthodox, their system began to wither and decay 
 — it has continually declined, and had long ago 
 been extinct, but for their usurpation of Orthodox 
 funds. This question with the Unitarians is im- 
 portant, not because they are numerous, or be- 
 cause they have much influence as a body ; but 
 entirely because they withhold from the Cause of 
 scriptural Truth, that which was designed for its 
 advancement. The harm they have the power to 
 inflict, is trifling; but no one can calculate the 
 good which they have restrained. Who but must 
 lament that this alienation was not prevented from 
 the beginning ? Then these Houses of Prayer, 
 had not been desecrated by unscriptural sentiments 
 and worship — then these Evangelical institutions, 
 had not become repositories ^ of heresy and nur- 
 series for the advocates of error. 
 
 Yet during the existence of penal laws against 
 those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, it might 
 not have been easy to render perfectly evident to 
 
 adverted to ; and if I were to apply the proceeds of that pro- 
 perty to the support of Calvinistic chapels or colleges, I should 
 well merit a place among those whom the Apostle declares to be 
 nnqualijied to inherit the kingdom of God.' 
 
xliii 
 all, the distinction between this question and that 
 of Religious liberty. An appeal to the laws on 
 the ground of malversation of a Trust, might have 
 been confounded with an appeal to the legal enact- 
 ments against heresy. They who now cry out of 
 " war, robbery and spoliation,^'' would then have 
 cried out of " Persecution ;" and with some they 
 might have obtained belief The Orthodox of 
 earlier days, wisely chose to endure this great in- 
 justice, rather than to expose themselves and 
 their cause, to such injurious misconstructions : but 
 now when persecution is happily impossible either 
 to the Orthodox or the Unitarians — when, if a man 
 were vile enough to wish to punish his neighbour 
 for his religious opinions, it is altogether out of his 
 power — that difficulty is no more. It is quite super- 
 fluous to disavow the spirit of that, the practice of 
 which is impossible. Had the Orthodox of the 
 period referred to, been equally free from the possi- 
 bility of misconception, they might have preserved, 
 or speedily recovered, these invaluable Institutions ; 
 and Socinianism would either have proved an 
 abortion, or have expired for want of food. 
 
 This subject will be presented more clearly by 
 the following table, which exhibits in one view the 
 chapels which the Unitarians now occupy in 
 England, Wales and Scotland, distinguishing the 
 places of worship which they have themselves 
 erected, from those which are of Orthodox founda- 
 tion. This Summary is extracted from the List 
 which forms No. I. of the Appendix, and which 
 gives as accurate a representation of the condition 
 of Unitarianism in these respects, at the close of 
 the year 1824, as could possibly be obtained. 
 
xliv 
 
 A Summary of the Chapels occapied by TJNt- 
 TARiANS in England, Wales, and Scotland. 
 
 ENGLAND. 
 
 
 Counties, &)C. Orthodox foundation. 
 
 Unitarian founda tion , 
 
 BEDFORDSHIRE 
 
 
 
 
 
 BERKSHIRE 
 
 
 
 
 
 BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 
 
 
 
 
 
 CAMBRIDGESHIRE 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 CHESHIRE 
 
 #12 
 
 2 
 
 CORNWALL 
 
 
 
 
 
 CUMBERLAND 
 
 
 
 
 
 DERBYSHIRE 
 
 tio 
 
 4 
 
 DEVONSHIRE 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 DORSETSHIRE 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 DURHAM 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ESSEX 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 GLOUCESTERSHIRE 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 HAMPSHIRE 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 HEREFORDSHIRE 
 
 
 
 
 
 HERTFORDSHIRE 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 HUNTINGDONSHIRE 
 
 
 
 
 
 KENT 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 LANCASHIRE 
 
 1^2 
 
 7 
 
 * There was formerly another chapel of Orthodox foundation, 
 but jt has been converted into Cottages. See Middlewich, 
 p. 123. 
 
 \ Two of these chapels have been rebuilt chiefly, if not wholly 
 by Unitarians. See Dujffield and Ashford. 
 
 I One of these chapels, \az. Walton, after it fell into the hands 
 of the Unitarians was converted into cottages. And two of the 
 
xlv 
 
 Counties, Sfc. U 
 
 LEICESTERSHIRE 
 
 LINCOLNSHIRE 
 
 LONDON 
 
 MIDDLESEX 
 
 MONMOUTHSHIRE 
 
 NORFOLK 
 
 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 
 
 NORTHUMBERLAND 
 
 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE 
 
 OXFORDSHIRE 
 
 RUTLANDSHIRE 
 
 SHROPSHIRE 
 
 SOMERSETSHIRE 
 
 STAFFORDSHIRE 
 
 SUFFOLK 
 
 SURRY 
 
 SUSSEX 
 
 WARWICKSHIRE 
 
 WESTMORELAND 
 
 WILTSHIRE 
 
 WORCESTERSHIRE 
 
 YORKSHIRE, W. R. 
 
 Do. N. & E. R 
 
 Total in England 
 
 I'jx foundation. 
 
 4 
 
 Unitarian foundation 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 12 
 
 2 
 
 .4 
 
 2 
 
 170 
 
 36 
 
 chapels in Liverpool have been built by Unitarians from funds 
 arising chiefly, if not wholly, from the sale of the old chapels of 
 Orthodox foundation. 
 
xlvi 
 
 WALES. 
 
 Counties Orthodox foundation. 
 
 CAERMARTHENSHIRE 2 
 
 CARDIGANSHIRE 
 
 GLAMORGANSHIRE 5 
 
 PEMBROKESHIRE ] 
 
 Total in Wales 
 
 8 
 
 Unitarian foundation . 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 
 6 
 
 EDINGBURGH 
 
 GLASGOW 
 
 PORT-GLASGOW 
 
 SCOTLAND. 
 
 
 
 
 
 *1 
 1 
 1 
 
 Total in England, 170 
 
 Wales, 8 
 
 Scotland. 
 
 36 
 6 
 3 
 
 The above Statement has an aspect sufficiently 
 alarming to the friends of truth and righteousness. 
 It appears that the Unitarians possess in this 
 Island, TWO hundred and twenty-three places of 
 worship, of which one hundred and seventy -eight, 
 that is to say, four fifths of the whole were ori- 
 ginally ORTHODOX. In England alone, they 
 
 * Besides these three chapels, the Unitarians have meeting 
 places in Dundee and Paisley ; but these are in dwelling houses. 
 
xlvii 
 have TWO hundred and six chapels, of whicli 
 THiRTV-six, or little more than one sixth part 
 of the whole number, were built by Unitarians. 
 Yet the evil is not quite so aggravated as it 
 at first appears. The Unitarian apologists, would 
 fain have it believed, that all the^se places of 
 worship though formerly orthodox, were by their 
 respective congregations devoted to the So- 
 cinian cause, and that they now form an accu- 
 mulation of strength and resources, which are as 
 available to the dissemination of error as they 
 once were to the propagation of truth. This, 
 however, is not the case. It is true the Chapels 
 have been long withdrawn, and the funds with- 
 held, from their only legitimate purposes, and 
 thus an amount of usefulness has been hindered, 
 which it is impossible to describe and painful to 
 conjecture : but Socinianism is a mere negation, 
 it operates most lamentably to diminish the good 
 that might otherwise have been accomplished, but 
 it promotes no purposes of its own, it offers no sub- 
 stitute for that which it precludes. Its relation to 
 the Dissenting body, is only that of a morbid ex- 
 crescence or a palsied limb, which while it impairs 
 the strength and retards, the progress of the 
 sound and healthy parts, is itself incapable of 
 either activity or enjoyment. 
 
 The Chapels they occupy will indeed be deemed 
 numerous — but where are the Congregations ? In 
 a few cases they are rather large ; but in the vast 
 majority of instances, it is altogether otherwise. 
 It is more than probable that one tenth of their 
 places of worship would contain the whole number 
 
xlviii 
 of attendants. It is calculated by a gentleman, 
 who has considerable information on this subject, 
 that in Lancashire, Cheshire, and Derbyshire, 
 there are forty places of worship possessed by 
 Unitarians, and several of them well endowed, in 
 each of which, the average number of hearers will 
 not amount to twenty-five. 
 
 In the majority of instances, the death blow was 
 given to the congregation^ when the Trustees first 
 obtruded a Socinian ministry, and in many <;ases 
 it can now scarcely be said that there are congre- 
 gations in their Chapels. There is therefore, little 
 of positive and active injury to be apprehended. 
 Yet, while the possession of these endowments, 
 operates in favour of Unitarianism only by de- 
 laying its fall, in the mean time these resources 
 (which rightly directed are invaluable) are ren- 
 dered worse than useless to the Cause of Christ; — 
 and this is the evil for which a remedy is sought. 
 
 " It is high time to awake out of sleep," and to 
 investigate, and apply the remedy to these abuses. 
 Socinianism has fattened long enough upon the 
 spoils of Orthodoxy; — long enough has it dese- 
 crated those places, which were originally devoted 
 to the worship of the Triune God and the preach- 
 ing of the Gospel of Christ ; — and long enough 
 have those funds, which were designed by " a 
 Mother in Israel" to relieve the necessities of poor 
 and faithful preachers of the Word, and to assist 
 the studies of pious young men preparatory to the 
 ministry of the Gospel, been applied, to encrease 
 the superfluities of those who already have more 
 than enough, and to enable young men to learn, by 
 
xlix 
 what sophisms they can best elude tlie force of 
 Truth, and render Error attractive. 
 
 Should this publication contribute in any de- 
 gree, to place the important subject fairly within 
 the range of Public Opinion, and especially 
 should it excite the attention of the parties who 
 are most deeply injured, the Editors will have 
 accomplished all they designed. The Cause which 
 they advocate, is the common cause of the 
 friends of justice and of the Religion of Christ ; 
 but especially of those Denominations of Chris- 
 tians, for the assistance of wliose efforts these In- 
 stitutions were expressly ' designed and legally 
 conveyed, and upon whom Socinianism, by its 
 misdirection of those means which were intended 
 to supply the energies of Orthodoxy, and by the 
 chill and desolation which it has diffused through- 
 out the whole extent of its influence, has pressed 
 for successive generations, as a dead weight and 
 an incumbrance. Into their hands the matter now^ 
 devolves ; nor can it for one moment be supposed, 
 that they will be either insensible to its claims, 
 or regardless of its responsibilities. 
 
N. B. — During the course of the correspond- 
 ence which is contained in the following pages; 
 three very excellent Letters appeared on the Or- 
 thodox side of the question^, — one of them by the 
 highly respected President of the Independent 
 College^ Rotherham, the Rev. James Bennett, — 
 another by that distinguished advocate of the re- 
 ligion of Christ in opposition to Socinianism, the 
 Rev. Ralph Wardlaw, D. D. — and a third by a 
 very judicious and well informed writer who signed 
 "A Presbyter." With these letters the Editors 
 would gladly have adorned the pages of this work : 
 but as it is considerably more voluminous than 
 they had anticipated, and as those letters were not 
 intended as parts of this Controversy, they 
 feel it a duty to withhold them. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Dinner Proceedings 
 Mr. Potter 
 Kev. Mr. Grundy 
 Mr. Naylor 
 Mr. G. W. Wood 
 Rev. J. G. Robberds 
 Rev. Mr. Harris 
 
 1 
 
 2, 7, 8 
 
 . 4, 7 
 
 . 6, 8 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 An Orthodox Dissenter 
 
 George Harris 
 
 An Unitarian Christian 
 
 Another Orthodox Dissenter 
 
 An Orthodox Obsei-ver 
 
 An English Presbyterian 
 
 A Nonconformist 
 
 A Scotch Presbyterian 
 
 George W. Wood 
 
 Samuel Kay 
 
 .John Birt 
 
 George Hadtield 
 
 James Turner 
 
 Richard Slate 
 
 John Cockiii 
 
 
 
 14, 
 
 23 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 20 
 
 27, 32 
 
 45 
 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 
 42 
 
 
 
 
 53 
 
 no. 
 
 I0() 
 
 
 ti3 
 
 . 72, 
 
 106 
 
 
 84 
 
 
 93 
 
 
 
 
 lUl 
 
APPENDIX, No. 1. 
 
 PASE. 
 
 List of chapels possessed by Unitarians in England . 121 
 
 Wales . 178 
 
 Scotland . 180 
 
 « 
 
 APPENDIX, No. II. 
 Manchester College, York . 182 
 
 APPENDIX, No. III. 
 Dr. Williams's Charities , . 186 
 
 APPENDIX, No. IV. 
 Lady Hewley's Charity . .194 
 
SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 The Editors think it their duty to state, that although 
 to prevent the unnecessary enlargement of the pamplet, they 
 have omitted several passages in these speeches; what 
 they have given is extracted verbatim from the Manchester 
 Gazette, and they have not intentionally omitted a syllable 
 which has any bearing on the ensuing correspondence. Mr. 
 Harris's speech is given at full length. 
 
 From the Manchester Gazette^ August 14, 1824. 
 
 On Thursday last, a very numerous and most respect- 
 able body of gentlemen professing Unitarian Christian- 
 ity, gave a dinner at the Spread Eagle Inn, in honour of the 
 Rev. John Grundy, the Minister of Cross-street Chapel, 
 (who is about to leave Manchester for Liverpool,) and for 
 the purpose of presenting to him, previously to his depar- 
 ture, a handsome Silver Tea Service as a testimony of 
 their high regard for the zeal he has evinced in the cause of 
 Unitarian Christianity. At four o'clock about one hun- 
 dred and twenty sat down to a good, substantial dinner; 
 Richard Potter, Esq. was the President, and Benjamin 
 Naylor, Esq. the Vice-President. — The Rev. Mr. Grundy 
 sat on the right of the Chairman, and his Colleague, the 
 Rpv. J. G. Robberds, at his left, (iiracp was impressively 
 
 B 
 
2 
 
 said by the latter gentleman. On the cloth being- removed, 
 the Chairman annou iced the first toast — "The King." — 
 Then followed, " The Land we live in ; and may it be free 
 and happy." — "Our brethren of all religious denomina- 
 tions." — which was received with unbounded applause. — 
 The Chairman then rose and said, that having in the first 
 toast done honour to the King as the first Magistrate of the 
 land, and also to their beloved country, he would propose 
 that which was emphatically said to be " like the air we 
 breathe — without it we die," — he meant — " The Liberty 
 OF THE Press, and may it ever be conducive to the civil and 
 religious rights of man."— THE SERVICE OF PLATE 
 was then introduced, amidst much applause. It bore the 
 following inscription ; — 
 
 Presented to 
 
 THE REV. JOHN GRUNDY, 
 
 by the Congregation 
 
 assembling in theChapel, Cross-street, Manchester, 
 
 IN TESTIMONY 
 
 of their high respect for the 
 distinguished ability and manly zeal 
 with which he has advocated amongst them 
 the Cause of 
 UNITARIAN CHRISTIANITY. 
 1824. 
 Mr. Potter now rose, (much afected,) and in presenting 
 to the Rev. Mr. Grundy this handsome tribute, (after some 
 expressions of personal compliment to Mr. G.) spoke as 
 follows: — In presenting you; Sir, with this Service of Plate, 
 it is necessary to advert to the advantages which the Cross- 
 street Congregation have derived from your ministerial 
 labours ; and those advantages will, probably, be best un- 
 derstood by referring to the circumstances in which the 
 congregation was placed at the time of your appointment. — 
 From the death of the Rev. Mr. Seddon,* which, I believe, took 
 
 * For obvious reasons no allusien is made to Mr. Seddon's orthodox pre- 
 decessors. Bogue and Bennett, Vol, III. p. 248, are of opinion that Mr. 
 Seddoa was the first who openly professed the Socinian creed ; and Dr. Priest- 
 
3 
 
 place in 17^9, to your election, and that of my other esteemed 
 friend on my left, (being upwards of 40 years) the important, 
 and peculiar doctrines of Unitarian belief, were rarely, indeed 
 I believe scarcely ever urged on the attention of the congre- 
 gation. In avoiding the discussion, and even the declaration 
 of the particular principles of the congregation over which 
 your predecessors presided, there can be no doubt that those 
 gentlemen had satisfied their own minds that they were 
 executing their duties in a manner best calculated for public 
 usefulness ; and though I do not concur in the views which 
 regulated their conduct, yet I censure them not, for they 
 acted conscientiously ;— the tomb has closed upon them with 
 honour — and I participate in the respect with which their 
 memory is regarded. The effect, however, of their conduct 
 was such, that, when you, Sir, entered on your office of 
 Minister, Unitarian doctrines were little understood by 
 many of the congregation ; hi/ some they were riot even re- 
 cognized. — On your part, therefore, it required a strong 
 sense of duty, and a more than an ordinary degree of zeal 
 and fortitude to encounter that spirit of hostility, with which, 
 from the then preiKdlmg prejudices, the avowal and intro- 
 duction of such doctrines were regarded. Happily, Sir, the 
 attainments and the qualities of mind, which are required to 
 develope and defend the system of pure Christianity, which 
 we profess, were found in you ; and it was the earnest 
 and able exertion of those qualities and attainments, to effect 
 this important purpose, which has, in a great measure pro- 
 duced that decided Unitarian tone and character which the 
 Cross-street Congregation now enjoys. But, Sir, our 
 acknowledgments should not be confined to the beneficial 
 results upon your own congregation of those discussions, 
 which in this neighbourhood you originated ; the) have 
 operated more extensively ; they have given an impulse to 
 Unitarian enquiry, and your example and success have 
 
 ley in his Memoirs, p. 48, (being then resident at Warrington, and himself itt 
 the Arian stage of Lis declension from the Truth) sa3S, * the only Socinian in 
 the neighbourhood, was Mr, Seddon of Manchester, and we all wondered at 
 hiioa."— Editors. 
 
4 
 
 stimulated others to the open avowal and propagation of 
 pure and primitive Christianity. — We are constantly, Sir, 
 hearing of the fame of preachers whose sentiments are pomp- 
 pously denominated orthodox and evangelical ; how 
 deserving, then, are Ministers like you, who hold and teach 
 a faith, in our estimation, much better, and purer ; and who, 
 in the fearless discharge of their duty, in the words of your 
 farewell text, " have not shunned to declare the whole coun- 
 sel of God." Sir, the recollection of the advantages 
 which, as members of a dissenting congregation, we have 
 derived from your labours, and the kind and consoling at- 
 tentions which many amongst us have received from you, 
 when afflictions have pressed them, will secure for you, in 
 your separation from us, a durable and affectionate regard. 
 As a testimony of this regard, it is now my pleasing duty 
 to present you with this Service of Plate, and to express to 
 you the most sincere and earriest wishes for your future 
 
 health, welfare, and happiness. (This address was 
 
 received throughout with great applause.) 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Grundy said, it was impossible for him 
 not to be deeply agitated with emotion on such an occasion 
 as the present ; nor could he, in any degree, find language 
 for the feelings that affected him : — for how could he ac- 
 knowledge to his kind friend in the chair the high encomiums 
 he had passed upon him, — how could he express his obliga- 
 tions to those Gentlemen who, in the last fortnight, had sent 
 him many most affectionate letters expressive of their es- 
 teem, — or how could he thank them for the noble present 
 they had now given him ? (Applause.) It was impossible 
 to remove from any stage of useful activity without regret ; 
 and it had been his lot to change more than once — the 
 Cross-street congregation being the third with which he 
 had been connected — and from all of them he had received 
 the greatest kindness, but from none so great as from that 
 he was now addressing. It was an additional source of 
 regret, that he and his congregation had not been better 
 acquainted: and he wished, in his heart, that it had been 
 otherwise. (Applause. ) Such an acquaintance would have 
 
added to his liappiness, and to their comfoi-ts. In such large 
 towns as Manchester, a Minister had great difficulties in ob- 
 taining a knowledge of his congregation : and in his own case, 
 it happened that he seldom met his congregation except in the 
 walls of the Chapel on Sundays. But it was not altogether with 
 emotions of regret that he separated from them, for some advan- 
 tages, he thought, might arise from an occasional change of 
 Ministers. A change might stimulate activity — it might 
 encrease the attachment of the congregation to the remain- 
 ing Minister — it might excite greater zeal in the Minister 
 that left, and occasion the public avowal of opinions in places 
 where they had not been previously propagated. It was 
 also an additional pleasure to him in leaving, that the cir- 
 cumstance had drawn from his congregation so ample a tes- 
 timony of their attachment to the principles they professed. 
 It had been the singular fortune of the Cross-street congre- 
 gation, never to have changed their Ministers, except when 
 age and infirmity, or death, had rendered it necessary. 
 Singular also was their conduct in this instance of one of them 
 leaving — -for he had no recollection, that on a similar occa- 
 sion, any congregation had given to their Minister a testimo- 
 nial of their regard eqmil to that he had the honour of 
 receiving.^ It often, indeed, happened, that the quitting of a 
 Minister was occasioned by some difference with his congre- 
 gation, or produced itself a temper of hostility on one side or 
 the other. He remembered an instance in which a Minister, 
 in taking leave of his congregation, had told them in the morn- 
 ing that he had forty-seven charges against them ; twenty- 
 seven of which he should then urge, and the remaining 
 twenty he should prefer in the afternoon. (Laughter.) He 
 remembered another instance where a Minister had raked 
 
 * Admitting the correctness of this opinion, the Manchester Unitarians have 
 since surpassed themselves. One Thousand Guineas were raised and 
 presented to the Rev. J. G. Robberds, the colleague and junior of Mr. Grundy, 
 but privately and by a deputation — no dinner — no speeches. An Unitarian 
 Chapel has been opened in Salford which adjoins Manchester : but (he dinner 
 was at two shillings a head, (the Harris dinner tickets were not so low) and ko 
 SPEECHES. Are not these signs of the times ? — Editors. 
 
op the ashes of the dead for the means of- censuring his 
 hearers. He, was however, happy to have no ground of 
 complaint ; since he had come amongst them, he had expe- 
 rienced nothing but kindness, both from the congregation 
 as a body, and from the trustees ; — even in pecuniary con- 
 cerns, the conditions had been more than fulfilled, the 
 trustees having regularly encreased the stipend of himself 
 and his esteemed colleague, till, at that time, they were in 
 the receipt of nearly one hundred pounds per annum more 
 than had been promised. (Applaiise.) 
 ** Mr. Naylor, the Vice-President, begged to be indulged 
 with permission to say a few words on this occasion. It had 
 been remarked in history, on the death of one of the ROMAN 
 EMPERORS, that his loss was not merely of a public nature 
 but was deeply felt by the private citizens. This case pre- 
 sented AN ANALOGY TO THE LOSS ABOUT TO BE SUSTAINED 
 IN THE LAMENTABLE DEPARTURE OF Mr. GrUNDY. His loss 
 
 wor.ld be both publicly and privately felt. 
 
 " The Rev. Charles Wellbeloved, and prosperity to the 
 Manchester College, at York." — In proposing this toast, 
 the "Vice-President took occasion to advert to the great 
 benefits this Institution had derived from the exertions of 
 Mr. G. W. Wood. 
 
 t Mr. G. W. Wood briefly replied, referring to the re- 
 ports of the Institution. 
 
 " The Colleague of our late worthy Minister, the Rev. 
 John Robberds, and may the Cross-street congregation 
 long be benefited by his valuable services." 
 
 Rev. J. G. Robberds said, to be present this day to wit- 
 ness the tribute bestowed on one of their Ministers, would 
 be an encouragement to him, if he stood in need of encour 
 ragement, to labour in support of truth- — but he had been 
 present that day where he had received encouragement far 
 more congenial to his mind. It had been his lot to stand 
 
 • Formerly the Rev. Mr. Naylor, and sometime minister of the chapel in 
 Sheffield, which was once occupied by the celebrated Timothy JoUie. — Editors. 
 
 t Son of the late Rev, Mr. Wood, Unitarian Minister of the originally ortho- 
 dox chapel Mill Hill, Leeds ; Treasurer of the Manchester College, York ; and 
 • Truateeof Piatt chape), near Mancheiter. (See Appendix.)— Editors. 
 
7 
 beside the sick bed of a friend who, in health, would have 
 rejoiced in being present on this occasion, but who, he 
 feared, might never more be seen among them. Impressed 
 as that friend was with the consciousness of departing ex- 
 istence, he had enquired from him the state of his feelings 
 and opinions at the near prospect of death. He answered 
 that, for upwards of twenty years, he had made his religious 
 principles the subject of most serious and anxious consider- 
 ation, and he now found them abundantly sufficient for his 
 support on that solemn occasion. This w^as the kind of 
 encouragement most satisfactory to him. To find that the 
 principles he taught, imparted comfort and consolation in 
 the closing hours of life, was to him a source of happiness. 
 ( This pathetic allusion powerfully affected the Meeting.^ He 
 had, last night, conversed with one who had formerly been 
 a Unitarian, and who had had many opportunities of know- 
 ing their conduct, and he found, fi-om reasoning with him, 
 that though he acknowledged the general propriety of their 
 domestic habits, yet he urged that they were deficient in 
 reverential regard for religious exercises — that the cultiva- 
 tion of devotional feelings was too much neglected in their 
 education. He had heard this charge against Unitarians, 
 and must Eidmit, that there were amongst them, as, no 
 doubt, there were am.ong other religious classes, many who 
 neither understood nor felt the importance and value of their 
 religious duties. If Unitarian Ministers would preach with 
 effect and usefulness, they must in every respect, be true 
 disciples of their Master, and to follow his example was the 
 great test of being his disciples. — He assured his late col- 
 league, and the Meeting, of the sentiments of regard he felt 
 for them, and concluded by wishing, from the bottom of his 
 heart, that Mr. Grundy might through life, enjoy all the 
 satisfaction a Christian Minister could desire. He sat down 
 amidst rapturous and long continued appkntses. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Grundy gave " Long health and happiness 
 to Mr. Richard Potter," which was drank standing, and 
 ivith the ut?nost enthusiasm. 
 
 Mr. Potter, — With the toast to which I now solicit 
 your attention is connected the name of a gentleman whose 
 
8 
 active but unostentatious philanthropy entitles him to every 
 demonstration of respect. I know no individual more es- 
 timable for the unassuming exercise of every benevolent 
 feeling — none to whom the poet's description 
 
 ' To do good by stealth and blush to find it fame.' » 
 
 more justly applies. I have the greatest pleasure in proposing 
 
 " Mr. Joseph Mason, and the Trustees of the Cross-street 
 
 Chapel." 
 
 The Vice-President returned thanks on the behalf of 
 
 Mr. Mason, who was absent ; and Mr. Grundy paid a 
 
 handsome tribute both to his public and private character. 
 The Chairman gave — " The Rev. George Harris, and 
 
 may the zeal which he has been instrumental in kindling, 
 prove itself to be such as ought to burn in every Christian 
 
 bosom," which being drank with much applause, 
 
 Mr. Harris addressed the Meeting to the following 
 effect. — I beg to thank you, most sincerely, for the honour 
 you have conferred upon me in drinking my health. I 
 should be wanting in feeling, were I not to be grateful for 
 the kind manner in which my name has been received by 
 this respectable company ; I can truly say, that I receive it 
 both as a reward and an encouragement. I have felt very 
 great satisfaction in being enabled, by the kindness of 
 friends, to join with you this day, in expressing our mu- 
 tual obligations to our respected friend on your right. I 
 have said, mutual obligations ; for, though I have not had 
 the advantages which you have enjoyed, of being one of his 
 stated hearers, or of forming part of the society over which 
 he was one of the esteemed and respected Pastors, yet 
 for many of my greastest pleasures I am indebted to that 
 individual. Mr. Grundy may, perhaps, be surprised, but I 
 hope not displeased, when I state to this company, that it 
 was principally owing to the sentiments, which I heard him 
 deliver in London, in the year 1811, and to the exertions 
 which he made to diffuse a spirit of enquiry in this town — 
 the influence of which has been felt through the kingdom — 
 
 • It is impossible not to admire the felicitous humour of Mr. Potter, and the 
 exquisite subtlety of his irony, if he meant to apply this quotation to the body 
 of Unitarian Trustees. " Do good by Stealth, and blush to find it Fame !" 
 He might have actually foreseen the issue of that day's proceedings. — Editors. 
 
9 
 that I was led to quit the business in which I was at that 
 period engaged, and to devote myself to the Christian Min- 
 istry. I feel myself, in some measure, indebted to that re- 
 spected individual ; and, therefore, it is that I have experi- 
 enced great satisfaction in being able to be present at this 
 Meeting, to join with you, in the expression of your thanks 
 to him for his services as your Pastor, and also for the oppor- 
 tunity it affords me of begging him, at the same time, to 
 accept my own personal acknowledgments. — I well remem- 
 ber, that at the period to which I allude, that individual 
 dwelt much upon the vital importance of preaching the 
 truths of Unitarian Christianity to the poor ; — upon our 
 attention bemg directed, not merely to one class of society 
 (and that class the rich and powerful,) but that it was ab- 
 solutely necessary, our individual and united efTorts should 
 be directed and devoted to the instruction and the amelio- 
 ration of the condition of the great mass of the people. It 
 is a lesson which I hope I have never forgotten; — it is a 
 lesson which I trust I have invariably endeavoured to reduce 
 to practice. I wish the great mass of mankind to be not 
 merely hewers of wood, and drawers of water, but rational 
 and enlightened beings ; and, therefore, it is I am anxious 
 they should know the truth, believing as I do, that the truth 
 will make them free. The human race has been long enough, 
 I jthink, like Issachar crouching down between the two bur- 
 dens of ecclesiastical and civil despotism. I wish them to 
 know their rights as the children of God, and the heirs of 
 immortality, that knowing, they may dare to maintain them. 
 Indifference on such a subject, by those who have really felt 
 the value of the principles they profess to believe, appears to 
 me to be a thing which it is almost impossible to imagine ; 
 — and as to timidity, where truth and duty are concerned, 
 no one can be a Christian reformer whilst that quality forms 
 a prominent part of his character. Truth ought to be 
 openly advocated, whether people will hear, or whether they 
 will forbear. — Those who seriously mark the signs of the 
 times, and those minds are alive to the interests of humanity, 
 must be convinced, that the present period is peculiarly 
 favourable to the dissemination of correct principles on 
 
10 
 every subject of human interest or enquiry. There are 
 periods, certainly, in which the mind of man, seems to 
 slumber, in which truth appears to have no beauty 
 that she should be desired ; and when knowledge and 
 freedom are totally disregarded. But the present, I take it, 
 is not such a period. Now the human mind is active and 
 stirring. Long pressed down by creeds and kindred 
 ABOMINATIONS, it is now, with a giant's strength, casting them 
 by as the tales of other times, and is bursting forth in all the 
 vigour and maturity of its powers. The toys which pleased, 
 or which frightened the infancy of humanity, will be despised 
 in the manhood of its nature ; — and it is much to be feared, 
 unless the advocates of pure and undefiled religion, boldly 
 proclaim their principles, that, along with the old wrinkled 
 skin of corruption, many may cast away at the same time, 
 the pure and perfect form of truth. If the friends of rational 
 belief stand aloof whilst men's minds are thus busy, this 
 must inevitably be the case. Indifference, therefore, now 
 to the peculiar doctrines, by the belief of which we are dis- 
 tinguished, must be an error of the greatest magnitude ; 
 and may be pregnant with incalculable mischiefs. — Mr. 
 Wilberforce, as you no doubt recollect. Sir, once charac- 
 terized Unitarians as the half-way house to infidelity. 
 His assertion was given with an insinuation, and a sneer, or 
 else, I think, there are affirmations much more wide of the 
 truths than even this assertion of the Honourable Gentle- 
 man^ s ; for Unitarianism I believe to be the half-way house 
 between Infidelity on the one hand, and Fanaticism on the 
 other. I trust many of us have felt, that it is ^"pleasant and 
 salubrious abode, cheering to the heart, and invigorating to 
 the mind, equally removed from the demon warmth of super- 
 stition, and the iceberg coldness of irreligion ; and, there- 
 fore, we must be anxious, if we be men of benevolence, 
 that the number of our happy companions should be increased. 
 But, if we stand idly by, and never point the attention of 
 our fellow-creatures to the comforts of our habitation, we 
 are justly chargeable of connivance to the errors into which 
 human beings may fall, in consequence of our negligence : — 
 we are guilty of inflicting upon them, as far as our power 
 
11 
 
 goes, one of the torments of Milton's hell — they are first 
 steeped in the liquid Jire of superstition, and then plunged 
 into the soul-congealing cold of infidelity. Every man, then 
 endowed with benevolent affections, who has embraced 
 Unitarianism, as the truth of the living God, must be anxious, 
 if he feel correctly, that his principles should be openly ad- 
 vocated, and constantly kept before the minds of his fellow- 
 creatures, and that the good and knowledge of freedom, may, 
 by these means, be carried to every cottage in the land. — I 
 am confident, that I am addressing men of liberality and in- 
 telligence; — men who are anxious for the improvement, the 
 freedom, and the happiness of the race of which they form 
 a part ; and, therefore, I am the more desirous of impressing 
 on your minds the vast and unspeakable importance of Uni- 
 tarianism, as a means of human civilization and instruction. 
 This is a point of view in which, I think, it has not yet been 
 sufficiently considered, even by its friends ; but it is one of 
 which I think, it is admirably deserving, and which will 
 appear the more clearly, if we contrast for a moment, the 
 spirit which the two opposing systems are calculated to ge- 
 nerate. For ivhat is the s^nrit of orthodoxy ? Is it not a 
 SLAVISH spirit :^ but the spirit of Unitarianism is one of ra- 
 tional and enlightened liberty. The spirit of Orthodoxy is a 
 MEAN spirit, for it bends before the dictation of a worm of 
 the earthy and its essence consists, as its own advocates aver^ 
 in the '■'■ prostration of the human understanding;''^ bid the 
 spirit of Unitarianism is open, generous, liberal. The one 
 is PARTIAL AND CAPRICIOUS, viewing the favourites of 
 Heaven only in a selected few, whilst Unitarianism sees in 
 every man, a brother, training tip for the glorious impor- 
 tance which awaits all the family of the Eternal. The spirit 
 of Orthodoxy is a CRUEL AND vindictive spirit ; icitness its 
 excommunications and its inquisitions ; — the spirit of Uni- 
 tarianism is merciful and benevole7it; anxious for man's 
 rights,* and detesting revenge. The spirit of Orthodoxy is 
 
 ♦ It is graiil'ying to be assured on such authority, that the Unitarians are 
 " anxious /or man's rights,''' as that anxiety will necessarily impel them to 
 restore all the perverted endowments and funds, to their legitimate and ortlio- 
 dox purposes, — Editors. 
 
12 
 
 ONE OF PERSECUTION ; — look at the Athanasian Creeds^ and 
 Test and Corporation Acts ; see the unbeliever— -oh ! shame 
 and scandal! — even in the nineteenth century, dragged 
 before the tribunal of man, to answer for his supposed loant 
 of faith, and behold Judges acting under the abused name 
 of that Christianity, which, they say, is part and parcel of 
 the law of the land, inflicting sentences, which even the worst 
 of crimes would scarcely sanction ; but Unitarianism is free 
 as the winds of Heaven, and desires that every human 
 creature may be so too. Orthodoxy says it encourages in- 
 quiry; it may do so to a certain point; but when a human 
 being arrives at that, it is the language of its DEEDS, hitherto 
 shall thou go, but no further . — Unitarianism, however, has 
 no land-marks on the shores of knowledge — like the swelling 
 waves of the ocean, it is spirit and it is life. Orthodoxy 
 would strip a man of the name of Christian, and would shut 
 him out from all the rewards of Heaven, unless he can pro- 
 nounce the shibboleth of an intolerant party ; whilst Uni- 
 tarianism affirms, that in every nation, aye, and in every 
 sect, he who feareth God, and worketh righteousness, shall 
 be accepted of him. Orthodoxy is bound up in creeds and 
 
 CONFESSIONS, and ARTICLES OF FAITH, with INKY BLOTS, and 
 rotten parchment bonds; — but Unitarianism, like the word 
 of the ever-living Jehovah, is NOT, and cannot be bound. 
 Orthodoxy is GLOOM, and DARKNESS, and DESOLATION. — 
 Unitarianism is light, and liberty, and joy. The influence of 
 this system on human civilization, human liberty, and human 
 happiness, has already been tried; it has been tried for ages ; 
 and its direful and demoralizing effects may be read 
 IN the history of every nation under the sun. It 
 has been weighed. Sir, and has it not been found most mi- 
 serably wanting? Let the state-craft, and the priest-craft, 
 the war and the slavery, by which ma7ikindhave been cursed 
 for ages, answer the question. What then remains; but 
 that every friend of his species should unite, in trying the 
 effects of the other system ; Providence is manifestly aiding 
 the labours of its avowed defenders, by raising up advocates 
 where we should least have expected to find them — amongst 
 the political economists of our common country. It has 
 
13 
 
 long ago been said, that if you touch John Bull's pocket, it has 
 a wonderful effect in enlightening his understanding. And 
 depend upon it, the political economists of England, will 
 one day put it to him — whether it be worth while to pay two 
 hundred thousand pounds a year for each of the thirty-nine 
 articles, and the Athanasian creed to boot, and it requires 
 no great sagacity, I think, to foretel in which way he will 
 answer the question. The time will assuredly come, when 
 churches established by divine grace, and the end of the 
 BAYONET, and the constable's staff, will be known no 
 more, — and when the altar, whether to the unknown God, 
 or with thirty-nine horns, on which to impale the con- 
 sciences of human beings, will be remembered only as 
 things that have been. In the full confidence that such a 
 period is approaching, I cannot frame a better wish for 
 you, myself, and the race of man, than that the individual 
 and united efforts of all the friends of human perfectibility, 
 may cause the truth to issue forth armed with all the Omni- 
 potence of her author ; — may she chase from the world all 
 its ills, and give to and bless mankind with her own charities. 
 The bright and hallowed visions of the Poet — the expectations 
 of the Philanthropist — and the belief of the Christian, will 
 thus, and only thus be realized. — Yes, Sir, 
 
 " When the glad slave shall at her feet lay dowTi 
 His broken chain ; the tyrant lord his crown ; 
 The priest his book ; the conqueror his wreath ; 
 And from the lips of Truth, one mighty breath , 
 
 Shall like a whirlwind scatter in its breeze 
 The whole dark pile of human mockeries ; — 
 Then shall the reign of Mind commence on earth, 
 And starting fresh as from a second birth, 
 Man in the sunshine of the world's new spring, 
 Shall walk in glory like a holy thing.'^ * 
 
 The Report concludes, with a toast in favour of the inde- 
 pendence of Greece which was followed by an eloquent speech 
 from Mr. Shuttleworth, entirely on that topic ; with the 
 statement that the remaining toasts gave rise to able 
 
 ♦ The tumultuous plaudits which attended and followed this speech, occa- 
 sioned the alarm of fire, to which allusion is made in the letter of •' An Ortho- 
 dox Observer." — Editors, 
 
14 
 speeches from several gentlemen present ; and the informa- 
 tion that the company broke up at eleven o'clock. 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 Sir, — It was to be expected, that the copious account in 
 your paper of the speeches delivered at the farewell dinner 
 lately given to the Rev. J. Grundy would, as exhibiting the 
 sentiments of a numerous and highly respectable company, 
 excite considerable attention. Yet, in the fact of that enter- 
 tainment having occurred, and of such remarks having been 
 offered, as appeared to gentlemen present to be called for by 
 the occasion, there was nothing out of the ordinary course, 
 or so far implicating persons of other denominations as to 
 require or even to justify, any public stricture or remark. It 
 was right that they should testify their respect for Mr. Grundy. 
 It was for that very purpose they assembled. It was natural 
 and right, too, on their part, that they should avow their 
 belief in their peculiar doctrines — that they should eulogize 
 their own denomination, and that they should declare, in 
 terms as strong as they pleased, the reasons and degree of 
 their preference. But tiie speech of the Reverend Mr. . 
 Harris breathes such a spirit of hostility and defiance, and 
 makes such a violent attack upon the principles of all those 
 from whom Unitarians differ, as to afford just ground of 
 serious complaint. This Reverend Gentleman, indeed, pre- 
 sents, like the others, his respects to Mr. Grundy, to whom 
 he confesses particular obligations ; he describes the Unita- 
 rian system as a most commodious half-way house, situate 
 in the happiest of all possible climates ; and so far all was 
 appropriate : but, not content with blessing the inmates of 
 his favourite abode, he pronounces something very much 
 like a malediction on all those who choose to inhabit another. 
 I would not willingly infer the spirit of Unitarianism from 
 the diatribe of this Reverend Gentleman, but if constrained 
 to do so, I must acknowledge that it is as little remarkable 
 for courtesy and decorum as it i^ for a sound intelligence, 
 fairness and candour. Had this speech been delivered on 
 another occasion, it might have passed as merely the efHisiort 
 
of the individual ; but it has been adopted by the Manches- 
 ter Unitarians. Or if a speech, uttered under those very- 
 circumstances, had impugned the opinions of others, by ar- 
 gument or reasoning, it could only have been said, that, to 
 choose such a time for theological controversy, was by no 
 means an example of good taste : but Mr. Harris, as the 
 organ of that meeting, assumes the office of Public Accuser, 
 and, like the Attorneys General, during the Dynasty of the 
 Stuarts, without adducing the shadow of evidence, makes 
 great part of his speech to consist of railing and invective. 
 
 The passage to which I more particularly allude is that in 
 which Mr. H. professes to contrast the spirit of Orthodoxy 
 and the spirit of Unitarianism, which commences thus : 
 " For what is the spirit of Orthodoxy ? Is it not a slavish. 
 spirit ?" and in the course of which he denounces the spirit 
 of Orthodoxy as " t)iean, 'partial and capricious, cruel and 
 vindictive; and a spirit of persecution." He declares fur- 
 ther, that the spirit of Orthodoxy " bends before the dictation 
 of a worm of the earth^'' — that its acknowledged essence is 
 in " the prostration of the understanding ;" and he attains 
 his climax by the following terms : — " Orthodoxy is gloom and 
 darkness, and desolation,^'' and by ascribing to it " direful 
 and demoralizing effects." 
 
 And is this the spirit, and are these the terms, with which 
 Manchester Unitarians regard and describe their orthodox 
 neighbours ? Will no language adequately convey their 
 feelings concerning us, but that of abhorrence and contempt? 
 To meet these violent and sweeping charges, which include 
 the majority of professing Christians in this country, both in 
 and out of the Establishment, it would suffice to say, that 
 they are as unfounded as they were unprovoked, and that 
 they betray on the part of those who make them, but little 
 information, or but little reflection ; we refer, however, to 
 the history of generations of Orthodox believers as a tri- 
 umphant refutation of them all. 
 
 Will it be said of the Martyrs of Queen Mary's reign, that 
 they were of a 7nean and slavish spirit, that thej/ bent before 
 the dictation of a worm of the earth ? Yet they w(?re full of 
 the spirit of Orthodoxy, Were the Puritans servile adherents 
 
16 
 
 of power ; did tliey bend before human authority, and did the 
 essence of their religion consist in " the prostration oj the un- 
 derstanding?" Yet who more orthodox than they ? Were the 
 two thousand Confessors, who on Bartholomew's Day, re- 
 linquished their Livings for conscience sake, men whose 
 spirit was ^^ slavish, mean, vindictive, cruel and persecuting?^''' 
 In a word, are we to ascribe to the persecuted Covenanters 
 of Scotland, and Non-conformists of England, all that 
 " darkness, glonm and desolation,^' and all those " direful 
 and demoralizing effects,'" on which the Rev. Mr. Harris 
 delights to declaim ? These were the champions of Ortho- 
 doxy, — and these were the very men whose " faithfulness 
 unto death," prepared the way for the glorious Revolution, 
 and the chartered recognition of the rights of conscience. 
 
 These accusations come with a peculiar ill-grace from 
 Unitarians. As a body they are of recent origin, in this 
 country at least. During the period of the great struggles 
 for liberty they were unknown ; and they did not arise until 
 the object was achieved — until the battle was fought, and 
 the victory won. The Orthodox laboured, and the Unita- 
 rians have entered into their labours. Let them, therefore, 
 not stigmatise the very spirit which led to resist, and 
 eventually to overcome ecclesiastical tyranny, as " slavish 
 and mean;" let them not call the spirit of Confessors and 
 Martyrs, " cruel and vindictive ;" let them not injuriously 
 asperse the memory of men, by whom so many of the 
 chapels, which they now occupy, were built and endowed, 
 and to whom under God, they owe the very blessings by 
 which they are surrounded. 
 
 I cannot but repeat my unfeigned regret, that the Unita- 
 tarians of Manchester should have suffered themselves on 
 an occasion not merely of convivial harmony, but of the in- 
 terchange of friendly feeling, to make such a demonstration 
 of animosity against, not the opinions, but the spirit and 
 character, of all those who conscientiously differ from 
 them. 
 
 I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, 
 
 An Orthodox Dissenter. 
 
 Manchester, Jiigust 20t/i, 1824. 
 
17 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester' Gazette. 
 Sir ; — It was a saying of Dr. Samuel Johnson, that he 
 never thought he had hit hard unless it rebounded ; and 
 when I read the letter inserted in your valuable paper of the 
 28th August, signed '• An Orthodox Dissenter," I was 
 forcibly reminded of the Doctor's sentiment. It would have 
 been well, I think, had your Correspondent attached his 
 name to his communication, for it is scarcely consistent with 
 fairness to make an anonymous attack on the person and 
 principles of an individual. I must also protest against my 
 address involving " the Manchester Unitarians" in any blame. 
 I am alone responsible for what I uttered. Though your 
 Correspondent assumes that I was *' the organ of that 
 meeting," and has kindly given me " the office of public 
 accuser," and dubbed me an " Attorney General," they are 
 stations, to which I make, and have no claim. No person 
 but myself is accountable for any sentiment delivered by 
 me at the meeting alluded to. 
 
 Your Correspondent has mistaken my meaning, and 
 therefore misrepresented me. Those who know me, will 
 testify, that I always draw a broad distinction between the 
 professors of a bad system^ and the system itself. The 
 system I may deprecate and abhor ; the persons I may 
 esteem and honour. This is my situation with regard to 
 Orthodoxy. Conscientiously believing it to be false and 
 pernicious, I feel it to be an imperative duty to do all I can 
 to destroy its influence by uprooting its belief; but, at the 
 same time, I respect numbers of its professors, and love 
 them for their works sake. The benevolence of their hearts 
 causes them to gain a righteous victoiy over the creeds 
 which they profess, and I glory in their triumph. 
 
 Had your Correspondent attended to the sentence which 
 introduces the passage that appears to have given him so 
 much offence, he would have perceived that it was the system, 
 not the persons of those who j)rofessed it, that I was con- 
 demning. I had said, that Unitarianism was an important 
 " means of human civilization and instruction," but that 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 Orthodoxy I regarded as the reverse ; and I went on to de- 
 clare that this would "appear the more clearly, if we 
 contrast for a moment, the spirit which the two opposing 
 systems are calculated to generate." I also affirmed, " that 
 in every nation, aye, in every sect, he who feareth God, and 
 worketh righteousness, shall be accepted of him." Can 
 this be called an attack on persons? Will your Corres- 
 pondent say that Unitarian Christians, if righteous men, 
 will be saved in the great day of the Lord ? If he will, I 
 congratulate him on his charity, but he will no longer have 
 any right to the title of " an Orthodox dissenter." I said 
 that " the spirit of Orthodoxy is a mean spirit, for it bends 
 before the dictation of a worm of the earth, and its essence 
 consists, as its own advocates aver, in the prostration of the 
 human understanding ;" and will your Correspondent deny 
 the existence of creeds and confessions of faith, some of 
 which the students are obliged to sign their belief in ere 
 they can taste the blessings of knowledge at the most cele- 
 brated of our Universities ? Or will he say that the latter 
 part of the sentence is not the language of the Bishop of 
 London's primary visitation charge? That the spirit of 
 Orthodoxy is cruel and vindictive, and persecuting, I re- 
 ferred to inquisitions, and the Athanasian Creed, and Test 
 and Corporation Acts to prove. Can he deny their exist- 
 ence; or can he say that Carlile and his assistants are not 
 in prison ? I said that Orthodoxy was " direful and demo- 
 ralizing" in its effects ; and for my evidence, I referred to 
 the state of the world at large. I said that " Orthodoxy is 
 gloom and darkness and desolation ;" and let the unfortu- 
 nate inmates of many of the lunatic asylums, and the testi- 
 mony of even Orthodox physicians to this point, be my jus- 
 tification. 
 
 But your Correspondent flies off to persons, and he ad- 
 duces the Martyrs, and the Puritans, and the two thousand 
 Confessors, and the Covenanters and Nonconformists, to 
 show that Orthodoxy, and a love of liberty, are not incom- 
 patible; and I might answer his appeal by inquiring who 
 made men Martyrs, Puritans, &c. &c. ? Was it not the 
 
19 
 
 Ruling Powers ; and were not they Orthodox ? If we 
 must judge of the spirit of a system from the conduct of the 
 majority of its professors, his own examples prove the va- 
 lidity of my assertions, for so grievous was the tyranny of 
 the Orthodox majority, that it caused the righteous rebellion 
 of the holy men he has enumerated. 1 willingly and gladly 
 admit, that, to the conduct of these pesecuted beings, we 
 owe many of our civil privileges : though, perhaps, for the 
 most important of them, we are indebted to our Catholic an- 
 cestors. But, as to their notions of religious freedom, even 
 your Correspondent, I should think, will not stand up for 
 their purity. If he do, let him reconcile the Act in King 
 William's reign against the impugners of the Trinity, and 
 a similar Act in Scotland, with any rational principles of 
 liberty ; to say nothing of the liberty which the Covenanters 
 preached, which was for themselves, and not for otliers ; or 
 the practice under the Protector's government. Let him 
 also show how these Acts could have been passed if Unita- 
 rians, " during the great struggles for liberty, were un- 
 known." It is not usual, I believe, to frame Acts of Par- 
 liament against unknown people ; nor let your Corres- 
 pondent ever forget that the man whose writings contributed 
 the most essentially to establish the principles of " the 
 glorious Revolution," was an Unitarian Christian — and that 
 man was John Locke. 
 
 I have no wish to ' ' injuriously asperse the memory of 
 men by whom so many of the chapels which they (the Uni- 
 tarians,) now occupy, were built and endowed." I have no 
 doubt that, in building and endowing chapels, they were 
 actuated by upright and pious and benevolent motives. But 
 I may be allowed to say, that I am sorry they did endow 
 them, because I look upon endowments as prejudicial to 
 the progress of dissent — ^to tend to indifference and luke- 
 warmness, and to produce endless vexations. 
 
 With every good wish for your Correspondent's happi- 
 ness, both here and hereafter, I am your obedient servant, 
 
 George Harris. 
 
 Bullon, September, 5, 1 S2 1. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 
 Sir ; — I crave permission to offer in your pages a few 
 remarks, in reply to the observations of a Correspondent, 
 M^ho signs himself, in your paper of Saturday, 28th August, 
 " An Orthodox Dissenter." I did indeed expect to see 
 some notice taken of them in your paper of last week ; but, as 
 that has not been the case, much as I dislike the discussion 
 of religious topics in the columns of a news]iaper, I feel 
 myself called upon to step forward and correct the misap- 
 prehension under which your Correspondent labours, of the 
 sentiments entertained by the great body of Unitarian 
 Christians in this town. I allude to his observations on the 
 speech of the Rev. Mr. Harris, delivered at the dinner lately 
 given to the Rev. J. Grundy, on occasion of his regretted 
 removal to Liverpool, which speech your Correspondent 
 considers as declaratory of the general sentiments of the 
 Unitarian body in Manchester. " Had this speech" he says, 
 " been delivered on another occasio7i, it might have jyassed 
 as merely the effusion of the individual: but it has been 
 adopted by the Manchester Unitarians ;" and again, " Mr. 
 Harris, the organ of that meeting, assumes the office of 
 public accuser, and, like the Attornies General during the 
 dynasty of the Stuarts, without adducing the shadow of evi- 
 dence, makes great part of his speech to consist of railing 
 and invective." 
 
 Now, Sir, I must take this public opportunity of declaring 
 that that speech does not exhibit the sentiments of a very 
 large portion of the Manchester Unitarians towards their 
 Orthodox brethren. With the views and feelings of the 
 Rev. Gentleman who delivered that speech I have no con- 
 cern: it is not for me to judge men's motives ; his name is 
 before the public, and he must answer for himself ; but I 
 confess T should feel wanting in the respect which I owe to 
 myself, and to the religious body to which I am proud to 
 belong, if I allowed it to go forth, uncontradicted, to the 
 world, that we subscribe to the tnith and justice of senti- 
 
21 
 
 ments, so hostile, as it seems to me, to the candid and cha- 
 ritable spirit of our common Christianity, or were the public 
 led to believe, that any individual uttering them was the 
 accredited organ of a Unitarian assembly. " Is this the 
 spirit," your Correspondent exclaims, " and are these the 
 terms with which Manchester Unitarians regard and de- 
 scribe their Orthodox neighbours ? Will no language ade- 
 quately convey their feelings concerning us, but that of 
 abhorrence and contempt ?" No, Sir, no ; I will take upon 
 myself to assert, on behalf of the mass of those with whom 
 I rejoice to think and act, that this is noithe spirit — that tliese 
 are not the terms with which the Manchester Unitarians 
 regard and describe their Orthodox neighbours. Sincerely 
 •and conscientiously attached to their own views of Christian 
 truth, and willing to encounter all the opprobrium to which 
 an honest avowal of their unpopular and misrepresented 
 tenets may often expose them, they are, at the same time, 
 firmly convinced that " the end of the commandment is cha- 
 rity out of a pure heart ;" and I am certain it is their earnest 
 wish, so far as it is possible, without compromising their 
 principles, to live peaceably with all good men, by " speak- 
 ing the truth in love." 
 
 They do not, indeed, deny, that they think their own 
 principles, when properly understood, consistently in unison 
 with the spirit of rational liberty, and conducive to the best 
 and highest interests of the human species ; they do not 
 disguise their wish, that these principles, as identified in 
 their view with the pure truth of God, should be widely dif- 
 fused through society ; — but, when they consider how many 
 shining examples of piety and virtue may be found in all 
 sects ; when they recollect how many, in the bc^lief of a 
 creed widely different from their own, have been distin- 
 guished champions of civil and religious liberty, they dare 
 not arrogate to themselves an exclusive monopoly of all 
 that is liberal and philanthropic in religious sentiment ; but 
 willingly believe, that the great practical ends of existence 
 may be, and often are, answered under very different modes 
 of fyith, and that, in particular, wherever there is a deep 
 
22 
 
 reverence for the Scriptures themselves, as the sole and 
 efficient rule of faitli, and a devoted attachment to the me- 
 mory of Jesus Christ as the great exemplar of our moral 
 duties — there, whatever may be the errors of the under- 
 standing, the heart will be pure and good, and the life 
 springing from it such as the Judge of all will not be 
 ashamed to own at the last great day. The Unitarians of 
 Manchester would be very loath to be thought deficient in 
 respect for the memory of their Puritanical forefathers. 
 They would reverence in every one, even in a Jew or a 
 Mussulman, the conscientious sacrifice of interest on the 
 altar of truth ; and, though they may have departed from the 
 form of faith bequeathed to them by the founders of their 
 churches, yet they still feel themselves entitled to rejoice in 
 their religious descent, and to exercise all the privileges of 
 heirs, because the adoption of their present opinions has 
 resulted from carrying to their full extent the principles of 
 their illustrious ancestors, and reverencing the pure word of 
 God, far above all the creeds and formularies of man. — I 
 t;"ust, Sir, this statement will convey a sufficient assurance to 
 the world, that the Unitarians, as a body, are not deficient 
 in a spirit of kindness and charity towards their Orthodox 
 brethren. Perhaps they do not always meet with a return 
 of that good-will, which it is their earnest wish and uniform 
 endeavour to exhibit towards others. For acting in com- 
 pliance with the dictates of their consciences, they are too 
 often exposed to the obloquy of their fellow Christians ; 
 " their good is evil spoke of;" and they are rudely cast out 
 from the general community of believers, as utter " aliens 
 from the commonwealth of Israel." — Nor is it surprising, 
 considering the frailty of our nature, that occasionally some 
 more fiery spirits should resent this reiteration of wrongs 
 and calumnies with a warmth and vehemence, that Christian 
 charity cannot justify. But surely, Sir, it is unreasonable 
 to consider these sallies of heat as the calm and deliberate 
 expression of the sentiments of the body at large ; and, 
 perhaps, your correspondent himself has been betrayed, (I 
 doubt not that it was unconsciously,) into the very feeling 
 
23 
 
 of which he complains, when he confines his animadversions 
 to the speech of the Rev. Mr. Harris, and takes no notice 
 of the toast, which was received with such applause, " Our 
 brethren of all religious denominations," nor of the very 
 serious and devotional spirit, which characterized the obser- 
 vations of the Rev. Mr. Robberds. 
 
 Upon the whole, however, I rejoice to bear my willing 
 testimony to the liberal and candid tone which pervades the 
 observations of your correspondent; I trust it is a pledge, 
 that a kinder and gentler spirit will, ere long, prevail 
 amongst professors of different denominations ; a delightful 
 earnest, that those blessed times are approaching, when the 
 invidious distinctions of orthodox and heretic shall be con- 
 founded in the universal zeal to exemplify the beautiful pre- 
 cept of our common Lord and Master ; " By this shall all 
 men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to ano- 
 ther." 
 
 I am. Sir, your's, respectfully. 
 
 An Unitarian Christian. 
 
 Manchester, Sept. Wi, 1824. 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 
 Sir ; — Feeling equally reluctant to newspaper discussion 
 with your intelligent Correspondent who signs himself " An 
 Unitarian Christian," I should not have troubled you for the 
 insertion of a few additional lines, had I not felt it my 
 duty to acknowledge the very candid and manly spirit by 
 which his letter is distinguished. It is, indeed, impossible 
 but that letter must, on the whole, be gratifying to all who 
 have taken an interest in the subject, with the exception of 
 an individual, who doubtless exceedingly regrets that he had 
 not read it before he published his own. 
 
 I am convinced that " An Unitarian Christian" will, on 
 ve-consideration, readily do me the justice of owning that 
 his com])hiint against me for confining my nniiarks to the 
 speech of Mr. Harris, is groundless. So far from professing 
 to review the whole proceedings of that day, I actually dis- 
 
24 
 
 claimed that intention ; and I expressly stated, that my only 
 reason for writing was, to notice the gratuitous and un- 
 founded accusations which were conveyed to the public 
 through the medium of that speech. I am sure, too, that, 
 he will retract his imputation that I have " been betrayed 
 into the same feeling of which I complain," an imputation 
 which he will be the first to perceive he has rather hastily 
 made, and which is as little consistent with the other parts 
 of his own letter as with mine. 
 
 Having formed my ideas of the social character of the 
 Unitarians from what is known of the Priestleys, the Lind- 
 says, the Woods of the past generation, and their contem- 
 poraries, I had always, without in the slightest degree 
 assenting to the truth of their theological opinions, ascribed 
 to them a spirit of urbanity, and expected from them a mode 
 of expression, such as that in which the Rev. Mr. Robberds 
 spoke, and in which " An Unitarian Christian" writes. I 
 am, therefore, not surprised that your Correspondent should, 
 for himself, and for many of his brethren, disclaim all parti- 
 cipation in a spirit which he justly describes as hostile to 
 that of Christianity. This he does with indubitable evi- 
 dence of sincerity and truth ; but the speech continues, not- 
 withstanding, as much as ever identified with the proceed- 
 ings of the gentlemen then assembled, and with the denomi- 
 nation which was then represented. It is fully understood, 
 that, on all such occasions, those of the guests who are 
 welcomed by a toast, are the accredited organs of the meet- 
 ing, and that the toasts are prepared and appropriated to 
 the different persons, for the very purpose of eliciting from 
 them the expected declaration of sentiment and feeling. 
 The toast given to Mr. Harris was striking,* and his 
 speech was evidently designed and received as the echo of 
 the toast. Tlie published Report contains no animadver- 
 sion, by the Chairman, or any other person ; and the under- 
 standing out of doors is, that the speech was rewarded by 
 
 * " The Rev. George Harris, ami may the zeal which he has been instru- 
 mental in kindling, prove itself to be such as ought to burn in every Christian 
 bosom." 
 
25 
 extraordinary demonstrations of approval and applause. 
 Indeed the whole publication at present bears the appear- 
 ance of a manifesto, and this it will retain, until disavowed 
 by some recognised representative and interpreter of the 
 sentiments of that meeting. The Rev. Mr. Harris, indeed, 
 in a letter given in the same number of your paper, offers 
 himself to bear the responsibility of his speech ; but that is 
 gone beyond his power. The question now is, not whether 
 your excellent Con'espondent " An Unitarian Christian" 
 possesses the spirit of candour and liberality, or whether 
 Mr. Harris is willing to be personally answerable for what 
 he then said — but it is, whether a disclaimer shall be re- 
 ceived as on the part of that meeting, which is made by a 
 gentleman who does not, from his letter, appear to have 
 been so authorized ; and whether the voluntary substitution 
 of the individual, shall be accepted as the exoneration of the 
 many. It is not difficult to foresee how these questions 
 must be determined. 
 
 As I have no intention of troubling you again on this 
 subject, you will perhaps allow me to embrace this oppor- 
 tunity of making a few remarks on the letter of the Rev. 
 Speaker himself. Mr. Harris declares that I have mistaken 
 his meaning, and of this he is the only competent judge ; 
 but that I have not mistaken the meaning of his words, is 
 apparent from his letter, in which, I am sorry to perceive, 
 he represents the very spirit, and reiterates every objection- 
 able sentiment of his speech. His letter is, in truth, his 
 speech over again, though somewhat diluted by the feeble- 
 ness common to repetitions, and the employment of lan- 
 guage less studied and compact. 
 
 When charges are, as in the present case, as deficient of 
 precision, and even of plausibility, as of evidence, it is not 
 always easy to repel them, without either confining oneself 
 to a simple denial, or else becoming inconveniently ])rolix 
 and diffuse. A few words will, however, suflicc to evince 
 the fallacies by which Mr. Harris is misled. 
 
 There are some sophists who affect to create distinctions 
 
26 
 
 where there is no actual difference ; and there are others 
 who confound together things which have no agreement or 
 resemblance ; unhappily Mr. Harris uses both these forms. 
 He errs alike by excess, and by deficiency of discrimination. 
 
 Nothing for example, can be more refined than his at- 
 tempted distinction between "//je spirit generated by a sys- 
 tem" and the spirit of those who are under the influence of 
 that system. He says that those who know him, have 
 witnessed his success in this subtle and apparently imprac- 
 ticable operation ; he declares that they are ready to testify 
 that has he produced " a broad distinction ;" but, in his letter, 
 and in his speech, that " broad distinction" dwindles into 
 an imperceptible line, and it remains as little intelligible as 
 ever, how any system can generate a spirit, from which 
 spirit they who adopt that system may yet be free. 
 
 What again can be more unphilosophical, than to ascribe 
 opposite effects to the same spirit? Yet this Mr. Harris 
 attempts, by confounding the spirit of ecclesiastical domina- 
 tion, and the spirit of particular times, with the spirit of 
 Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy, as every one (except the Rev. 
 Mr. HaiTis) knows, is but another term for sound doctrine,, 
 and refers to doctrine only. It has no relation to forms of 
 church government, or to modes of worship. Thus whether 
 a man be an Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, or an Indepen- 
 dant, he may be equally orthodox : or he may be either of 
 these, and even rigidly and zealously so, and yet not be 
 orthodox at all. Now, it is evident, that it could not be 
 the same spirit which prompted Gardiner and Bonner to 
 j)ersecute, and which led Ridley and Latimer to suffer mar- 
 tyrdom ; it could not be the same spirit which dictated the 
 act of uniformity, and which produced the self-denying 
 conduct of the 2000 Ministers who resigned their livings, — 
 the sufferers were undeniably moved by the spirit of Ortho- 
 doxy, and therefore, it is morally impossible, that their 
 oppressors could have been so too. It is impossible again, 
 that it could have been the same spirit which repealed, and 
 which enacted the laws against the impugners of the doc- 
 
27 
 trine of the Trinity ; and yet that all tliis, is not only 
 possible, but actual, is the absurd conclusion at which Mr. 
 Harris aims. 
 
 It is evident from the confused recapitulation of his charges 
 against Orthodoxy, that Mr. Harris himself has no precise 
 idea of what he would assail, and that he is not fully aware 
 of the spirit he displays. With him, every thing that is not 
 Unitariai^ism is Orthodoxy, and every thing Orthodox is 
 '■'■false and j)ernicious ;" and "its influence" must be 
 " destroi/ed by iiprootiiig Us belief.''^ If this be not bigotry, 
 it is impossible to say what bigotry is ; and if Mr. Harris 
 constrains us to admit, that the spirit of intolerance and the 
 spirit of Orthodoxy are one, it will be due to him also to 
 allow, that he has unknowingly furnished one of the purest 
 examples of Orthodoxy in modern times. 
 
 Mr. Harris may expatiate at his ease, among Inquisitions 
 and Creeds, and Test and Corporation Acts, with the va- 
 rious other elements which he has so strangely associated — 
 they have as little relation to genuine Orthodoxy as to 
 genuine Unitarianism ; and were I gravely to undertake 
 their refutation, I should justly incur the suspicion of 
 being qualified to become an inmate of one Mr. Harris's 
 " lunatic asylums,^'' and a subject for the treatment of one 
 of his " Or/./iodo.vphi/smans.'^ — I gratefully accept, and most 
 cordially return the good wishes with which Mr. H. con- 
 cludes his letter ; 
 
 And remain. Sir, your obedient Servant, 
 
 AN ORTHODOX DISSENTER. 
 Manchester, Sept. 20, 1824. 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 
 Sir, — I have read with much interest the corres])ond(^nce 
 which has appeared in your very useful paper, on the sub- 
 ject of the philippic delivered by the Rev. George Harris, at 
 the public dinner given in honour of the Rev. John Grundy. 
 The form which that discussion has now assumed, is cer- 
 tainly the most agreeable to Orthodox dissenters that 
 could be imagined. — I'he two Unitarians, wlio have appeared 
 
28 
 as their opponents, have been the direct opponents of each 
 other : the Rev. Mr. H. has struggled, by the aid of dis- 
 tinctions where there is no difference, to make a feeble 
 stand, and his friend, the "Unitarian Christian," has deter- 
 mined to throw him overboard at once, as utterly 
 indefensible. The last excellent letter of the " Orthodox 
 Dissenter," has exposed the state of the case, in all its 
 nakedness, to the amusement of many, and to the convic- 
 tion of all. 
 
 There is one topic, however, which has been incidentally 
 brought forward, in course of the discussion, but which has 
 not obtained the degree of attention that some of your 
 readers think it justly claims. It seems to be admitted, on 
 all hands, that, in many instances, Unitarianism subsists, 
 at the present time, upon funds and endowments, bequeathed 
 by Orthodox Dissenters of past ages, for the support and pro- 
 pagation of their own religious sentiments. This fact is indeed 
 too plain to be disputed. There is a property in Yorkshire 
 understood to be now of great value, which was left by Lady 
 Hewley, an Orthodox Christian, for purposes, of course, 
 congenial with her own views, but which is now principally 
 devoted, by the trustees, to the advancement of Unitarian- 
 ism. Many, too, of the old dissenting chapels, which were 
 universally built by persons of Orthodox sentiments, were 
 also endowed by them with property, in some instances, to 
 a very considerable amount. For instance, these remarks 
 are applicable to Cross-street Chapel, in this town, the 
 place most nearly connected with the occasion of the late 
 public meeting of the Manchester Unitarians. That respect- 
 able and venerable erection is a monument of the piety and 
 munificence of Orthodox Dissenters, of former times ; and 
 I am informed, I know not with what truth, that certain 
 funds connected with that place have had the same origin. 
 The comfortable accommodations, therefore, with which the 
 Unitarian gentlemen of Manchester, find themselves sur- 
 rounded every Lord's day, are to be numbered, I presume, 
 among what they lately heard the Rev. Mr. H. pronounce 
 "the direful and demoralizing effects" of Orthodoxy. I am 
 
29 
 informed by a friend, that out of about thiiiy Unitarian places 
 of worship in this county, more than two-thirds of that 
 number were built by Trinitarians. And it may be safely 
 asserted, that there are not a few places in England and 
 Wales where Unitarianism must shortly give up its last 
 expiring gasp, were it not for the reviving cordial thus 
 afforded by thecharity of departed Orthodox Christians. Now, 
 Sir, it is surely matter of just surprise, that the vaunted 
 magnanimity of Unitarians, displayed in discarding the 
 " creeds and confessions" of the pious dead, should not 
 have equally signalized itself in renouncing the property by 
 which those " creeds and confessions," or the principles 
 which they embrace, were unquestionably intended to be 
 maintained. 
 
 It cannot be pleaded that this pei-version of property from 
 its original intention is slight or unimportant. In proof of 
 the wide difference between the character of Orthodoxy and 
 that of Unitarianism, I might appeal to the contrast drawn 
 between the two in the late speech of the Rev. Mr. H. and 
 to the representations of milder Unitarians, on different 
 occasions. According to these gentlemen, if the one sys- 
 tem be light, the other is darkness ; if the one be health, 
 the other is pestilence itself. Is it defensible, then, on any 
 principles of justice, to apply the property left for the one 
 of these very opposite purposes, to the advancement of the 
 other? The Rev. Mr. H. admits that the commodious 
 dwelling-place of Unitarians, is not farther removed from 
 the region of Infidelity itself, than from what he calls 
 the Fanaticism of the owners of this property. Infidelity it 
 is true, has no funds and endowments, the fruits of the im- 
 piety of past ages, otherwise it follows, that Unitarianism 
 would possess as fair a title to them, as to those under 
 more immediate consideration. How far the members of 
 that denomination would consider the goods and chattels of 
 the infidel as desirable ornaments to their half-way house — 
 it is not for me to determine : to these, however, they are 
 as much the heirs as to those of the Orthodox, according to 
 
30 
 
 the logie and theology' which, it is understood, they so re- 
 cently and so loudly applauded. 
 
 It may here be added, that, if they consider our views as 
 so exceedingly pernicious, they cannot reasonably complain, 
 if we think no better of their own, or if our charitable 
 ancestors were no more favourably disposed towards them. 
 Without offence, then, it may be assumed, that the pious 
 dead, whose property is thus perverted from its original 
 intention, would have devoted it to almost any other pur- 
 pose, rather than that to w-hich it is now made subservient. 
 Should one of them rise from the grave, and find the chapel 
 which he built, and the estates which he bequeathed, in the 
 possession of a flaming modern Unitarian, I know no words 
 in which he could express himself more fitly, than in those 
 applied by our Saviour to Judas Iscariot, — " He that 
 eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against 
 me." 
 
 It is surely no slight aggravation of this matter, that the 
 mal-appropriation of which I complain, may be fairly 
 deduced to be altogether unnecessary. — The Unitarians, 
 in proportion to their number, are certainly a very rich peo- 
 ple. Besides, according to the Rev. Mr. H. "the spirit of 
 Unitarianism is opcsn, generous, liberal, merciful, and 
 benevolent," and " like the swelling waves of the ocean." 
 Surely the liberality of such a system is sufficient to refresh 
 its own bowels ! Such an ocean cannot need to be replen- 
 ished by the puny rill of Orthodox charity I It is true, I 
 have met with very different representations of the spirit of 
 Unitarianism, in reference to this particular. — From certain 
 passages in the Memoirs of Mrs. Cappe, and in other Uni- 
 tarian publications, I should have inferred something more 
 parsimonious than accords with the reverend gentleman's 
 animated description : and, indeed, it might be well were 
 he more sparing of such extravagant panegyric, until Unita- 
 rianism shall manage to subsist by its own proper energies. 
 
 In the correspondence which has occasioned these ob- 
 servations, the allusion of the " Orthodox Dissenter" to 
 
31 
 
 this topic, has been very slightly passed over by his Uni- 
 tarian opponents. The Rev. Mr. H, indeed, makes a 
 flippant remark upon it, v/hich implies, that he considers 
 the funds and endowments in question as an injury, rather 
 than a benefit to the people with whom he is connected. 
 
 If, however, endowments be injurious, the use which 
 Unitarians have made of them, is a very likely means to 
 prevent the evil in future ; for it has brought this method of 
 disposing of property into complete disrepute among Ortho- 
 dox Dissenters, who are the only class of nonconformists 
 that have shown much propensity this way. 
 
 I trust the Unitarians will impute to me no improper 
 motive, if I have indulged great plainness of speech on this 
 subject. They who could enjoy, with so much zest the 
 tirade of the Rev. Mr. H. will, of course, be the last persons 
 to blame me. The subject thus brought under review, is 
 certainly one which cannot give to impartial persons the 
 most favourable opinion of the tendency of their principles. I 
 am strangely mistaken, if it does not present a more definite 
 and sti'iking proof of the " direful and demoralizing effects" 
 of Unitarianism, than any which the Rev. Mr. H. has yet 
 produced to justify himself in applying that language to the 
 system of the Orthodox. I am desirous, therefore, of 
 giving them an opportunity to explain themselves on this 
 point, and to show upon what principle, consistent with 
 justice and sound morality. Unitarian Ministers can consent 
 to subsis't upon property which was designed for any one 
 rather than for them, and trustees can allow and encourage 
 so corrupt a practice. If it can be defended, I should be 
 glad to see how^ for it is certainly what I never yet have 
 seen. — I remain, Mr. Editor, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 ANOTHER ORTHODOX DISSENTER. 
 October \6, 1824. 
 
32 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 
 " It has been weighed Sir, and has it not been found most miserably want' 
 ing f" Rev. George Harris's Speech. 
 
 Sir, — " The direful and demoralizing effects" of Unita- 
 rianism were, I doubt not, displayed, in my former letter 
 to the conviction of all your impartial readers. For a 
 people publicly to reprobate and calumniate principles by 
 the efficiency of which they are, partly at least, provided 
 with their daily bread, is certainly a stretch of ingratitude 
 not easily to be surpassed. How such conduct can be 
 shown to be consistent with good morals, is what I cannot 
 even conjecture. In exposing it, I trust I am performing 
 a duty to the public, to whom I beg to communicate, 
 through the medium of your excellent paper, a few more 
 illustrations of this interesting subject, and, particularly, 
 some sketches of the Unitarian Chapels in several districts 
 of the country, showing by whom they have been erected, 
 endowed, &c. &c. 
 
 In the following list of Chapels in the neigbouring county 
 of Chester, nothing is contained which is not believed to be 
 substantially correct. Minor errors may possibly be pointed 
 out, but it contains nothing which can materially affect the 
 general statement of the case, so far as it is carried. I 
 doubt not that a more perfect exposure of facts would greatly 
 strengthen the argument against Unitarianism, and would 
 in particular, bring to light more endowments than are here 
 mentioned. In reference to nearly the whole of these 
 places, I put it to any candid man, whether there be the 
 least human probability, that Unitarianism would ever have 
 at all existed in them, if it had not been insidiously grafted 
 upon the stocks which had been previously planted and nou- 
 rished by the labour and at the expence of Orthodox Dis- 
 senters. Let it be remembered, that these chapels were not 
 only built by the energies of Orthodoxy, in times far less 
 favourable for such exertions than the present, but they are 
 now supported, partly at least, from the same source ; I 
 mean, by endowments which have been founded by Oitho- 
 
33 
 
 dox Dissenters, and by grants from Lady Hewley's charity. 
 And, with all the? rest, let it not be forgotten, that the leading 
 Unitarians of Manchester lately listened, with tumultuous 
 applause, to their favourite orator, while he pronounced the 
 spirit of Orthodoxy " slavish, mean,bending before the dicta- 
 tion of a worm of the earth, partial, capricious, cruel, vindic- 
 tive." &c. 
 
 The above* are the v^'hole of the chapels occupied by the 
 Unitarians in Cheshire. Upon this brief review of them, 
 there are twoquestions which seem naturally to suggest them- 
 selves: — First, what is the amount of the means of reli- 
 gious instruction and improvement which has been origi- 
 nated in this important district, by the " generous, liberal, 
 merciful, and benevolent" system called Unitarianism ? 
 Secondly, is Unitarianism producing, at present, in the 
 chapels here enumerated, any thing like the moral and re- 
 ligious effects which were formerly produced in them by 
 means of Orthodoxy ? Let the candid answer, or even the 
 Unitarians themselves, if they please. Judge gentle reader, 
 from this specimen, of the vaunted moralizing powers of 
 Unitarianism ! I remain. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 ANOTHER ORTHODOX DiSSENTER. 
 
 Novemher 6, 1824. 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 Sir, — The very extraordinary method adopted by the Man- 
 chester Unitarians, to manifest their respect for the pro- 
 fessedly Christian ministry of the Rev. John Grundy, in 
 presenting him with a})ublic dinner, and a " service of Tea 
 Plate," and their proceedings on this occasion, have ex- 
 cited towards that body unusual attention. It appears, by 
 the report of their meeting, that they devoted seven hours 
 (from four to eleven at night) to the task of eating cfhd 
 drinking, talking, clapping and shouting, sometimes iaugh- 
 
 * See Appendix, " Cheshire." 
 D 
 
31 
 
 ing at the wit of one of their Clergy, and sometimes weep- 
 ing at the pathos of another. What private pledging of 
 each other there might be " before the cloth was removed," 
 or how many toasts were given for which your valuable co- 
 lumns could not make room, we are only permitted to 
 imagine : but fifteen toasts drunk " with the utmost enthu- 
 siasm," sometimes sitting and sometimes standing, pro- 
 duced nearly as many speeches I And all this was trans- 
 acted in honour of Unitarian! sm ! This was the way that 
 120 Clergy and Gentry of that persuasion, chose to mani- 
 fest their Christian motives, principles and practices ! This 
 is the way in which the Unitarians honour and reward the 
 Christian Ministry ! " On the right of the Chairman," we 
 are told, " sat the Rev. Mr. Grundy, and his colleague, the 
 Rev. J. G. RoBBERDS, at his left." The Vice President 
 (himself) was the Rev. Mr. Naylor. We are not informed 
 where the Rev. George Harris was seated, nor what other 
 Reverend Gentleman graced the meeting with their reverend 
 presence. The room, and indeed the neighbourhood, rang 
 with their plaudits ; and according to the description of the 
 effects produced by their own eloquence, " applause .'" — 
 '■^ unbounded applause V — " great applause throughout V — 
 " irnmense applause I" — " rapturous and long continued ap- 
 plause .'" successively attended their speeches, until, (as I 
 am 'informed from another source,) an alarm of " fire'^ 
 was excited amongst the populace without, who expected 
 shortly to see the " Spread Eagle" in flames. There was, 
 indeed, a small sprinkling of another feeling : for, they tell 
 us, that the Chairman " was much affected ;" but his speech 
 was rewarded " throughout with great applause," nay more, 
 the " pathetic allusion" of one of the Rev. Gentlemen, very 
 " powerfully affected the meeting." Their griefs, however, 
 like a summer's cloud, soon passed away, and the next 
 moment, the gay Gentlemen returned to their old and 
 more agreeable exercise of " rapturous and long continued 
 applause," and sorrow was an unbidden guest, and was 
 speedily ordered out of doors. Dr. Priestley himself used 
 
35 
 
 to think the Unitarians to be a merry set, " more cheerful 
 and more happy," quoth he, than other people; and so they 
 art; — 
 
 " He that will not merry, merry be, 
 ** Shall never taste their joys." 
 
 Amidst this merriment, the liealth of the Rev. George 
 Harris was given, " which being drunk with much ap- 
 plause," he rose, and proudly asked, aye, and proudly replied 
 to his own question, " What is the spirit of Orthodoxy ?" 
 Is it not " slavish, mean, partial and capricious ; cruel and 
 vindictive?" &c. &;c. " It is gloom, and darkness, and de- 
 solation ;" " it has been tried for ages, and its direful and 
 demoralizing effects may be read in the history of every 
 nation under the sun." Admirable historian ! Query : Has 
 not Orthodoxy desolated the planets also ? 
 
 Whether your correspondent, the " Unitarian Christian," 
 was, or was not, present at the delivery of these sentiments, 
 which he has since disavowed, is quite immaterial : for 
 neither he nor any one else will deny the statement given to 
 me by a person present, that they were received with thun- 
 ders of applause by the very men who, with apparent sin- 
 cerity, had, a few minutes before, drunk as a toast, " Our 
 " brethren of all religious denominations !" This too, they 
 tell us, was drunk with " unbounded applause !" Good cheer 
 begets good humour, and both triumphed gloriously. 
 
 I heartily thank your correspondents, the two " Orthodox 
 Dissenters" for the attention which they have bestowed on 
 the last mentioned orator's unfounded aspersions ; but to the 
 statement of the latter I particularly wish to call the atten- 
 tion of your readers. Complaints, " not loud but deep," 
 have been uttered from one end of England to another, 
 against the Body of Unitarians, for their extraordinary in- 
 vasion of the property of Orthodox Churches and Congrega- 
 tions. This accusation has been urged against the princi- 
 ples (as exemplified by their practices) countenanced and 
 adopted by the body of Unitarians, with a few very honour- 
 able exceptions, and I have reason to believe, that the 
 " naked deformity" of their conduct, so convincingly exposed 
 
36 
 
 in the two letters of " Another Orthodox Dissenter," is 
 only a specimen of the general practice of the Sect, in refer- 
 ence to this particular. If a general and correct list of all 
 their Chapels and Congregations in England, could be ob- 
 tained, I am of opinion, that three-fourths of them would be 
 proved to be the property of Orthodox Christians, having 
 been originally intended for the conducting of their worship. 
 Who can contemplate the invasion of the Rev. Matthew 
 Henry's Chapel, at Chester, or that of the Rev. Henry 
 Newcome's Chapel, at Manchester, or the present mode of 
 disposing of Lady Hewley's Charity, without feeling the 
 strongest disapprobation? Has any thing like this been 
 detected in the recent inquires into the abuses of Charities, 
 instituted by Mr. Brougham, with whom several of the lead- 
 ing Unitarians were in active co-operation ? Your corres- 
 pondent, " Another Orthodox Dissenter," has shown, that, 
 previously to the year 1814, the Unitarians had not obtained, 
 by honest purchase, one single Chapel, of all they then pos- 
 sessed in the whole County of Chester. 
 
 It has been asked, and properly asked, what the Unita- 
 rians mean by conduct like this ? This question has long 
 been answered by the eloquent Robert Hall ; " They have 
 met with such a rebuke of their presumption, in the total 
 failure of their eiforts, that none will contend for the reality 
 of the divine interposition, as far as they are concerned ; for 
 when has the arm of the Lord been revealed to those pre- 
 tended teachers of Christianity, who believe there is no such 
 arm ? We must leave them to labour in a field, respecting 
 which God has commanded the clouds not to rain upon it. 
 As if conscious of this, of late they have turned their efforts 
 into a new channel, and, despairing of the conversion of 
 sinners, have confined themselves to the seduction of the 
 faithful ; in which it must be confessed they have acted in a 
 manner perfectly consistent with their principles ; the propa- 
 gation of heresy requiring, at least, no r/t'yme assistance." Yes, 
 they have corrupted the faith of Orthodox Churches ; in the 
 place of which tliey have introduced a false and spurious 
 Gospel ; and they have invaded the sanctuaries and endow- 
 
37 
 ments devoti^d by the pious dead, to the preservation and 
 propagation of j)rinciples directly tlie reverse of Unitarianism. 
 I consider these assertions to be fully borne out by the list 
 of Chapels published for Cheshire; by which it appears tliat 
 Unitarian faith and morality are preached in twelve usurped 
 pulpits out of the whole fourteen which they occupy in that 
 county. 
 
 I am Sir, your very obedient Servant, 
 
 An Orthodox Observer. 
 
 Manchester, 9th November, 1824. 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 
 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house," — Ex. xx. v. 17. 
 
 Sir, — I am not a regular reader of your paper, but occa- 
 sionally have the opportunity of turning over your pages, 
 and my attention has accidentally been called to some recent 
 productions by one of your Correspondents, who styles 
 himself " Another Orthodox Dissenter." 
 
 It is generally thought that newspapers are not a desirable 
 field for the display of polemical theology, and happily, 
 owing either to the correct judgment of their Editors, or to 
 the good sense of the public, religious bigotry is but rarely 
 permitted to occupy their columns with its intolerant war- 
 fare. I hardly think the spirit evinced by your Correspond- 
 ent will be considered by your readers such as to have justly 
 entitled him to a dispensation from this generally received 
 canon of newspaper law. If lunderstand him aright, his object 
 is to traduce the public character of a religious denomination 
 of Christians, w^hose supposed creed has, indeed, been for 
 some years past, the frequent object of vulgar and violent 
 abuse, and of ignorant misrepresentation, with several of 
 the champions of self-complacent orthodoxy, but towards 
 whose integrity of conduct, and general blamelessness of 
 behaviour, in all that concerns their dealings with the world, 
 the severest of their opponents have hitherto been generally 
 disposed to bear favourable testimony. But Sir, this " Or- 
 thodox Dissenter," in his officious and busy anxiety to 
 
38 
 blacken the reputation of the Unitarians, lays singularly- 
 bare the nakedness of his own Christianity. — " First cast 
 out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see 
 clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye." 
 
 Can any one doubt, who has read your Correspondent's 
 two letters, what is the impelling motive of this attack — 
 that he secretly covets for himself, and for " Orthodox Dis- 
 senters^^ the possession of that " resjpectahle and venerable 
 erection — a monument of the piety andinimificence of Ortho- 
 dox Dissenters of former times — Cross-street Chapel in this 
 town.^^ — When he openly charges Unitarians with having 
 stolen from " Orthodox Dissenters'^ the places in which they, 
 (the Unitarians,) worship, are there no secret longings in his 
 own breast after those accompanying " endowments" which, 
 he tells us, " exist, in some instances, to a very considerable 
 amount?" 
 
 If the congregation which now worship in Cross-street 
 Chapel are the intruders which your correspondent would 
 represent, " reaping where they have not sowji" despoilers 
 of another man's vineyard, will he kindly condescend to 
 inform us under what circumstances the felonious act took 
 place, and where it was that the existing occupants lost their 
 legal right to a possession which had descended to them 
 through an uninterrupted succession of many generations ? 
 The congregation which now assemble within ^Hhe venera^ 
 hie walls'" is virtually the same that worshipped there 
 when those walls were yet fresh from the hands of the 
 builder, and although its separate members have been 
 called away in succession, to render an account of their 
 stewardship, it would require more logic, I apprehend, than 
 falls to the lot of one, or of ^^ Another Orthodox Dissenter'" to 
 point out the period when the individuality of the congregation 
 was ever suspended. 
 
 But, Sir, if the entertaining Unitarian sentiments is so 
 serious a civil as well as moral transgression, as to produce 
 what the lawyers term " corruption of blood" thus rendering 
 their professors incapable of inheriting property ; and if, by 
 virtue of a warrant of ejectment, a writ of quo warranto, or 
 
39 
 
 a Lord Chancellor Eldon's injunction, obtained through the 
 pious and disinterested labours of " Orthodox DissenterSy^ 
 Cross-street Chapel should be deprived of its present 
 justly respected, eloquent and pious minister, I must 
 next beg of your Correspondent, again kindly to inform 
 us who is entitled to succeed to the " venerable edi- 
 fice ?" When " Orthodox Dissenters" publicly charge other 
 nonconformists with " perversion of property," in other 
 words, with appropriating to their own use, chapels which 
 do not belong to them, it behoves these impugners of their 
 brethren, to shew who they are who possess a juster title to 
 them ? It may not, perhaps, be difficult to define your Cor- 
 respondent's answer. These chapels, were built by 
 *' Orthodox Dissenters ;" I am " Another Orthodox Dissen- 
 ier," he proclaims to the world by his assumed cognomen, 
 and he trusts there will be no difficulty in admitting what, 
 he flatters himself, follows as a self-evident consequence 
 from such Orthodox premises, that he and those of his 
 church, are the lawful owners of Cross-street Chapel. How 
 happy does he feel, by anticipation, in the enjoyment of 
 " those comfortable accomtnodations with which the Unitarian 
 gentlemen of Manchester, (at present) find themselves sur- 
 rounded every Lord's Day .'" I am well aware, Sir, what 
 force there is in terms — how much is involved, in vulgar 
 estimation, by a name ; and with what dogmatising arrogance 
 no inconsiderable portion of the religious world have ever 
 been accustomed to proclaim that theirs is the true belief 
 — to call themselves the Orthodox — and those who differ from 
 them, the Heterodox — thus begging the point at issue, and 
 impudently proclaiming, by the very name which they as- 
 sume, that they must be in the right. The followers of 
 Mahomet style themselves the true believers — the Romanist 
 tells us that his is the only true church ; and your Corres- 
 pondent signs himself Orthodox, or one whose opinions are 
 sound. 
 
 " Orlhodoxy is my doxy ; 
 
 " IIeterodo,xy is another mair* doxy." 
 
40 
 
 But I am not disposedjto admit that your correspondeut has 
 yet made out a good title to " those comfortable Lord's-day 
 accommodations" which he has so feelingly described. 
 Let him explain to us in the third place, what it is that he 
 means by his proudly vaunted " Orthodoxy^'' and we shall 
 then be better able to form a correct judgment of his pre- 
 tensions, 
 
 With respect to the other part of his communication I 
 have little to say. The other chapels, " of the perversion" 
 of which he complains, are, I apprehend, similarly cir- 
 cumstanced to Cross-street chapel. He is blameably 
 ignorant of what he professes to explain and to sit in judg- 
 ment upon, when he asserts that Lady Hewley's charity is 
 " principally devoted to the advancement ofUnitarianism."* 
 He calls a former correspondent of yours, under tlie signa- 
 ture of" An Unitarian Christian^'' "the friend" of the Rev. 
 G. Harris, without the shadow of a cause for so doing, 
 except that they both happen to avow themselves Unitarians 
 in sentiment, and he is equally incorrect and unjust towards 
 "Me leading Unitarians of Manchester,^'' when he describes 
 them as having "lately listened with tumultuous applause 
 [how accurately descriptive] to their favourite orator the 
 Rev. Geo. Harris." He who considers that Rev. Gentle- 
 man as the orgcmof" the leading Unitarians of Manchester," 
 knows little indeed of the history of that body of people, on 
 whose public acts he presumes to pass his sentence of 
 condemnation. I do not offer myself as the defender of the 
 opinions proclaimed in that gentleman's speech, but sup- 
 posing them to have been erroneous and uncandid, it strikes 
 me that the acrimonious language they have called forth,, 
 betrays rather the ruse de guerre of a religious partizan, 
 than the impartial judgment of a christian temper. However 
 
 * It is to be regretted that Mr. Wood, who is the Treasurer of the Unitarian 
 Colleges at York, did not explain how this assertion consists with the fact that 
 Six exhibitions are annually given by Lady Hewley's Trustees to young men 
 educated in that Seminary in sentiments the very reverse of her Ladyship's, 
 while the applicalions for individual exhibitions for a similar purpose, have been 
 re/usrd to Orthodox Academical Institutions. — Editors. 
 
11 
 
 virulent and severe those opinions might be, towards what 
 their author chose to denominate " the spirit of Orthodoxy " 
 he has disclaimed all intention of applying them to the 
 professors of Orthodox opinions and, though the distinction 
 when sifted, might not be very logical, there remains no 
 evidence, at least, of ^erso;2«/ hostility. 
 
 But is " Another Orthodox Dissenter'" equally exempt 
 from the sin of personal slander ? Let your readers judge 
 between them. I would reluctantly believe that he is as 
 uncharitable in spirit, towards those who happen to profess 
 a diflferent creed from himself, as his writings would imply ; 
 but one conclusion regarding him I am compelled to come 
 to, — that though he may be " Orthodox,'' according to his 
 own dellnition of the term, he is no Dissenter, — he may wor- 
 ship within the walls of a Dissenting Meeting-house, but 
 of the lofty spirit, and the true principles of English Pro- 
 testant Dissent, he is indeed, lamentably ignorant. 
 
 AN ENGLISH PRESBYTERIAN. 
 Rusholme, Nov. 12, 1823. 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 
 Sir, — That it must be exceedingly mortifying to such gen- 
 tlemen as the author of the communication in your last 
 week's paper, who styles himself "Another Orthodox Dis- 
 senter," to observe the progress of Unitarianism, cannot for 
 a moment be doubted. Truth and Error never were, and 
 never will be friends — they must despise and hate each 
 other. Nor is it to be wondered, when we consider the 
 spirit which Trinitarian Orthodoxy has often displayed, 
 that your Correspondent should be filled with regret when 
 he sees that Unitarians are able, by "any means, to obtain 
 " their daily bread." Much more gratifying would it, 
 doubtless, have been to him, had they never existed, or, if 
 created, had they merely lived 
 
 ■ " lo g;i/,f oil Leaven, 
 
 To brcalhe, and to exi)ire." 
 
42 
 
 Least of all, can he bear the idea that Unitarianism should 
 reap any benefit from reputed Orthodoxy. But thus it is ; 
 and, instead of looking to futurity for consolation, and hoping 
 that things will be better soon, it is to be apprehended that, 
 what he laments as one of the greatest evils under the sun, 
 is every day becoming greater and still greater. 
 
 Whether " Another Orthodox Dissenter" be correct or not 
 in his brief, but to himself painfully expressive notes upon 
 all the Unitarian Chapels which he has mentioned in your 
 last paper, I am unable to state ; but it is true enough that 
 DiikinfieldOld ChajJel^^s, it is generally called, is in the hands 
 of a numerous and highly respectable congregation of Uni- 
 tarians. The Chapel was originally built upon leasehold 
 property, and, after the expiration of a certain number of 
 years, it reverted to the late John Astley, Esq. Lord of the 
 Manor of Dukinfield. By him it was also leased once or 
 twice to the congregation for a short term of years : and it 
 is not long since Francis Dukinfield Astley, Esq. with a li- 
 berality which reputed Orthodoxy would doubtless consider 
 most egregiously misplaced, conveyed it over to trusteesybr 
 ever, for the purposes to which it is now devoted. Perhaps, 
 however, this is a representation of the case W'hich will not 
 serve your Correspondent's purposes. Be this as it may, 
 he can tell you, Sir, that " it is but too true." 
 
 A Nonconformist. 
 
 Nov. 10, 1824. 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 
 Sir, — I noticed in your last number a letter signed " An 
 English Presbyterian." With the contents of that letter, I 
 do not mean to intermmeddle ; the subject appears to be in 
 proper hands, and to them I leave it. The occasion of my 
 present communication is solely the signature, which its 
 writer has assumed. 
 
 Who are these English Presbyterians to whom this 
 writer belongs ? I know of no religious body of that deno- 
 mination. That there were in this country, perhaps a cen- 
 tury ago, a considerable body of English Presbyterians, 
 
43 
 
 your readers do not require to be informed. Nor need it 
 be stated, that the bulk of modern Unitarians are their de- 
 scendants. It is not, however, so generally known, that 
 these English Presbyterians ceased virtually to be Presby- 
 terians, long before they changed either their creed or 
 their name. And even this circumstance, I i)resume, re- 
 quires no proof from those at all acquainted with their 
 -history. 
 
 That this " English Presbyterian" is a professing Unita- 
 tarian, is pretty unequivocally told us, by the tenor of his 
 communication. But what claim has an Unitarian to that 
 title ? Presbyterianism is simply a system of ecclesiastical 
 government. Unitarians, may, as well as any others, adopt 
 that system, and then they have a right to the name. But I 
 cannot learn that this is the case. As far as my information 
 extends, they have no Presbyteries — their congregations 
 are not under the controul of courts of review of my name ; 
 nor is one single distinguishing principle of Presbyterianism 
 carried into operation by them. It is not sufficient to esta- 
 blish their title to the name, that the majority of the Chapels 
 they now occupy were built by the Presbyterians, and that 
 they are their descendants. In these matters, I am not dis- 
 posed to carry courtesy so far, as to allow names to be he- 
 reditary, to the violation of every law of common sense and 
 common consistency. 
 
 Some people may consider this a matter of no moment ; as 
 taking umbrage at a mere word. But, Sir, it is far from 
 being a mere logomachy. I agree with your Correspondent, 
 the propriety of whose " assumed cognomen" I now dis- 
 pute, that there is " a considerable force in terms, that much 
 is involved in vulgar estimation by (in) a name." And I 
 suspect that to the force of terms, and the vulgar estimation 
 of a name, and to men not distinguishing betwixt names and 
 things, Unitarianism has been not a little indebted for a very 
 considerable proportion of its members. No doubt, it ob- 
 tained its principal entrance through the injudicious endow- 
 ments of well-meaning Presbyterians and the subsequent 
 silence of their wo//it>ift/ successors on those orthodox prin- 
 
44 
 
 ciples — the belief and influence of which made the first 
 English Presbyterians so pre-eminent for elevation and 
 sanctity of character ; and so pre-eminent also in embodying 
 the " lofty spirit and true principles of English Protestant 
 Dissent" But its introduction was aided greatly by coming 
 forward under the Presb}'ierian name. Numbers of care- 
 less people (and there have always been numbers of this 
 description in every denomination) would never dream, that 
 while they were retaining their former designation, they 
 were getting palmed upon them a new and opposite religious 
 system. Even at the present day, it is not uncommon to 
 hear the terms Presbyterian and Unitarian used inter- 
 changeably. The mistake, in fact, in certain quarters, is 
 prevalent, of confounding modern Unitarians with existing 
 religious bodies, who actually are Presbyterians, and whose 
 principles are the antipodes of those of Unitarianism. 
 
 It has been the observation of this mistake, and a wish to 
 expose it, which indeed have principally prompted this com- 
 munication. Every system, I conceive, ought to have its 
 appropriate name, and ought to stand on its own merits. In 
 this sentiment, I question not, I have the concurrence of 
 your Correspondent ; whom, as an individual, I do not mean 
 to charge with a design of making advances, under colours 
 not his own. He adopted his present "cognomen" probably, 
 without hesitation ; — without even bestowing on the matter 
 so much thought as he has bestowed on those " assumed 
 cognomens" he seems so much to dislike, and that appears 
 to have been very little. But however this may be, I do 
 maintain that in this country, real Presbyterianism never 
 formed any alliance with Unitarianism, and that Unitarians 
 are not Presbyterians. And as a professing Presbyterian, 
 I hope I am justified in disclaiming all connection with your 
 Correspondent, and the body to whichhe appears to belong; 
 and I call upon him to desist from the assumption of his pre- 
 sent title, till he belongs to a body which possesses a tenable 
 claim to it. 
 
 A Scotch Presbyterian. 
 
 Nov. IT, 1824. 
 
45 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 
 " Thou lihalt not steal." — Ex. xx. 15. 
 
 Sir, — Alarming intelligence, respecting the vast prepara- 
 tions of the Unitarians to answer my former letters, reached 
 me some days ago, like the hollow, distant murmurs of an 
 approaching storm. Two productions have now appeared — 
 the accredited document, signed " An English Presbyterian," 
 and the auxiliary contribution of " A Non-conformist." I 
 find these, as Dr. Johnson said, to be " not of more than 
 mortal might," though the latter is certainly the better of the 
 two. Yet, I suppose, in point of " lofty" dignity and offi- 
 cial importance, the letter of " An English Presbyterian" 
 will claim my principal attention, while the lucky Non-con 
 must be content, if a passing remark or two be all the at- 
 tention that 1 can bestow upon him. Amidst the fumes, 
 therefore, which these gentlemen have raised, I calmly sit 
 down to my task. 
 
 The " English Presbyterian" has evidently employed 
 what ingenuity he possesses in endeavouring to divert the at- 
 tention of the public from the real points at issue. Yet, 
 that he may not say he is unanswered, I shall wait upon him 
 a little in his lordly flights — He commences by declaiming, 
 in " lofty" style, against the introduction of " polemical 
 theology" into the newspapers. But pray, by whom was 
 " theology "^rs^ introduced into the newspapers, in the pre- 
 sent instance ? Who inserted in the newspapers that mighty 
 article of " polemical theology," the speech of the Reverend 
 George Harris ? Who introduced the touching death-bed 
 scenes, first to the jovial, laughing, shouting gentlemen at 
 the Spread Eagle, and afterwards into the newspapers? 
 Who favoured the public, through the same medium, with 
 the speech of the worthy Chairman, in which that gentleman 
 is so " much" and tenderly " affected," that he breaks out 
 into sneers at his neighbours, the " evangelical preachers ?" 
 To the practice of his own people (for several of the speeches 
 bear internal evidence of having been furnished by the 
 
46 
 speakers,) at the commencement of this discussion, the ob- 
 jection of my adversary may possibly apply ; but the case is 
 now different. The matter has taken such a turn, that it is 
 no longer a theological subject, but a question relating to 
 PROPERTY, which may be as fitly discussed in the news- 
 papers, as the public accounts of the town of Manchester. 
 
 The tirade upon my use of the terms " orthodox" and 
 " orthodoxy," has I confess, somewhat astonished me. 
 Really, these Unitarians will try my patience after all, for I 
 can neither do^ nor say as they do or say, but they are 
 offended with me. Were not these the very terms, by 
 which they, themselves, chose to designate us in the com- 
 mencement of this business, both at their ever-memorable 
 meeting, and afterwards in the newspapers ? To accept 
 such terms at their hands, after all the reproach which had 
 been poured upon them by the Reverend Mr. H., and which 
 Unitarians are in the habit of pouring, I felt to require an act 
 of self-denial, rather than to foster all that pride which they 
 charge upon me. When, therefore, my opponent tauntingly 
 asks me to define " Orthodoxy," I reply, " Define your own 
 term, Sir, or, at any rate, that of your party ; and, while your 
 hand is in, have the goodness, too, to give us a definition of 
 Unitarians." " I am not a regular reader of" Unitarian 
 publications, " but occasionally I have the opportunity of 
 " turning over" their " pages," and this I can testify, that, 
 amidst the opposite and discordant opinions of that people 
 among themselves, upon almost every subject that can be 
 mentioned, it would puzzle a college of archangels to tell 
 what Unitarianism is. But it is mere quibbling of my op- 
 ponent to ask for a definition ; what are the leading points 
 in which we differ from them, is well-known to every 
 body. 
 
 It is a curious fact, that by adopting the vocabulary which 
 the Unitarians had supplied, I have incurred the censure of 
 both friends and foes. Some friends have objected to my 
 applying the term " Unitarian" to this people, which 
 they think, has the appearance of conceding a point in dis- 
 pute. I have replied, that I thought both the word " Or- 
 
47 
 thodox" and " Unitarian," were generally understood to be 
 mere terms of convenience, and have persisted in my 
 course. My friends will now tell me that I am rightly 
 served, and I shall bow to the reproof; only remarking, that 
 1 really did think Unitarians had taken a more liberal 
 and enlarged view of things, than now appears to be the 
 case. 
 
 The term " Orthodox" I will give up, whenever the So- 
 cinians will consent to use one equally convenient ; but I 
 really cannot so easily part with that of " Dissenter." It 
 was cruel, therefore, in the " English Presbyterian," to di- 
 vest me of this, while he left me to guess in the dark, at his 
 reason for such an injurious proceeding. — Is it because I 
 maintain, that property set apart for one purpose, ought not 
 to be devoted to another which is directly contrary ? To 
 show that this is the true state of the case between us, I ap- 
 peal to the words of even one of my new opponents, who 
 ranges the Socinians and us, respectively on the the sides of 
 " truth and error," which " never were, and never will be 
 friends," but " must despise and hate each other." What, 
 I ask, can be more contrary than " truth and error," which 
 are thus engaged in eternal warfare ? Now I take their 
 own statement, and I ask, " Is it just to apply property left 
 for one purpose to another which is so directly the contrary 
 of it ? Or do I forfeit my claim to the name of " Dissenter," 
 by holding the contrary of such a diabolical principle ? If 
 I do, then let the name go, and give me, in the place of it, 
 any other that can he found in any language spoken on the 
 face of the earth. 
 
 Let me ask again, was Mr. Belsham <' lamentably igno- 
 rant of the true principles of Englis/i Vrotestant Dissent,'' 
 when, upon embracing Socinian sentiments, he resigned his 
 situation, as principal of the Academy at Daventry, because 
 he was " no longer able to fulfil the design of his situation" 
 which was inseparably connected with the advancement of 
 Orthodox principles ? Of whatever else he might be igno- 
 rant, he seems to m(% and to many, to have understood, in* 
 that instance, what were the " lofty" ])rincip](>s of an honest 
 
48 
 man, and this was the boast of the Socinians, at that time. 
 And were the thirteen Unitarian ministers, who, not long 
 since, signed the case of the chapel at Wolverhampton, " la- 
 mentably ignorant" of Dissenting principles, when they 
 vainly endeavoured to prove that the endowments belonging 
 to that chapel, were -left at a period when it had an Unitarian 
 ministry ? Why did they endeavour to avail themselves of 
 the principle upon which I am insisting, if it is not just and 
 sound ? 
 
 The fact is. Sir, the Unitarians would be glad to avail 
 themselves of it, in every instance, if it would serve their 
 purpose. Of this we have a remarkable proof in the course 
 adopted by your present Correspondent, " A Non-con- 
 formist." That gentleman understood me to call in ques- 
 tion the right of the Unitarians to hold the chapels and 
 endowments founded by Orthodox Christians ; and how 
 does he defend their supposed right ? Does he produce any 
 principle which will meet my argument in its general bear- 
 ings ? No, not a word of this ; he is evidently glad to 
 escape from such a task. He leaves the other chapels to 
 shift for themselves, and avails himself of a recent and un- 
 common occurrence, to place that with which he happens to 
 be connected out of the reach of my argument. He tells 
 you, Sir, that the " Dukinfield Old Chapel" had become 
 private property, and that the gentleman to whom it belong- 
 ed, has given it to the present Unitarian congregation. If 
 so, most unquestionable it is theirs ; but the endowment of 
 Mr. James Heywood, certainly is not theirs. Now, Sir, 
 mark : This gentleman is so eager to advance a better argu- 
 ment than the Unitarians in general are possessed of, in 
 defence of this right to the Dukinfield Chapel, that he ac- 
 tually forgets the Dukinfield endowment, which stood in 
 need of a similar vindication. And thus glad would all of 
 them be to lay hold of any tenable principle, which would 
 serve their turn. 
 
 Very different, however, from the task of his Dukinfield 
 brother, is that of " An English Presbyterian." No fortunate 
 event, of later years, has lessened his toil. His unmitigated 
 
49 
 task, according to their own statement, is, to prove that the 
 property of " truth" belongs to " error" and that of 
 ^^ error" to '-'^ truth" And that we may not be bewiidered 
 with merely abstract principles, he chooses Cross-street 
 Chapel, Manchester, as the tangible object of his defence. 
 " The other chapels," he says, " are similarly circumstanced 
 to Cross-street Chapel ;" but whether he makes this remark 
 to involve them in the same condemnation, or to give them 
 the benefit of his logic, I am unable to divine. 
 
 This gentleman is very metaphysical, and hisfirstargument 
 is, " the indimdualUy of the congregation" at Cross-street 
 Chapel ; it is " virtually," he contends, " the same that al- 
 ways worshipped there;" and he demands to know, " when 
 this individuality was ever suspended." There are the 
 persons in Manchester who can tell him " when this indivi- 
 duality was suspended," having heard from their hoary 
 ancestors and relatives, some of whom are but recently de- 
 parted, how they found themselves obliged to leave Cross- 
 street Chapel, when Socinian principles were first distinctly 
 advanced from its pulpit. At that period the congregation 
 was a f/?<«/%, and not an " individuality." There has been 
 a similar period in the case of, perhaps, every chapel " si- 
 milarly circumstanced" to that at Cross-street. In these 
 cases, the question, then, is, to which individual, of this 
 dual number, the Trinitarian or the Socinian, did the chapel 
 belong ? 
 
 There would have been no difficulty in determining this 
 matter, if a just and righteous umpire must always have 
 been chosen, and I consider it a proof of " the direful and 
 demoralizing effects" of Socinianism, that this method was 
 not adopted. But, instead of it, the influence of a minister, 
 of the rich, or -downright violence (as in the case at Wolver- 
 hampton,) prevails ; the Orthodox were obliged to provide 
 for themselves ; and thus, perhaps, hundreds of the present 
 Independent Chapels had their origin. Where a chapel 
 could not be obtained, a barn was set apart, or the poor, 
 heart-broken Trinitarians, sought a refuge among the Me- 
 thodists, or in the Establishment, and thus multitudes have 
 
 E 
 
50 
 been lost for ever to the cause of non-conformity. The 
 zealous members of the Establishment know how to avail 
 themselves of this circumstance, and are now availing 
 themselves of it, as some of the periodical publications of 
 this very month, sufficiently evince. 
 
 It was, I doubt not, to keep this curious doctrine of " in- 
 dividuality" in countenance that the signature of " An 
 English Presbyterian," was cbosen by your correspondent, 
 though the discipline, as well as the doctrine, of the Pres- 
 byterians, is entirely renounced by his denomination. He 
 is " well aware," he tells us, " what force there is in terms," 
 and "force," indeed, there must be in them, if they can 
 give a title to a chapel. This is just as if some one were 
 to turn the Manchester Infirmary into a theatre, and pre- 
 serve the original name as a title-deed for the players. 
 
 To please this gentleman, if possible, I have taken this 
 notice of his doctrine of " individuality," though, it has, in 
 fact, nothing whatever to do with the question at issue. 
 Trust property is not left to persons to do what they please 
 with it, but for purposes which are to be promoted by it ; 
 and when persons cannot, or will not, devote it to those 
 purposes, they ought, in common honesty, to relinquish all 
 connexion with it. They are still at perfect liberty to lay 
 out their property in building chapels, or in whatever else 
 they please. 
 
 The next question which my adversary puts to me (under 
 the supposition that Cross-street Chapel does not belong to 
 the Unitarians,) is, " Who is entitled to succeed to the 
 vefierable edifice .?" Before I can answer this, I must have 
 the original title-deeds submitted to me for inspection ? 
 My opponent forgets himself; I am not a Unitarian; I 
 cannot decide without the proper documents, much less in 
 the face of them, as they do. It is true, / know, that the 
 title-deeds of some chapels in their possession, at no great 
 distance from Manchester, are, or were, drawn up with pro- 
 visions, which were directly intended to keep those chapels 
 out of such hands as theirs. Let me, then, duly inspect the 
 " venerable" parchments, and, if it should turn out that 
 
51 
 Henry Newcome and his friends purchased and set apart 
 the premises at Cross-street for Unitarian pnrjioses, I shall 
 certainly decide in favour of the " English Presbyterian" 
 and his connexions ; but, unfortunately for them, I am 
 given to understand that directly the reverse is the case. 
 However, I shall not disinherit them on account of any 
 heretical " corrnptioit of blood, ^' neither shall I allow- 
 that their " bloocT'' is so excellent as to entitle them to 
 other men's property. If I can find no legal claimant, I 
 shall assign the premises to the Crown, to which unclaimed 
 property belongs ; so the Unitarians need not fear lest there 
 should be no owner. But I can do nothing without the 
 deeds. Unitarians, I know, can ; and the wonder with me 
 is, how they ever happen to think of making deeds. Hu- 
 man nature is not so constituted that it is necessary to have 
 trust deeds to oblige men to follow their own will and plea- 
 sure. My opponent's third question I have already an- 
 swered. 
 
 As he is so dissatisfied with Lord Eldon, as a Chancellor, 
 I have endeavoured to do my best for him, in the high 
 office to which he has elected me. Perhaps, however, he 
 had better have kept to his Lordship, since that noble per- 
 son cannot be supposed to indulge any of those covetous, 
 " secret longings," which our advocate for decorum has 
 ascribed to me. For any thing that appears, his Lordship 
 loves the Unitarians as well as us, and us as well as them. 
 I am no admirer of his party politics, but his warmest poli- 
 tical opponents allow him to possess incomparable qualifica- 
 tions for his office, and to be most scrupulously conscienti- 
 ous in discharging its duties. If the Unitarians kept their 
 own consciences as faithfully as he keeps the King's, they 
 would never finger another shilling left by Orthodox Chris- 
 tians. But he has offended them, it seems, by a decision, 
 in which he is supported by all impartial men, and, among 
 the rest fas appears from documents before us,) by Lord 
 Chancellor Camden, whose liberal opinions gratified even' 
 such a writer as Junius. It was cruel, to Ik> sure, that Lord 
 Eldon's injunction should have prevented a posse of fiejy 
 
52 
 Unitarians from worrying a poor minister, who had re- 
 nounced their sentiments, in a chapel built by the Orthodox, 
 and from which it is confessed, an Orthodox majoHly, with 
 the minister of their choice, had, in the memory of many 
 persons living, been forcibly shut out by a Unitarian mi- 
 nority, and driven to worship their Maker in a barn. Your 
 correspondent may gnash his teeth at this, but his Lordship 
 will go on in the due execution of his office, which, I find, 
 from the law authorities, is to give relief against " all frauds 
 and deceits — all breaches of trust and of confidence^'' SfC. 
 
 Let the Unitarians, however, not be alarmed ; we believe 
 they have no right to the chapels and endowments in ques- 
 tion, but we have no present designs upon them. If they 
 had just been decent in their treatment of the principles to 
 which they are so much indebted, this discussion would 
 never have occurred. They may compose their nerves, and 
 enjoy their " daily bread." They seem to be aware that it 
 is much easier to eat it, than to defend it, and, therefore, 
 neither of my opponents has said a word to justify their use 
 or rather their abuse, of the " funds and endowments." 
 Those "perversions of property," to the amount of thou- 
 sands annually, in the northern counties of England alone, 
 they know full well they cannot vindicate to the satisfaction 
 of any impartial and reasonable man. 
 I remain, Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant. 
 
 Another Orthodox Dissenter. 
 
 iVbz;. 20, 1824. 
 
 P. 8. The " English Presbyterian" has, in appearance, 
 contradicted me in reference to Lady Hewley's charity, but 
 has taken care not to do so in reality. Perhaps I shall have 
 to request a place in your paper at a future time, for a dis- 
 play of my blameable ignorance of that pious lady's posthu- 
 mous affairs. 
 
53 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 
 Sir ; — I am much mistaken if the controversy on religious 
 matters, which you have invited to your columns, does not, 
 before it terminates, afford some proof of the truth of my 
 remark, that such topics are unsuited to newspaper discus- 
 sion. Supposing them to excite a temporary interest, they 
 can scarcely ever be handled to good purpose under the dis- 
 advantage of hasty publication, and of scanty limits; and 
 they too frequently serve to inflame some of the worst feel- 
 ings of the human heart. 
 
 It is not in newspapers that the religious man studies the 
 evidences of his holy faith, or searches for incentives to a 
 life of purity and truth, whilst the fierce polemic and intole- 
 rant bigot eagerly embraces ^ch a cheap and ready mode 
 of attracting notice to himself, and of pouring forth his ana- 
 themas against those who worship their creator under forms 
 different from his own. If indeed you could always ensure 
 for your readers that spirit of candour and of a truly Chris- 
 tian temper which characterized the two letters that first 
 appeared on this occasion, under the signatures of " An 
 Orthodox Dissenter^'' and " An Unitarian Christian^^ 
 we might tolerate, and perhaps receive benefit from the oc- 
 casional discussion of such subjects — but of the pernicious 
 tendency of newspaper polemics, even when the religious 
 warfare has begun under such gentle and courteous leaders 
 as those to whom I have alluded, the columns of your last 
 week's paper afford melancholy testimony. 
 
 But, Sir, the jealous and sectarian spirit evinced by 
 " Another Orthodox Dissenter, ^^ would have passed with- 
 out a comment from me had he confined it to encomiums on 
 his own " Oiihodoxy" or denunciations on "the direful 
 and demoralizing effects of Socinianism." 
 
 " For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight, 
 His can't be wrong whose life is in the right." 
 
 There is nothing in the tone and temper of his writings — in 
 the decorum of his language — in the correctness of his 
 
54 
 statements — or in the strength of his argument — that could 
 make any one desirous of engaging in controversy with him : 
 but when an unfounded and vindictive attack is publicly made 
 on the character and conduct of a religious community whose 
 members hold no unimportant station in society, and enjoy 
 their fair share of the confidence and esteem of their fellow 
 men — when they are openly charged with theft— (" Thou 
 shalt not steal,") — with " perversions of property to the 
 amount of thousands annually," — it is necessary that the 
 calumny should not pass uncontradicted even though it be 
 disseminated under the timid guise of an anonymous signa- 
 ture. It was therefore from a sense of public duty, that I 
 reluctantly ciuitted occupations of a pleasanter character, to 
 notice the letters under the signature of " Another Ortho- 
 dox Dissenter." 
 
 I have searched in vain, in his letter of the 20th, for a 
 valid argument in support of the charge which he had made, 
 or a satisfactory answer to the queries, which I took the 
 liberty of proposing, for the purpose of elucidating the facts 
 on which I presumed he would endeavour to rest his vindi- 
 cation. Your Correspondent says, that I chose Cross-street 
 Chapel, Manchester, as the tangible object of my defence — 
 but in this he displays rather the art of the disputant, than 
 the proceeding of an impartial investigator of truth. He 
 would wish it to be inferred, that, out of a number of cases, 
 cited by him, of alleged malversation, I had selected this 
 one for defence, as most favourable for my purpose — but it 
 w^as not I who chose Cross-street Chapel as the object of 
 defence, but he who made it the chosen subject of his attack. 
 When, therefore, he charged the respectable congregation 
 of Cross-street with having " perverted" from its rightful 
 owners the Chapel in which it assembles for religious wor- 
 ship, I called on him for the evidence on which he made 
 the assertion. I asked, in the first place, at what period 
 the alleged " perversion" had taken place — when it was 
 that the existing occupants had lost their legal right to a 
 possession which had descended to them through an unin- 
 terrupted succession of many generations ; secondly, who 
 
55 
 were the parties who enjoyed a juster title to the property ; 
 and thirdly, in what sense he used the term " Orthodox^' 
 on the magical influence of which word rested the only shew 
 of evidence that the property had been " perverted" at all. 
 
 Of the relevancy of these queries everyone must, I think, 
 see the force. He who impugns the conduct of another, by 
 charging him with an overt act of an immoral nature, is 
 bound to substantiate his allegation. If property has been 
 " perverted" from its rightful owners, the lact must hnve 
 occurred at some definite period, and the superior title of 
 the rival claimants must be established before the act of 
 restitution can take place. It was fitting, therefore, that he 
 who challenged the property should be prepared to answer 
 these, or similar enquiries. Let us see in what spirit he 
 has met the call. 
 
 To my first enquiry he has returned no specific answer. 
 
 He informs you, indeed, that *' there are the persons in 
 Manchester" who can tell me when tlie " individuality" of 
 the congregation was suspended, " having heard from their 
 iioary ancestors and relatives, some of whom are but recently 
 departed, how they found themselves obliged to leave Cross- 
 istreet Chapel, when Socinian principles wer^ first distinctly 
 advanced from its pulpit," — A vague reference to nameless 
 persons, for information concerning a tradition, in relation 
 to which neither names nor dates are given, is not very satis- 
 factory testimony, but in the absence of better we must 
 make the most of it If " hoary ancestors and relatives" 
 were obliged to leave the chapel on account of the doctrine 
 that was preached there, I apprehend, from the circumstance 
 of their retiring, that they formed only a minority of the 
 congregation, and, according to the custom of Dissenting 
 Societies, and the true principles of Protestant Dissent, 
 •whenever a diversity of opinion has arisen among 
 their members which could not be reconciled — whether 
 proceeding from questions of doctrine — of discipline — or 
 regarding the choice of a Minister, that the minority have 
 yielded to the decision of the majority, and withdrawn to 
 
56 
 form for themselves a separate Church* — " And Abram said 
 to Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and 
 thee, for we are kinsman, Separate thyself, I pray thee, 
 from me." Such cases are by no means confined to Pres- 
 byterian congregations, nor has it always been the self- 
 styled Orthodox who have retired, as the Dissenting Annals 
 of this, and the neighbouring counties, will testify. 
 
 To my second enquiry your correspondent says, " Before 
 I can answer this, I must have the original title-deeds sub- 
 mitted to me for inspection. My opponent forgets himself; 
 I am not an Unitarian ; I cannot decide without the proper 
 documents, much less in the face of them, as they do. It is 
 true, I know, that the title-deeds of some chapels in their 
 possession, at no great distance from Manchester, are, 
 or ivere, drawn up with provisions, which were directly in- 
 tended to keep those chapels out of such hands as theirs. 
 Let me, then, duly inspect the " venerable parchments," — 
 and if it should turn out that Henry Newco'me and his 
 friends purchased and set apart the premises in Cross-street 
 for Unitarian purposes, 1 shall certainly decide in favour of 
 the " English Presbyterian" and his connexions ; but unfor- 
 tunately for them, I am given to understand, that directly 
 the reverse is the case. But I can do nothing without the 
 deeds" — " Unitariaus I know can ; and the wonder with me 
 is, how they ever happen to think of making deeds. Human 
 nature is not so constituted that it is necessary to have 
 trust-deeds to oblige men to follow their own will and 
 pleasure." 
 
 The gross invective of the foregoing passage I pass over. 
 Let us examine, for a moment his argument. Its author 
 had charged a religious society with the crime of appropri- 
 ating to themselves a chapel, and large endowments, which 
 are the property of others. — When asked who are tlie parties 
 
 » The fact is, that in most instances the majority of the worshippers who 
 were Orthodox, yielded to the necessity of departing either at once or gradually, 
 because the few who being Trustees, appointed the Minister, and had the 
 power of the funds, forced upon them Socinian Teachers. Abraham gave 
 to Lot the choice of extensive fertile and well watered plains : but these 
 Trustees said to those whom they unjustly expelled, " we shall retain the Cha- 
 pels and the Funds, and you may shift for yourselves." — Editors. 
 
57 
 
 thus defrauded, he says to the Society itself. — " My 
 charges against you are questioned — afford me the means of 
 establishing them — inform me whether my impeachment of 
 your honesty has any just foundation ; — if I find that my 
 imputations are unfounded, though I am your accuser, as 
 well as your Judge, I shall certainly decide in your favour." 
 — But we must not over estimate his measure of justice : 
 we must further be prepared, he tells us, to shew that 
 " Henry Newcome and his friends, set apart premises 
 for Unitarian purposes," or judgment will go against us, 
 and he intimates, pretty plainly, what, after all, he fears 
 must be our fate. " Unfortunately for theiii^'' he adds, 
 " / have been given to understand the reverse is the case." 
 
 What if Henry Newcome should have made no provision 
 whatsoever for Unitarianism, or any other ism — if he should 
 have wisely avoided attempting to impose fetters on the 
 human mind, or stay the progress of religious truth, — but 
 duly appreciating the liberty with which Christ had made 
 him free, should have been contented to leave those who 
 w^ere to follow him free, to obey the convictions of their 
 own minds — to form their creed, not by the authority of 
 Church or State, but by the light of their own religious en- 
 quiries, and the honest dictates of conscience ? 
 
 To my third enquiry your correspondent answers as 
 follows: — *' I reply, define your own term, Sir, or at any 
 rate that of your party ; and, while your hand is in, have the 
 goodness too to give us a definition of Unitarians. lam 
 not a regular reader of Unitarian publications, but occasi- 
 onally I have the opportunity of turning over their pages, 
 and this I can testify, that amidst the opposite and discor- 
 dant opinions of that people among themselves, upon 
 almost every subject that can be mentioned, it would puzzle 
 a College of archangels to tell what Unitarianism is. But 
 it is mere quibbling of my opponent to ask for a definition ; 
 what are the leading points in which we differ from them, is 
 well known to every body." 
 
 I have now gone through your correspondent's replies to 
 my three queries ; and I would ask, is it indeed thus, that 
 one, who boasts of being a Protestant Diaaentcr, can con- 
 
58 
 tent himself to write, when called upon to substantiate his 
 charge against a respectable body of his Dissenting brethren. 
 Asked for his proofs, he can banter — he can sneer — he can 
 fly off to make other accusations, each as ^ vague and as de- 
 famatory as the first. With singular assurance, he allows 
 that he can substantiate nothing — " lean do nothing^ imthout 
 the deeds. — " Let me then duly inspect the venerable parch- 
 tnentsT Those deeds, be it observed, the deliberate violation 
 of which forms the gravamen of his accusation. Deeds 
 which he openly insinuates that Unitarians can fraudulently 
 conceal,* and wilfully falsify ,t and which he next declares, 
 are not at all necessary to them ! The common place sub- 
 terfuge of dealers in scandal " / am given to understand^''' is 
 all that healledgesin support of his criminatory charge. I am 
 wholly ignorant who your correspondent is — how far the 
 publisher of a public print is justifiable in giving currency 
 to calumnies such as these, on anonymous, and therefore 
 irresponsible authority, I shall not enquire ; — but if their 
 author possesses any sense of moral justice, he will not he- 
 sitate to avow his name,J that the odium due to such con- 
 duct, may not, even by conjecture, be imputed to those who 
 are innocent of it. 
 
 Of other objects for comment your correspondent's letter 
 affords abundant materials ; but I flatter myself, after the 
 observations I have already made, that it is as unnecessary 
 as it would be irksome, to pursue him through his minor 
 inaccuracies. The jet of the question lies in a narrow 
 compass. 
 
 There is an amusing, and a clever work, recently pub- 
 lished — " The Book of Fallacies'''' which every one should 
 read before he appears as a controversialist. The term 
 
 * Vide" Lancaster." in his list. t Vide quotation above. 
 
 X The reason ibr requiring fliis avowal is obvious. The Controversy had 
 reached its crisis ; but the endeavour to overawe and silence the advocates of the 
 inviolability ol" Trust Deeds, did not succeed. — Editors, 
 
59 
 Orthodox is one of these fallacies, and the terms Sociniim 
 and Unitarian (as your correspondent uses them) are fal- 
 lacies also. — It is by the dextrous use of words, of big 
 import, but of vague and arl)itrary meaning, as weapons of 
 attack and defence, that the skilful debater, who fights for 
 victory, and not for truth, throws dust into the eyes of his 
 unsuspecting hearers ; and it is by a dextrous juggle between 
 these two cabalistic words Orthodoxy and Unitarian^ that 
 your correspondent has contrived to embarrass a very plain 
 case, in the appearance of a contradiction. He gives a list 
 of what he is pleased to call " Unitarian Chapels''' opposite to 
 which he tells us that 37 out of 45 were ^originally Orthodox' 
 from which he infers, that the Unitarians have stolen these 
 chapels from the Orthodox ; and thus, on two assertions and 
 one inference, he rests his case as proved. Now these 
 Chapels are English Presbyterian Chapels. They were 
 built by the English Presbyterians, soon after the passing 
 of the Act of Toleration, and have continued in the uninter- 
 rupted possession of that denomination of Protestant Dis- 
 senters, from that time to the present day. During the space 
 of nearly a century and a half their pulpits have been filled 
 by a succession of Ministers, regularly appointed, by the 
 call or election of a majority of the congregation, according 
 to the established usage of English Protestant Dissenters ; 
 and the worshippers within them are, in a great degree, 
 lineal descendants of those by whom the places were founded, 
 or of those who were early associated with them in mem- 
 bership. It was as a memberof this religious denomination, 
 that I adopted the signature of " An English Presbyterian." 
 Descended from Ancestors who have borne that honourable 
 appellation from the earliest infancy of Protestant Noncon- 
 formity ; educated among the English Presbyterians, and 
 by the blessing of God, destined I hope, to spend the re- 
 mainder of my days in connexion with them. I could 
 not have supposed that the name I assumed, could be 
 objected to ; — but I wish to practise no decejjtion, and I 
 therefore now avow myself the author of the letter signed 
 
60 
 " An English Presbyterian" in your paper of the 13th inst. 
 and subscribe myself, with much regard, 
 
 Sir, your obliged and obedient humble Servant, 
 
 GEO. WM. WOOD. 
 
 Nov. 27, 1824. 
 
 P. S. To your other correspondent, my Presbyterian 
 brother on the other side of the Tweed, I can only express 
 my thanks, which I do with much sincerity, for the candid 
 and gentlemanly character of his letter, (^O si sic omnia !} 
 referring him briefly, to the Ecclesiastical History of En- 
 gland during the eighteenth century. 
 
 G. W. W. 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 
 Sir, — Theological discussions are not, I have always 
 thought, fit subjects for the columns of a Newspaper. The 
 controversy which has existed in your paper for some weeks 
 would not have engaged my attention if it had been con- 
 fined merely to doctrinal points. 
 
 A Correspondent, however, of yours who has adopted 
 the signature of ^^ Another Orthodox Dissenter^'' has with great 
 self-complacency amused himself and endeavoured to amuse 
 your readers with a pompous display of the encroachments 
 and usurpations committed by that body of Dissenters who 
 are of late entitled " Unitarians," but who, for the most 
 part, are the genuine representatives of the English Pres- 
 byterians, one of the three great divisions of Protestant 
 Dissenters who are known and acknowledged in history as 
 subsisting in this kingdom ever since the Toleration 
 Act. 
 
 Your Corres})ondent says, " it is no longer a theological 
 subject, but a question relating to property ; which may be 
 as fitly discussed in the newspapers as the public accounts 
 of the town of Manchester. 
 
 Sir, I fully agree with your correspondent ; the question 
 is not theological, but one of property. Your correspondent 
 insinuates pretty broadly, (that among a variety of other con- 
 gregations whom he enumerates) the Presbyterian congre- 
 
61 
 gation of Cross-street Chapel (for that is the only distinctive 
 appellation which the trusts of the Chapel recognise) appro- 
 priate to themselves Endowments to which they have no 
 right ; and another of your correspondents " An Orthodox 
 Observer,'' in still more impassioned terms, cries out against 
 this appropriation as an abuse worse than any of those de- 
 tected by Mr. Brougham in his late investigation of the 
 Public Charities of the kingdom. 
 
 Now Sir, I really compassionate both of your zealous 
 correspondents. — The legal maxim is " Ignorance of the 
 law is no excuse." What must an impartial public think, 
 Sir, of your correspondents, who literally and truly, as far 
 as the Cross-street Chapel is concerned, know nothing at all 
 about the matter ; and yet they make a charge against a 
 large and respectable body of Dissenters affecting in direct 
 terms their moral integrity ; a charge which, if proved to be 
 true against any private individual, would be sufficient to 
 banish him from society for ever. 
 
 Sir, an ancestor of my own was one of the original foun- 
 ders of Cross-street Chapel. Our family have been mem- 
 bers of the congregation— associates in the divine worship 
 and services — administered therein from its first erection 
 to the present time. 
 
 In the course of the last century undoubtedly a great 
 change has taken place in the opinions of English Pres- 
 byterians in general. The late pious Mr. Mottershead 
 
 FOUND HIS CONGREGATION ABOUT NINETY YEARS AGO RIGID 
 
 Calvinists ; having been uniformly influenced by a spirit of 
 calm inquiry 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 Doc- 
 trines ; but it DOES NOT APPEAR THAT MANY, CERTAINLY 
 NOT THE GREATER PART OF HIS HEARERS CONCURRED WITH 
 HIM IN OPINION.* 
 
 • This is a complete admission of the truth of ' Another Orlhoiiox Dissenter's 
 statements and the force of his argument ; and this admission is made by a gen- 
 tleman, who is himself a Trustee — who is the law u'.>cnl of the others, — ami the 
 keeper of tlie Trust Deeds, — Editors . 
 
62 
 
 Of late years, a spirit of enquiry and more extended re^ 
 
 searches into the Holy Scriptures and the writers of 
 
 Ecclesiastical Antiquity, have largely promoted what are 
 
 called the Socinian or Unitarian Doctrines, particularly in 
 
 our " Presbyterian" congregation. ■'^' 
 
 If a " Presbyterian" did not cease to be so when preferring 
 
 the opinions of Arius and Arminius to those of Calvin, I do 
 
 not see how by adopting the opinions of Socinus he 
 
 could forfeit his right to be designated a Presbyterian, 
 
 in which class of Dissenters he had been born and educated. 
 
 The question may now occur — what is the inference from 
 
 all this ? — I will refer you, Sir, to the highest authority. ' 
 
 The Legislature itself, from the Act of Toleration in King 
 William's time, to the late Act for repealing the penalties on 
 those who impugn the doctrine of the Trinity, has to its 
 honour, recognised the sacred rights of private judgment, 
 and declared all those who acknowledge the sufficiency of the 
 Scriptures for the guidance and rule of Christians, to be en- 
 titled to the privileges of British subjects equally with those 
 who worship within the pale of the Established Church itself. 
 An exception must, however, be made with respect to the 
 operation of the Corporation and Test Acts, which it is not 
 relevant to mention further. 
 
 To revert, however, to the Cross-street Chapel, I am 
 anxious to allay the fears, and ease the doubts of your Cor- 
 respondent, " Another Orthodox Dissenter." He says the 
 Endowment is ample. I tell him, he says the thing which 
 is not, in the sense in which he wishes your readers to under- 
 stand him.^ namely, that the Endowment is of Orthodox 
 creation. Cross Street Chapel has no Endowment at all 
 coeval with its foundation, nor has it any auxiliary funds but 
 such as owe their origin to some of the present generation of 
 its members. The rents of the pews of the Chapel form 
 " tkea7nple Endoivment" of which the jealousies of both your 
 Correspondents would make the public believe that the pre- 
 sent congregation are defrauding the representatives of the 
 Orthodox founders of the Chapel who died a century ago. 
 Truly, Sir, we are greatly obliged by the commiseration 
 
63 
 of your Correspondent, "Another Orthodox Dissenter." He 
 bids us not to be alarmed, but to " compose our nerves," and 
 *' enjoy our daily bread." I, for one, thank him (as the 
 beggar did the friar when offered his blessing) for nothing at 
 all. Let your Correspondents take comfort, they have the 
 means of redress. 
 
 If we have usurped the property of the representatives of 
 our Orthodox ancestors, I entreat that your Correspondents 
 will indulge their zeal in getting an information filed against 
 us by His Majesty's Attorney-General to redress the wrong. 
 Our congregation will meet them without fear. 
 
 In the mean time, I recommend both your Correspond- 
 ents to temper the odium theologicmn, which they manifest 
 with a little more Christian charity towards others, who 
 conscientiously differ from them in opinion ; and to be here- 
 after more cautious in imputing to whole bodies of their fel- 
 low Christians a violation of the precepts of common honesty 
 and integrity, merely because they use the privilege which 
 the law gives them of worshipping God in the way they like 
 best. 
 
 I am. Sir, yours' &c. 
 
 Samuel Kay. 
 
 Manef tester, Nov. 1\, 1824. 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 Sir, — It cannot be determined how far you are justly 
 chargeable with having " invited to your columns" the exist- 
 ing controversy, until it is distinctly known wliether the pub- 
 lishing of the proceedings by which it was occasioned, origin- 
 ated with yourself, or was the result of the solicitation of 
 others. It is impossible, however, in either case, for the 
 authofs of that publication, to evade the whole responsibility 
 of a contest to whicli they thus gave both the signal and 
 the commencement. Although I have latterly taken no part 
 in this discussion, I now feel it my duty, as your first cor- 
 respondent on th(^ subject, to assert, tiiat the a|)pea ranee of 
 my letter in your paper was the result of my own application, 
 
64 
 and that I applied to you for that purpose, on the ground of 
 your impartiality as a public Journalist, because your paper 
 contained what I cannot cease to denominate an unjust and 
 opprobrious attack upon sentiments which have my cordial 
 belief and attachment. Indeed this was so inexcuseable an 
 aggression, on the part of the Unitarians, and they threw 
 down the gauntlet with such an air of defiance and of triumph, 
 that it ill becomes them, though smarting from the blows 
 which they have provoked, to express either surprise or com- 
 plaint. 
 
 Had they been content to celebrate a feast of friendship — 
 or had they merely yielded to the additional indulgence of 
 mutual congratulation on the excellency of their creed — or 
 even if their gratification had been incomplete without a few 
 words in disparagement of the Orthodox, still all would have 
 been well, had their prudence confined the ebullitions of the 
 evening to their own walls : but having given them to the 
 world, it is difficult to conceive how they could expect to pass, 
 I will not say unchastised, but unrebuked. Will they plead 
 that their accusation was conceived in language so moderate, 
 that it bore such marks of candour and liberality — and that 
 it was so divested of acrimony and spleen, as necessarily to 
 disarm resentment, and render it impossible to take just 
 offence ? On the contrary, it conveys the most unmeasured 
 obloquy and contempt, and, though comprised in a few lines, 
 it almost exhausts the vocabulary of invective and reproach. 
 
 It is inconceivable that they will adopt the plea of insig- 
 nificance, and urge that their sentiments are not to be under- 
 stood as characteristic of the Manchester Unitarians : for 
 surely the presence of one hundred and twenty gentlemen of 
 that persuasion, men of great respectability in the town, and 
 the company of their own ministers, men likewise of the first 
 reputation among them, must give to those proceedings all 
 the sanction of the Unitarian body. But the objectionable 
 expressions fell from tlie lips of Mr. Harris ; — did Mr. Har- 
 ris then drop from the clouds amongst them : — did he appear 
 without an invitation, and remain without a welcome? 
 Were all the Unitarian Ministers residing within a certain 
 
65 
 distance of Manchester, summoned to the banquet, or was 
 that favour reserved for Mr. Harris alone? Were v*^e igno- 
 rant of the personal character of the parties concerned, we 
 should be ready to imagine, that, like Balak, panic struck at 
 the number, valour and achievements of the Israelitish 
 army, they had sent to another town for a prophet, saying, 
 with the King of Moab, " Come curse me Jacob, and come 
 defy Israel." 
 
 The cause of these things becoming public, can be known 
 only to yourself and them ; but this is certain, that, of what 
 was first published, not one syllable has been retracted by 
 any competent authority, and that, therefore, to the full ex- 
 tent of the wide circulation of your paper, the original ca- 
 lumny remains, I trust not unrefuted, but without mitiga- 
 tion or abatement on the part of those from whom it pro- 
 ceeded. Their motto is that of Pilate, " What I have writ- 
 ten, I have written." The existence and continuance of 
 this controversy, with all its concomitants and results, must, 
 therefore, be attributed to the Unitarians of Manchester, 
 who, if they did not expect that their Orthodox neighbours 
 would accept the challenge, must have thought them either 
 very timid, or veiy indifferent. Their murmurings about 
 newspaper controversy, are also equally unreasonable ; for 
 the fact is, that they not only uttered the shout of defiance, 
 and made the onset, but your paper was actually chosen as 
 the arena of the conflict. They are now evidently desirous 
 of being considered as receiving, rather than as having given 
 the assault ; but this is because the attack which they made 
 has been sustain(>d and repelled : for a body of assailants, 
 when defeated and retiring, appears to be undergoing an 
 attack, when in truth it is experiencing a repulse. If they 
 complain, it is only of inconveniences which are occasioned 
 by their own acts, and by the temper they themselves have 
 displayed. 
 
 ** Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes?" 
 
 They have now, indeed, every reason to lament that rash- 
 ness by which they have brought upon themsfelves the 
 
 F 
 
66 
 powerful and pungent retaliation of the gentleman who has 
 done me the honour to become my namesake, and who, dis- 
 daining to imitate the declamatory invective of the Unitarian 
 Manifesto, most provokingly strikes home with arguments 
 and facts — with arguments which I have seen nothing to 
 confute, and facts which yet remain unshaken. In this part 
 of the controversy, however, as I have hitherto had no share, 
 so I now feel no disposition to interfere. It is in good hands ; 
 and I leave to " Another Orthodox Dissenter," the discus- 
 sion of those '■'■ inky blots and rotten 'parchment bonds ^'' by 
 which Mr. Harris declares " Unitarianism is not, and can- 
 not be bound," and of those " Orthodox Deeds," which Mr. 
 Harris cannot endure, because they say, " hitherto shalt 
 thou go, and no further." 
 
 The principal feature which has been developed during 
 this correspondence, is, that not only are the Orthodox 
 totally undeserving of the obloquy which it has been attempt- 
 ed to fix upon them, but that such attempts are peculiarly 
 unbecoming the English Unitarians, who owe every civil and 
 religious blessing, under God, to the fidelity and constancy 
 of the Orthodox of former days, and who, themselves, as a 
 body, have never yet achieved or endured any thing for the 
 general good. This is, indeed, their own confession, in 
 Mr. Harris's speech: — " Orthodoxy," says he, " has been 
 tried for ages ;" and then he exhorts his friends to unite in 
 " trying the other system." Until the early part of the 
 eighteenth century, Unitarianism as it is now understood, 
 existed in England, only in a few individuals dispersed 
 among the Orthodox churches, and from that period we may 
 date their having a regular ministry, and distinct congrega- 
 tions. I would therefore beg their permission to advise 
 them quietly to enjoy the good which they derive from what 
 Mr. Harris styles " the deeds of Orthodoxy ;" and to refrain 
 from boasting of " the spirit of Unitarianism," until they can 
 describe some general benefits procured, and some general 
 injuries averted, or redressed, which shall bear the proportion 
 of one to a thousand of what is recorded in, what I call the 
 Chronicles of Orthodoxy. 
 
67 
 
 It is not uncommon for Unitarians to pique themselves on 
 a peculiar liberality of sentiment, and on the exercise of 
 superior mental freedom ; and most cheerfully is it acknow- 
 ledged, that distinguished Unitarians have been eminent for 
 these noble qualifications. It is pleasing to dwell on the 
 high and amiable character of the philosophic and benevolent 
 Priestley — to applaud the conscientious and manly determi- 
 nations of the Vicar of Catterick — of a Jebb and an Evan- 
 son ; and were this a personal question, it would be a delight- 
 ful task to award the meed of female excellency to a Bar- 
 bauld and a Cappe. But the question forced upon us by the 
 Unitarians themselves, is actually this : — Do the tenets and 
 principles of Unitarianism furnish a security and safeguard 
 for their persevering and unflinching attachment to the rights 
 of conscience and the cause of religions freedom? And when 
 it is considered how much of intellectual power and acquire- 
 ment, and how much of social weight and influence con- 
 fessedly belong to many individuals of that body, it is evi- 
 dently very desirable to ascertain that their principles are, 
 as they pretend, so identified with those of mental indepen- 
 dence and religious freedom, as to assure their loyalty to its 
 sacred cause, and to render it impossible for them, even in 
 the day of trial, to revolt to its enemies, or to desert its 
 standard. In all these cases it is best to appeal to facts ; and 
 the last half century of our history has produced three 
 occasions by which we may " try the spirits" of the pro- 
 fessors of the Unitarian belief, but, I am sorry to add, that 
 neither of them furnishes a favourable result. 
 
 The first of these examples occurred in the year 1772, 
 when many clergymen of the Church of England, who held 
 Unitarian sentiments, petitioned the Legislature for relief 
 from the necessity of subscribing the articles of that Church, 
 because that subscription was opposed to their conscientious 
 belief. This petition was signed by about two hundred 
 and fifty, among whom were the celebrated Law, Bishop of 
 Carlisle, and Archdeacon Blackburne ; but its pravfT was re- 
 jected by the House of Commons, and the subscription v>'as 
 enforced. Notwithstanding this, the petitioners, with the 
 
 f2 
 
68 
 exception of Mr. Lindsay, clung to the emoluments of a 
 Church, the doctrines of which they had publicly declared 
 they no longer believed ; and Mr. Lindsay had to complain 
 with indignation, that, of the multitudes who concurred in his 
 sentiments, only one member of the Establishment was 
 found to contribute towards the expense of erecting his 
 chapel. What a contrast this, to the self-denying conduct of 
 the two thousand Orthodox clergymen, who, on the passing 
 of the act of Uniformity, rather than compromise their con- 
 sciences, unhesitatingly exposed themselves to poverty, to 
 bonds, to imprisonment and death ! 
 
 The other two cases have occurred more recently. One 
 of them was Lord Sidmouth's attempt virtually to repeal the 
 Toleration Act; and the other, Mr. Brougham's abortive 
 effort to restrain the Dissenters in the education of their chil- 
 dren. 
 
 With respect to Lord Sidmouth's Bill, which struck at the 
 root of our religious liberties, and was evidently preparatory 
 to their total extinction, it is exceedingly painful to refer to 
 a letter which the Rev. T. Belsham, the leading Unitarian 
 minister in this kingdom, the biographer and successor of 
 Lindsay, publicly addressed to the author of that measure. 
 In that letter, the preacher fawns, and crouches, and licks the 
 feet of the Peer, — he ridicules that animated opposition by 
 which the Dissenters strangled the monster in its birth — he 
 pours contempt on a laborious and useful class of ministers 
 of the Gospel, whom he styles " illiterate fanatics" — he 
 actually instructs his Patron how he may frame another Bill, 
 so artfully as to beguile the Dissenters and carry his point — 
 and to crown the whole, with an insolence which could find 
 a place only in a breast so devoted to servility and syco- 
 phancy as his, as if he had a right to represent the Dissenting 
 body, he humbles himself before Lord Sidmouth on account 
 of their opposition to his Bill, and in their name, and in the 
 most cringing and obsequious manner, deprecates his anger 
 and implores his forgiveness. The same writer, in a series 
 of sermons which he entitles " Christianity pleading for the 
 patronage of the Civil Power, &c. &c." renounces theessential 
 
69 
 principles of Nonconformity — he declares that he sees no 
 good reason why Christianity may not occasionally " lift her 
 mitred front in Courts and Parliaments" — he endeavours at 
 great length to refute the opinions of those who hold that 
 Christianity neither needs nor requires the patronage of the 
 Civil Power — to which patronage he even ascribes the con- 
 tinued existence of Christianity — and thus the living patri- 
 arch of English Unitarianism adopts and advocates the prin- 
 ciple of the alliance between Church and State, to which he 
 avers, that our Lord's declaration, " My kingdom is not of 
 this %vorld" furnishes no objection. 
 
 In the affair of Mr. Brougham's Education Bill, which 
 (though the project of a man in other respects favourable to 
 liberty) would have abolished all the important plans now 
 in operation for the educating of the children of the poor, 
 and would have inflicted a blow on the Dissenting interest, 
 more deadly than any since the iniquitous measures of the 
 last years of Queen Anne, the Orthodox Dissenters were alive 
 to the evils with which it was fraught, to which they main- 
 tained a strenuous and successful opposition. At that time, 
 however, there was found at least one Unitarian minister* to 
 avow himself the friend and advocate of that Bill, and to do 
 his utmost to include all the Dissenters in his own pledge. 
 I do not mean to infer of this or that individual Unitarian, 
 that he would follow these examples, but it is most decidedly 
 evident that men who are very far gone in that mode of faith, 
 may yet become the flatterers and abettors of those who 
 would infringe and even destroy our religious liberties. 
 
 The Protestant Cantons of Switzerland furnish an illustra- 
 tration applicable to this topic. There, the Orthodox doc- 
 trine which was formerly preached, has been superseded and 
 
 ♦ The Rev, William Shepherd, of Gateacre, near Liverpool, who in a letter 
 to John Wilks, Esq., published in the Times Newspaper of February 5th, 1821, 
 describes himself as the warm friend and advocate, and even the a/ivistrofMT. 
 Brougham's Education Bill, and sums up his opinions in the following terms ; 
 viz. " But I am persuaded that no sacrifice, shall we (the Dissenters) by his 
 Bill, be called upon to make, save the sacrifice of unkbasowablb sr.xuovn 
 
 iND SUSPICION." 
 
70 
 displaced by the Unitarian System, which has gained the 
 ascendency in Church and State. The recent revival of 
 Orthodoxy in that country has been met, however, not by 
 that spirit of liberality and tolerance which Unitarians claim 
 as their own, but by all the rigourof restraint and persecution. 
 It has been opposed by the excited violence of the multitude, 
 and by penal enactments on the part of the civil and ecclesi- 
 astical authorities. In the Canton de Vaud,-^ there is now 
 
 * * The following Extract is from one of the Clergymen of the Canton de 
 Vaud : — " I am about to quit my oiSce of Pastor ; and, at the same time, our 
 " National Church. For this year past, the religious operations, which God 
 " has carried on in our Canton, have been redoubled. Two of our young bre- 
 " thren have been driven from the National Church for having held in their 
 " own houses prayer- meetings, for the edification of those among their parish- 
 " ioners, whom the grace of God had awalcened, and for having spoken out 
 " upon the abuses, which exist in our National Church. Two others, one of 
 " whom is my brother, have voluntarily left the Church of the Canton. In 
 " many places, the people have grossly insulted, and even committed acts of 
 " violence against those, who manifest plainly their attachment to the Lord, 
 " who will no longer live according to the course of this present evil world ; 
 " and who meet together for mutual edification. They, who have committed 
 " these injuries, have been either unpunished altogether, or punished very 
 " slightly. Every where we are regarded as the dirt. Lately, our Government 
 " issued a decree, which condemns to fine and imprisonment those who assist 
 " at private meetings, those who preside at them, and those who lend a room 
 " for them ; and even those who tiy to make converts to what they call, a sect. 
 " This decree is accompanied by two letters addressed to the local magistrates, 
 " and to the pastors, in which they take occasion of the indiscreet zeal of some 
 " individuals, to blacken the whole ; they present under false colours, the 
 '* evangelical doctrines which we preach, in order to make them to be consi- 
 '* dered as the opinions of a sect, dangerous, and subversive of morality and 
 " civil society ; and they exhort the pastors, to try to stop the progress of this 
 " pretended sect. After such a decree, I thought I could not remain an instant 
 " longer in the National Church. I sent in my resignation to the Government, 
 " and I shall shortly quit my parish." 
 
 Such persecutions as those above described, are almost without a parallel in 
 the history of any other Protestant Church ; and they are the more extraordi- 
 nary in the Canton de Vnud ; from the fact of that church having, so lately as 
 the year 1818, remonstrated with the Canton of Geneva for treating the 
 Christians in that Church in a similar manner. Although most of the heresies 
 in the Protestant Churches on the continent are attributable to Neology, it 
 does not appear that that peculiar kind of error prevails amoiig the established 
 clergy of the Canton de Vaud, but rather the mixture of Arianism and Socinian- 
 ism, which is the reigning creed at Geneva. 
 
 Your Committee would oientiou another circumstance in more immediate . 
 
71 
 in force against the Orthodox, a decree which is almost a 
 fac simile of tiie Conventicle Act. That decree forbids, 
 under penalties of fine and imprisonment, to be present at 
 any meetings for private worship — to preside in them — or to 
 furnish a place for them ; — and the same penalties are pro- 
 nounced against those " whose proceedings shall tend to 
 gain proselytes to a Sect, contrary to the peace of religion 
 and the public order," Thus are the Orthodox dealt with 
 by the Unitarian authorities in Switzerland. 1 will not re- 
 tort the unjustifiable and unprovoked accusations which the 
 Manchester Unitarians have published against us ; I will not 
 render " railing for railing," and charge them with " a mean 
 and slavish, — with a cruel, vindictwe, and perseciding spirit ;^^ 
 but I am constrained to acknowledge, that I see nothing in 
 all these facts to prove, that the spirit of Unitarianism, is as 
 they boast, "/ree as the winds of heaven, and desires that 
 €vei-y human creature may be so too.'''' 
 
 It is amusing to hear gentlemen calling for an explanation 
 of the very terms which, so far as this discussion is con- 
 cerned, originated with themselves. — For my own part, I 
 
 connection with your Society ; — " A short time ago, it was announced from the 
 " pulpits of the town of St. Gall, that iu two discourses it would be proved from 
 " the word of God, that Christ had no share whatever in the Godhead, and 
 " should only be considered as one exhibiting the dignity and excellence of our 
 " nature. At the hour appointed Neff, one of the Agents of the Continental 
 " Society, attended, and took large notes of these discourses ; and did his best, 
 " in a small pamphlet, to refute what he had heard out of that word, which he 
 " considered the preacher had handled so deceitlully. This pamphlet was by 
 " himself and other friends to the truth put into large circulation, along with 
 " copies of the New Testament. The consequence of which appears to be, 
 " that the said discourses produced a very opposite ellect upon the public miiul, 
 " to that which the author of them had calculated. The clergy were much 
 " irritated ; a complaint from them was unanimously preferred to the authori- 
 " ties against Neff, who was presently brought up to appear before them for 
 " this piece of offensive conduct. The matter was heard, and poor Neff was 
 " sentenced to pay 100 Swiss fr. about £7. 10s. and to suffer six months im- 
 " prisonment. That he might, however, be made sensible of the mercy of 
 " the Court, the latter part of the sentence was commuted to the payment 
 " only of the former, as he had a young and increasing family, without any 
 " other means of subsistence than his own labour." — Sixth Report of the 
 Continental Society for the diftiision of religious knowledge over the Conti- 
 nent of Europe, pp. 8—10. 
 
72 
 have continued to use the term Unitarian because it is the 
 term of their own adoption, and I wish to avoid giving offence: 
 but that term no more distinguishes them from the Ortho- 
 dox, than it does from the Arians, Sabellians, or the New 
 Jerusalem Church. To call them Presbyterians, while they 
 have not the shadow of a synodical government, would be 
 just as correct as to call them Episcopalians. Indeed I 
 have often been surprised at their unwillingness to be called 
 Socinians. The Socini, both uncle and nephew, were men 
 of great eminence in their day ; and as they first embodied 
 the doctrines held by modern Unitarians, it is natural they 
 should bear their name. 
 
 As this discussion has been continued, I regretthe retire- 
 ment of my friend " An Unitarian Christian ;" for though 
 his display of superior talents rendered him a more formida- 
 ble opponent than any other who has appeared on that side, 
 yet, with a temper such as his, though the controversy niight 
 have become warm, it could never have been acrimonious. 
 I confess, too, that, in these controversies, the giving of in- 
 dividual names has not my unqualified approbation. In the 
 present case, I beg to question the right of those who have 
 put us so completely on the defensive by their own publish- 
 ed accusations, to require this disclosure ; and, in all cases, 
 it gives to argument an air of personal hostility, which I am 
 always anxious to avoid. Yet that my motives for retain- 
 ing my old signature may not be misconstrued, allow me to 
 inform you, that " An Orthodox Dissenter" is 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 John Birt. 
 
 Manchester, December i , 1824. 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 
 Sir, — As " my learned friend," Mr. Samuel Kay, has, 
 through the medium of your Paper, stepped forward in sup- 
 port of Mr. Wood, in the controversy respecting the Unita- 
 rian Chapels, Funds, and Endowments ; and as he has ad- 
 
73 
 vanced argumentb, which he supports with the weight of his 
 name, without any foundation in law, I think it due to the 
 cause of truth to point out what I consider to be his legal in- 
 accurracy. 
 
 Before I proceed to the consideration of this part of the 
 controversy, I wish to draw the attention of your readers to 
 some parts of Mr. Kay's statement. He says " I am anxious 
 to allay the fears, and ease the doubts, of your Correspond- 
 ent. ' Another Orthodox Dissenter,' who says, the endow- 
 ment of Cross Street Chapel is ample. I (Mr. Kay) tell 
 him he says the thing that is not, in the sense in which he 
 wishes your readers to understand him, namely, that the en- 
 dowment is of Orthodox Creation. Cross Street Chapel 
 has no endowment at all coeval with its foundation, nor has 
 it any auxiliary funds but such as owe their origin to some of 
 the present generation of its Members. He will permit me 
 to tell him he has assumed " a meaning never meant," for the 
 sake of giving a contradiction to it. I have perused the three 
 lists of Unitarian Chapels, one of which, viz. the Lancashire 
 list, I procured from various friends for the purpose of inser- 
 tion in your Paper, and it must be evident to every impartial 
 reader, that this rule was observed, in each of them, namely 
 when it was known that the endowments to the Chapels, 
 &c. were originated by the Orthodox so to state it ; when it 
 was known to have been originated by Socinians also to 
 state it ; and when their origin was unknown, to state merely 
 that there were endowments. His contradiction, therefore, 
 amounts to nothing at all, even if he be correct in point of 
 fact ; but what, if his statement should be found incorrect ? 
 Has Mr. Kay consulted the titles to those endowments ? I 
 doubt it very much. Will Mr. Kay inform you, Sir, whether 
 the endowment of the land on which the Commercial Build- 
 ings, near this Chapel, are erected, and on which an inn 
 formerly stood, but which was, I am informed, sold by the 
 trustees to Mr. Dinwiddle, at a yearly rent of 100/. was 
 purchased by the present Members, or is oi Orthodox Crea- 
 tion ? You will perceive, Sir, that 1 may be incorrect, be- 
 cause I have not the " Venerable Parchments" before me. 
 
74 
 but if the inaccurracy be, as I am told it is, with Mr. Kay him- 
 self, with the access to the deeds which I presume he pos- 
 sesses, it will be a little singular, and his reproof of the sup- 
 posed inaccurracy of my friend will apply to himself, with 
 much greater reason. 
 
 Mr. Kay must excuse me for remarking, that he shews rather 
 too much eagerness for a law suit, when he earnestly " en- 
 treats" his opponents to indulge their zeal " in getting an 
 information filed by His Majesty's Attorney General to re- 
 dress the wrong" complained of; and boasts that his clients, 
 the Cross Street congregation " will meet them without 
 fear." 
 
 There are. Sir, several statements in Mr. Kay's letter in 
 which I have the pleasure to agree with him. I will name 
 them. 
 
 First, Mr. Kay, in opposition to Mr. Wood, says, that the 
 dispute respecting the Unitarian Chapels is not a theological 
 question, but a question of property. 
 
 Secondly, He says that the late Mr. Mottershead, found 
 his congregation, about ninety years ago, rigid Calvinists ; 
 to which I add, that I presume he will not deny that Mr. 
 Mottershead came to the Chapel as a minister of Calvin- 
 istic sentiments.^ He also says, " Mr. S. Seddon was the 
 first to speak in our Chapel what were then called Socinian 
 Doctrines, hut it does not appear that many, certainly not 
 the greater part of his hearers concurred with him in opi- 
 nion, ^^ but I beg leave to add to this statement an extract 
 from the speech of the Chaiiman at the late Unitarian din- 
 ner. " From the death of the Rev. Mr. Seddon, (he says) 
 which I believe, took place in 1769, to your (Mr. Grundy's) 
 election, and that of my other esteemed friend on my left, 
 Mr. Robberds, (being upwards of 40 years,) the important 
 and peculiar doctrines of Unitarian belief were rarely, in- 
 deed, I believe, scarcely ever, urged on the attention of the 
 congregation. In avoiding the discussion and even the decla- 
 ration of the particular principles of the congregation, over 
 
 • He was, I believe, a pupil of the Rev. Timotliy Jollie, of Attercliffe, near 
 Sheffield. 
 
75 
 which your predecessors presided, there can be no doubt 
 that those gentlemen had satisfied their own minds that they 
 were executing their duties in a manner best calculated for 
 public usefulness ; and though, I do not concur in the views 
 which regulated their conduct, yet I censure them not, for 
 they acted conscientiously ; — the tomb has closed upon 
 them with honour ; — and I participate in the respect with 
 which their memory is regarded. The effect, however, of 
 their conduct was such, that when you, Sir, entered on your 
 office as minister, Unitarian doctrines were little understood 
 by many of the congregation, by some they were not even re- 
 cognized.'' What further discoveries will be made of the 
 doctrinal sentiments of the Cross Street congregation no one 
 can forsee, but these are the views of the Gentlemen who 
 offer themselves £is their advocates ; Calvinists, Arminians, 
 Arians, and Socinians, they are, and have been, by their 
 own confession, and what they will be hereafter, " influ- 
 enced," as Mr. Kay says, " by a spirit of calm enquiry and 
 Christian candour" it is quite impossible to foresee. 
 
 Mr. Kay says that his opponents make a charge against 
 a large and respectable body of Dissenters, " affecting, in 
 direct terms, their moral integrity ; a charge which if proved 
 to be true againt any jjrivate individual would be suflicient 
 to banish him from society for ever." On this point he is 
 exceedingly zealous, and says, " the rents of the pews in the 
 Chapel form the ample endowment, which the jealousies of 
 both his opponents would make the public believe that the 
 present congregation are defrauding the representatives of the 
 Orthodox founders of the Chapel who died a century ago." 
 This is Mr. Kay's own statement, the accuracy of which, I 
 leave him, and his clients, the congregation at Cross Street, 
 to settle amongst themselves. 
 
 It is quite obvious, then, from their admissions and pre- 
 vious statements, that the Chapel was erected by the friends 
 of Mr. Nesvcome; that it was appropriated to the principles 
 of Orthodoxy ; that it mainly continued so until the death of 
 Mr. Mottershead, except so far as Mr. Seddon may be said 
 to have introduced a different seutiment, in which, however. 
 
76 
 I conclude (upon Mr. Kay's authority) that not many con- 
 curred and which, undoubtedly, occasioned the secession of 
 part of the congregation, who settled at the Independent 
 Chapel, in Cannon Street; and, afterwards, until the time 
 when Messrs. Grundy and Robberds commenced their mi- 
 nistry at this Chapel, about the year 1810, they appear to 
 have been partly Arminian and partly Arian ; and that since 
 that period to this time Unitarianism has been avowed ; al- 
 though, I must own, that the extraordinary sentiments pre- 
 viously entertained by the Congregation, naturally enough 
 tended to it, according to the maxim of Dr. Priestley, who 
 contended, that to form a true judgment concerning the parti- 
 cular tenets of Unitarianism, it was advantageous " to attain 
 to a cool unbiassed temper of mind, in consequence of be- 
 coming mo7'e indifferent to religion in general, and to all the 
 modes and doctrines ofit^ The accuracy of this opinion is 
 remarkably exemplified in the congregation at Cross Street 
 Chapel, in this our town of Manchester. 
 
 I have thus endeavoured to state the several particulars 
 which I do not mean to dispute with Mr. Kay, but 1 have 
 now the office of pointing out the subjects on which we dis- 
 agree. 
 
 " He says, I will refer you. Sir, to the highest authority ; 
 the Legislature itself, from the Act of Toleration in King- 
 William's time, to the kite act for repealing the penalties on 
 those who impugn the doctrine of the Trinity, has, to its ho- 
 nour, recognized the sacred rights of private judgment, and 
 declared all those who acknowledge the sufficiency of the 
 Scriptures, for the guidance and rule of Christians, to he 
 entitled to the privileges of British subjects, equally with 
 those who worship within the pale of the Established Church 
 itself." 
 
 If Mr. Belsham be to be credited. Unitarians do not ac- 
 kowledge the sufficiency, but the inconclusiveness, of the 
 Scriptures ; and are not, therefore, even upon that ground 
 entitled to the benefit of these legislative enactments ; but this 
 I will not discuss. Mr. Kay has, however, referred to the 
 acts in King William's reign, without the least attention to 
 
Ti 
 
 those acts. The Toleration Act which he here relies upon 
 with extraordinary confidence was passed in the first year of 
 William and Mary, and by the 17th Section of it, it is de- 
 clared, that " neither that act, nor any clause, article, or 
 thing therein contained, " should extend, or be construed to 
 extend, to give any ease, benefit, or advantage to any per- 
 son that should deny^ in his fr caching or writing, the doc- 
 trine of the blessed Trinity, as it is declared in the articles" 
 therein referred to, which are so many of the 39 articles of 
 the Church of England as relate to doctrine ; and by the 9th 
 and 10th of the same reign of King William, it is enacted, 
 that all persons who " shall by writing, printing, teaching, 
 or advised speaking, de7iy any one of the persons in the Holy 
 Trinity to be God" shall incur certain disabilities therein 
 mentioned, and on a second conviction be imprisoned three 
 years, &c. 
 
 Now, Sir, it is evident that Mr. Kay wrote his letter in 
 total forgetfulness of these acts of Parliament ; and, as far 
 as Cross Street Chapel is concerned, which was built and 
 settled in trust about five years after the passing of the Tole- 
 ration Act (the one first referred, to), it is quite obvious, 
 that the settlement deed must be for the support of Orthodox 
 principles, and could not be for the purposes to which it 
 is now applied, which are alike opposed to the intention of 
 the individuals who purchased and set apart that property 
 for the propagation of Orthodox doctrines, and to the law of 
 the land, as it stood at the time the settlement was made. 
 
 Mr. Wood is, therefore, wholly unsupported in his hypo- 
 thesis, that Mr. Newcome and his friends might have 
 appropriated this property to the purposes of Unitarianism ; 
 and is it not very extraordinary that Mr. Wood has stated 
 the terms of the trust-deeds hypothetically, when we may 
 reasonably suppose that he has the means of stating tliem 
 positively from the deeds themselves. 
 
 I trust, Mr. Editor, you will not forget, that I am treating 
 this question as a matter which, according to Mr. Kay's 
 own admission, relates to property alone, and with which 
 
78 
 the principles of religious liberty have nothing whatever to 
 do. 
 
 Before I proceed further with my argument, I will just 
 remark, that the founders of this Chapel had, as every per- 
 son who contributes to the establishment of a religious 
 institution still has, an undoubted right to devote their pro- 
 perty to such purposes, and upon such principles (if those 
 principles were not contrary to law) as they thought fit, and 
 that they might settle that Chapel on such trusts as were 
 consistent with their views and sentiments ; but no man 
 will surely contend that the founders of a Chapel contem- 
 plate the accommodation of themselves and their families 
 alone, but also the instruction of the public, and although 
 Mr. Kay's ancestor may have been one of the founders 
 of this Chapel (and surely such an ancestor would have re- 
 gretted to find a descendant advocating the application of 
 his property to the subversion of his principles) yet that 
 circumstance alone gives to Mr. Kay no title beyond what is 
 possessed by every attendant at the place. 
 
 The pew holders, as such, are persons who merely avail 
 themselves of the privileges secured to them by the trust 
 deeds ; but they have no right to alter or to depart from the 
 terms of such deeds, although they have full liberty to sur- 
 render those privileges, and quit the Chapel altogether. 
 This is a principle acknowledged by all Dissenters, unless 
 the Unitarians form an exception to this general rule, but 
 I have yet to learn what Mr. Wood means by " the lofty 
 spirit, and true principles of English Protestant Dissent," 
 if he supposes that spirit, and those principles, to have any 
 operation or effect whatever upon a trust deed. 
 
 Now, Sir, I ask whether Mr. Newcome would consist- 
 ently with his own sentiments, recorded in the writings 
 handed down to us, and some of which at least are acces- 
 sible to any one, (having been recently published) set apart 
 this property to the denial of those great and cardinal 
 doctrines which this eminent and highly gifted man so 
 steadfastly maintained. He was one of those who were 
 
79 
 
 attached to the Royalist cause, and even assisted Sir George 
 Booth in effecting the Restoration of King Charles II., for 
 which he was rewarded by that ungrateful Monarch with an 
 ejectment from the living he held in this parish. Rather than 
 submit, therefore, to an undue and improper exercise of the 
 authority of his Royal Master, to whose restoration he had 
 rendered important assistance, he became one of the 2000 
 ministers who chose to sacrifice their all on the altar of 
 conscience. 
 
 If, then, such a man preferred the making of such sacri- 
 fices rather than submit to an usurped authority, in a matter 
 of discipline only, how much more steadily was he prepared 
 to "resist even to blood," rather than submit to any usurped 
 jurisdiction in any matter which related to Christian doc- 
 trine ? If he deemed it his duty to resist the king, who was 
 indebted to him for adventuring his life and fortune in the 
 royal cause, when that Monarch chose to usurp an authority 
 in requiring submission to " rites and ceremonies" only, 
 and to surrender his living, what sacrifice would not such a 
 man have made, if called upon to bear testimony to the great 
 doctrines of the Gospel as entertained by Orthodox 
 Christians ? Let any man, who doubts the force of this irre- 
 sistible truth, read his works. With what feelings then, 
 must every person who considers this subject aright, turn to 
 the flippant enquiry of Mr. Wood. " What if Henry 
 Newcome should have made no provision whatever for Uni- 
 tarianism, or any other ism^ if he should have wisely avoided 
 attempting to impose fetters on the human mind, or stay the 
 progress of religious truth — but, duly appreciating the li- 
 berty with which Christ had made him free, should have been 
 contented to leave those who were to follow him, free to 
 obey the convictions of their own minds — to form their 
 creed not by the authority of Church or State, but by the 
 light of their own religious inquiries, and the honest dictates 
 of conscience ?" Instead of making these inquiries, why 
 did not the worthy gentleman tell us plainly, whether the 
 wording of the original trust deeds does or does not autho- 
 
80 
 rize the preaching in Mr. Newcome's Chapel of Unitarian 
 doctrines? He tali^s indignantly against the fraudulent 
 concealment of deeds, about which he appears to know 
 nothing at all, and with which he is no way concerned ; but 
 did not the Unitarians at Wolverhampton refuse to shew 
 the deeds to Mr. Mander the only legal trustee, and to the 
 minister of the place, at a time when such a reasonable act 
 would probably have brought all disputes to an end. Does he 
 mean to say that these chapel deeds may be seen ? I think he 
 does not, bat 1 charge no impropriety of conduct, whatever, 
 on that acconnt. It is, however, impossible to suppose 
 that Mr. Newcome, who had sacrificed every thing in the 
 maintenance of the rights of conscience, in a matter merely 
 relating to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, should nevertheless be 
 so unconcerned about the infinitely more important and 
 momentous doctrines of the Trinity, atonement, and other 
 Orthodox sentiments, as to found a Chapel, which any 
 body of men, who might be pleased to consider themselves 
 possessed of superior light, were to be at liberty at any 
 future time, to appropriate to the denial of those ver}- doc- 
 trines? Is it conceivable that he was so indifferent to 
 these essential truths, as to be regardless whether his pro- 
 perty was applied to their maintenance or subversion? 
 Yet this is the rule applied by the Unitarians to their 
 usurpations of the property of Orthodox Dissenters, which 
 is strikingly exemplified in the misapplication of the estates 
 of the late truly excellent Lady Hewley, which were left 
 for Orthodox purposes, but are principally applied, at this 
 time, to the education, support, and maintenance of a body 
 of men, the Unitarian Ministry, in these northern counties, 
 who devote their lives and talents to the subversion of those 
 very principles which her Ladyship entertained, and for the 
 maintenance and propagation of which she devised her 
 property. I cannot better convey my sentiments on this 
 subject than by quoting the indignant language of an elo- 
 quent friend, " the misappropriation of Lady Hewley 's fund" 
 savs he, " not designed to pension the strong, so much as to 
 
81 
 aid the weak, is a grievance which would justify our loudest 
 complaints — an act of injustice which deserves the most 
 unqualified reprobation." 
 
 One of the young gentlemen of the York Academy, 
 Mr. Worthington, who has been educated at the expence of 
 Lady Hewley's estate, is, it seems, invited to the pulpit of 
 Mr. Newcome, at Cross-street Chapel, that he may devote 
 his life and exercise his Christian ministry to the subversion 
 of the principles of both ! To preach doctrines at which 
 both those excellent persons would have shuddered ! 
 
 The Trustees may be honourable men, one of them, an 
 old neighbour of my own, I know to be exceedingly so, 
 and the injustice complained of may be, and probably is, 
 founded in misapprehension and mistake, but the worthy 
 gentleman I have referred to, is very little aware of the 
 opinion entertained on this subject by vast bodies of able, 
 and enlightened men of almost all denominations. This is, 
 however, a subject to which my able and honoured friend, 
 Mr. Turner, has promised to give his attention, and I do not 
 wish to anticipate him in a matter to which he is so ca- 
 pable of doing complete justice. 
 
 Mr. Kay says further " if a Presbyterian did not cease to 
 be so when preferring the opinions of Arius and Arminius 
 to those of Calvin, I do not see how by adopting the 
 opinions of Socinus, he could forfeit his right to be desig- 
 nated Presbyterian in which class of Dissenters he had been 
 bom and educated." My learned friend says, " he does not 
 see" and it is plain that he does not; but I think, before he 
 urged his " entreaties" in the name of his clients, the Cross 
 Street Congregation, upon his opponents to institute a law 
 suit for the recovery of the Chapel, he ought " to have seen" 
 that the title " Presbyterian" refers to a form of church dis- 
 cipline opposed to that of Episcopalian and Independent, 
 and that his clients, the Cross-street Congregation, having 
 long ago deserted the Presbyterian form of church govern- 
 ment, which their trust deeds, according to his own admis- 
 sion, recognize, cannot maintain their legal right to the 
 place. As to their right to retain the name after having 
 
 u 
 
82 
 abandoned the form of government which it describes, the 
 letter of your correspondent a " Scotch Presbyterian" is 
 conclusive, and by Mr. Wood it would seem to be consi- 
 dered unanswerable. That this chapel is applied to 
 purposes different from its original intention, both in respect 
 of doctrine and discipline, and in violation of that intention, 
 Mr. Kay himself has clearly and ably shewn, without how- 
 ever considering for one moment the legal effects of such 
 admission. On the authority hovs^ever of the highest law- 
 officer in this realm, " /^o see,'' that, for the purpose of 
 Unitarian or Aricm worship neither the present nor any 
 other congregation has any legal right or title to this chapel. 
 Every body will have marked the sneer of " the English 
 Presbyterian" (Mr. Wood) at " the Lord Chancellor Eldon," 
 and I admit it was very natural. In the celebrated case of 
 the Attorney General against Pearson, 3 Merivale 353, the 
 following principles were laid down, which I will quote 
 from the marginal notes, that I may not occupy too much 
 of your valuable colunms. " The court (of Chancery) is 
 bound to administer trusts for the benefit of Protestant 
 Dissenting Congregations." " Where a trust is created for 
 religious worship, and it cannot be discovered from the deed 
 creating the trust wiiat was the nature of the religious 
 worship intended by it, it must be implied from the usage 
 of the congregation. But if it appears to have been the 
 Founder's intention, although not expressed, that a particular 
 doctrine should be preached, it is not iri the power of the 
 Trustees or of the Congregation to alter the designed objects 
 of the In stitutio ^2 . " 
 
 " If land or money be properly given for maintaining 
 * the worship of God,' without more, the Court will execute 
 the trust in favour of the established religion. But, if it be 
 clearly expressed that the purpose is that of maintaining 
 dissenting doctrines, so long as they are not contrary to 
 law, the Court will execute the trust according to the ex- 
 press intention. And as in that case, the intention clearly 
 appears aliunde, though not expressed in the instrument 
 creating the tinist, the Court will also carry the manifest 
 
83 
 design of the Founder into execution, so far as it is consistent 
 with the law." The same opinion as to the maintenance 
 of the original doctrines is given in the case of Foley v. 
 Wontner, 2 Jacob and Walker, 247 5 ^^^ his Lordship 
 in this case added, " I take it to be now settled by a case 
 in the House of Lords, on appeal from Scotland, that the 
 chapel must remain devoted to the doctrines originally 
 agreed on." The case referred to was Craigdallie against 
 Aikman, 1 Dow. P. C. 1 ; and it is not a little remarkable 
 that if Mr. Kay's zeal had been restrained until the pub- 
 lication of that very number of your paper, of which his letter 
 forms so prominent a part, he would have learned from your 
 columns the truth of this doctrine from the same high authority, 
 in the case of the Albion Chapel, which was decided in Lon- 
 don almost on the very day of the date of my learned friend's 
 letter. I will, with your permission, quote from your pages. 
 His Lordship said, " Where persons brought questions of 
 property before Courts by suspension, or any other manner 
 in which it might be subjected to their consideration, and it 
 could be shewn that the property was in the first instance 
 made applicable to a particular mode of religious worship, 
 and complaint was also made that it was applied to a mode 
 of worship totally opposed to the purposes to tv/iich it was 
 first assig7ied, the Court would not permit even a majority 
 of the individuals to depart from the puri)0ses to which the 
 property was in the first place ap})licable." 
 
 The law then is sufficiently clear on this subject, as re- 
 cognized by the Chancellor, and also in the highest court in 
 England, the House of Lords ; and that the law is consistent 
 with equity and justice, is obvious on the very same princi- 
 ples which protect the rights of private property. 
 
 It follows from this statement, and from the assumption 
 that the lists of Chapels for the four counties of Lancaster, 
 Chester, Derby, and Nottingham, are correct, the Unita- 
 rians possess but six chapels by legal and equitable means ; 
 and that to the remaining fifty-six chapels, with all their 
 endowments, they have no legal nor equitable right or title 
 whatever for the maintenance of Unitarian worship. 
 
 'On this subject, I offer no further remarks at present. 
 
84 
 
 I'hc facts are before the public, and with the public 1 leave 
 these facts, only referring them to the printed lists, by which 
 it is alledged that in four large and populous counties, con- 
 taining upwards of a million and a half of inhabitants, out of 
 sixty-four chapels which the people of this bragging, boast- 
 ing, noisy system possess, they have originated only Six !!! 
 I am, Sir, your very obedient servant, 
 
 George Hadfield.* 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 
 Sir ; — Your Correspondent, the " English Presbyterian," 
 to whom I must now give the name of Mr. G. W. Wood, 
 still declaims against introducing into the newspapers, a 
 discussion respecting the funds and endowments, formerly 
 left by the Orthodox Dissenters, but now enjoyed by the 
 Unitarians. But why does he object to this ? iVfter all the 
 fine things which we have heard from the Unitarians al^out 
 free and unlimited discussion, there is surely no subject but 
 what ought to be investigated. No : but he still contends 
 that it is "a controversy on religious matters." His coad- 
 jutor, Mr. Kay, however, is more candid, and fully agrees 
 with me, (as I presume all other persons do,) that " the 
 question is not theological, but one oi property" which may 
 be as fitly discussed in the newspapers, as the public ac- 
 counts of the town of Manchester. Authorities, from his 
 own party, though produced by the round dozen at once, have 
 indeed no influence whatever upon Mr. W., but, I appre- 
 hend, they, nevertheless, will have their effect with the pub- 
 lic. 
 
 Such discussions, he further observes, " frequently serve 
 to inflame some of the worst feelings of the human heart." 
 But surely this consequence is not absolutely necessary. 
 
 • The following paragraph is copied from the preface to Mr. Grundy's lectures, 
 which, be it observed, were preached in Mr. Newcome's pulpit, viz. — 
 
 " Of what importance are the points at issue, even between Protestants of 
 the Establishment and Roman Catholics, compared with those between Unita- 
 rians and Trinitarians ? What are all the minor shades of difference between 
 all other denominations of Dissenters and the Established Church, compared 
 with that grand point on which we differ from them all, the object of religious 
 adoration." Preface xviii. 
 
85 
 If Mr. W. is so fully alive to the danger of such " feelings," 
 let him guard against them, and I will endeavour to do the 
 same. He complains, too, of the veiy objectionable lan- 
 guage which has been used in this controversy ; but this is 
 another instance of his peculiar felicity in committing an ar- 
 gumentative ye/o de se. The most offensive words and al- 
 lusions whicli have been used, those which relate to coveting 
 and stealing, were certainly y?rs^ brought into this discussion 
 by himself. If he disapproves of such ideas and expressions, 
 let him, by all means, fivoid them, for, I assure him, they 
 give as little pleasure to me, as they can possibly do to him. 
 
 I have some cause to complain that his representation of 
 the manner in which this discussion commenced, is not 
 quite calculated to give a correct and fair notion of it. A 
 person who should read his last letter alone, would supi)Ose 
 that the controversy originated in two very moderate letters, 
 by " An Orthodox Dissenter" and " An Unitarian Chris- 
 tian." But was there nothing at all, before these letters, 
 relating to the matter ? Was not there a meeting of the 
 leading Unitarians in Manchester, where a speech was loudly 
 applauded, in which, amidst much matter of the same descrip- 
 tion, " the spirit of Orthodoxy" was pronounced, " slavish, 
 mean, partial and capricious, cruel and vindictive? Was 
 not your correspondent, Mr. W., present at this meeting ? 
 I shall not say that he was " consenting to" this oration ; but 
 unless he can show that he absented himself during its 
 delivery, or otherwise manifested his disapprobation, the 
 public will very naturally come to this conclusion. This 
 speech was defended in the newspapers, with new aggrava- 
 tions, by its author ; and when I took up the subject, no 
 Unitarian, either with or without a name, had taken a single 
 public measure to disavow the defence. This, I conceive, 
 is the true representation of the earlier part of the discussion : 
 and yet Mr. W. assumes the tone of one belonging to a 
 highly injured party : just as if they were to go to what 
 lengths they please in the newspapers, and others were to 
 have no will or pleasure in the matter. 
 
 It seems to be the determination of your correspondent to 
 
86 
 have no concern whatever with the subject in its general 
 hearings ; and therefore, he has passed over the greater, 
 and more important, part of my letter, without a single word 
 of notice. Let me, however, extricate the real question, at 
 issue once more, from the cloud of words and things, foreign 
 to the purpose, in which he has enveloped it, and place it 
 fairly in public \iew. A considerable number of Unitarian 
 Ministers (whose conduct the late meeting was avowedly 
 designed to honour,) are in the habit of publicly reprobating 
 in the strongest terms, the leading articles of the Calvinistic 
 and Trinitarian faith. Frequently these very Ministers 
 receive an important part of their support from funds and 
 endowments which were unquestionably designed by the 
 founders, for the support and endowment of that faith. In 
 particular, a great majority of Unitarian places in the north, 
 receive support from the charity of Lady Hewley, who was 
 a Calvinist and a Trinitarian. I learn, too, from the report 
 of the York Academy for 1822, that six students who were 
 educated for the Ministry among the Unitarians, received, 
 for that year, grants of £20 each from Lady Hewley's 
 charity. This, I conceive, was not exactly what her Lady- 
 ship intended, when she expressly appointed, in her deed ojf 
 settlement, that the number of " young men" (even if they 
 had not been of sentiments contrary to her own,) " designed 
 for the ministry of Christ's Holy Gospel, who might receive 
 " exhibitions" from her fund, should never exceed five such 
 young men at one and the same time." This is certainly 
 to employ the property of Lady H. and others, to overturn 
 the principles which it was intended to support. Now, I 
 ask, is such an appropriation of such property to be accounted 
 just ? or is it not rather to be considered as perverted from 
 its original intention ? 
 
 And what if it should be a fact, that all assistance from 
 the charity of Lady H. is denied to those " Schools of the 
 Prophets" whose theology accords with her own, while 
 afforded thus abundantly to one of an opposite character ? 
 Or if there should be instances of the aid of Lady H.'s charity 
 being afforded to chapels while Socianism has been preached 
 
87 
 in them, but refused to the same places,, when, it has been 
 supplanted by Ortliodox doctrine ? — " Ought tli«?se things 
 so to be?" 
 
 A copy of Lady Hewley's will, in the preamble to which 
 she feelingly recognizes her dependence, foe the pardon of 
 sin, on the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, lies before 
 me, as well as faithful copies, or abstracts of her two deeds 
 of settlement, in which she devotes her extensive and valu- 
 able estates to religious and other charitable uses. My 
 interesting collection of papers contains, also, the opinions 
 of Lord Camden in his time, repeatedly taken by a trustee 
 to the charity on various things connected with the deeds 
 by which it was founded : and also the opinions of several 
 others of the most eminent men of their day. It includes, too, 
 many curious and interesting particulars relating to the 
 secret histoiy of Lady H.'s posthumous affairs. I have 
 attentively and re})eated!y perused the whole mass, and, in 
 the abundance of my blameable ignorance^ I take upon me 
 to say, that the reasoning of Lord Eldon, in the case of the 
 Attorney-General v. Pearson, and in another case, discussed 
 in Chancery a few days ago, is as fully applicable to Lady 
 H.'s charity, as to the cases to which it is more immediately 
 applied. The subject was presented to Lord Camden under 
 a different aspect from that in which Lord E. has viewed it ; 
 but his reasoning, when considered analogically, is to the 
 same effect. 
 
 I allow that it is incumbent upon Dissenters in particular 
 to lay no more stress upon the opinions and authority of 
 these eminent persons than is perfectly consonant with 
 Christian liberty, and witli moral justice and equity. But, 
 in determining what is just and equitable, are the views of 
 such persons to be treated as totally unworthy of consider- 
 ation ? It may be said for them, that they aj'e j\o\ liable 
 to be biassed by the partialities to which persons in the 
 situation of your Correspondent, are exposed. They do 
 not want capacity to understand the subject. To acquaint 
 themselves with all that jurists and moralists have taught on 
 such points, is the object of the science; to which they have 
 particularly devoted themselves. They of the present day, 
 
88 
 and those who have lived sixty years ago, reason in thv^ 
 same manner. Besides, they have even the example of 
 Mr. Belsham, and other Unitarians, on their side, as I 
 shewed in a part of my last letter, of which your Correspon- 
 dent has not taken the least notice. 
 
 And, let it be considered in what confusion the world 
 would be involved, if the practice of Unitarians, in this 
 matter, were introduced into all the other concerns of so- 
 ciety. Suppose trustees were to proceed upon the same 
 plan in other charities besides those immediately connected 
 with religion, and in the private concerns of life, what would 
 be the consequence? The confidence among men must 
 cease, and universal confusion ensue. Or is it in religious 
 concerns alone that no regard is to be paid to the views and 
 wishes of the pious dead ? 
 
 Now, Sir, what is the inference from all this ? It is, that, 
 in the opinion of the persons now mentioned, and of multi- 
 tudes besides, the appropriation of Lady H.'s property to 
 persons who impugn all her leading views of religion, is a 
 " perversion " of that property ; and, if so, the amount of it, 
 principally devoted to the support of Unitarianism, is such, 
 that I need not turn to any other cases, (of which there are 
 abundance) to prove my former assertion, that " thousands 
 annually are thus perverted in the northern counties of 
 England alone." 
 
 Whether all this be right or wrong, a fair and just pro- 
 ceeding, or a " perversion," is the question which I have 
 wished to see discussed. And what is the manner in which 
 Mr. W. has met it ? Why he, a professed friend to free 
 disciMssion^ has, repeatedly, in his printed letters, endeavoured 
 to induce you. Sir, to exclude the subject from the pages of 
 your useful paper. He has most assiduously avoided to meet 
 the question in its general aspect, though challenged to it in 
 every way. He has watched every expression of mine with 
 the spirit of an inquisitor, to see what could be elicited 
 which might tend to my hurt ; and, if he be not careful, his 
 own vigilance will punish him. He has chosen the plan of 
 making the subject invidious, by applying it to a particular 
 case, and by clothing it in words and ideas of the most of- 
 
89 
 fensive kind, which I had never used, and then charging them 
 upon me. I shall not adopt his vocabulary any more than 
 his " Book of Fallacies," or it would supply some veiy hard 
 terms to describe such conduct as this. In short, he has 
 not met the question fairly, and he dares not thus meet it. 
 
 As my opponent is determined not to meet the general 
 question, but to confine wiiat he performs, in the way of ar- 
 gument, to an individual case, I might well be excused if I 
 passed over his forlorn topic, without the least further notice. 
 However I will still indulge him in his partialities, though it 
 shall be in a more cursory manner than before. He still 
 insists, and I must still deny, that the argument respecting 
 Cross-street Chapel originated with me. What had I said 
 respecting that place in particular before Mr. W. took up 
 his pen ? Had I openly charged the Unitarians with having 
 " stolen " their chapels ? — or the congregation at Cross 
 Street with having committed any " felonious act ? " No 
 such thing. These were the flowers of rhetoric with which 
 Mr. W, himself adorned your pages, and upon which he 
 built his argument, as if they had proceeded from me. Let 
 any candid man turn to what I had said respecting Cross 
 Street Chapel in particular, and I will undertake to predict, 
 that he will find nothing more in it than a rebuke to the 
 leading persons connected with that place, for having loudly 
 and publicly applauded a gross outrage upon those religious 
 principles, the fruits and benefits of which they were not 
 unwilling to enjoy. Such a rebuke as this I intended, and 
 they deserved it. 
 
 My opinion was, and still is, that the topic respecting 
 Cross-street Chapel was chosen by Mr. W. as what he calls 
 a ruse de guerre^ calculated to interest the popular feeling, 
 and to draw off the attention from the general subject : and, 
 therefore, I was the less concerned to meet his three questions 
 in a precise and direct manner. As he complains, however, 
 that they have not been answered to his mind, I will give 
 him a short and sufficient reply to them all. They are all 
 entirely frivolous, being founded upon an assumption which 
 is manifestly false and groundless. He assumes that some 
 persons or otlier, its present congregation, or some other 
 
90 
 pdopfe, must haV^aW a6sb/w^e/7ro/)<?rify in a chapel of this 
 d^'^iiriptioh, \vher<?!a^ it nfeither is, nor can be, the peculiar 
 property of any partic'ular persons whomsoever. Such pro- 
 perty is described, in law, as held in mortmain, or by a 
 dead-hand, wT^ich ini'plies' that no persons living have an ab- 
 solute control over it. Every person alike is entitled to 
 make use of it, for the purposes for which it is set apart ; 
 even the property of the trustees in it, is of a very modified 
 character, as the name of their office plainly implies. Law, 
 reason, justice, and the custom in every other case, call upon 
 them to preserve it sacred to the purposes which its founders 
 intended. The question, therefore, is one in vthich trustees, 
 principally, if not entirely, are the persons concerned, and it 
 is, indeed, worthy of their most serious consideration. 
 
 Let Mr. W., therefore, instead of farther amusing himself 
 with these unmeaning questions, turn his attention to an 
 axiom which I gave him, as containing the sum of the vv^hole 
 matter, but which he has found it convenient to overlook. 
 " Trust property is not left to persons to do what they please 
 with it, but for purposes which are to be promoted by it : and 
 when persons cannot, or will not, devote it to those pur- 
 poses, they ought, in common honesty, to relinquish all con- 
 nexion with it." If he can controvert this, or show that the 
 practice of Unitariatis is consistent with it, he will do more 
 to the purpose than he has yet done. 
 
 I proposed to part with the term Orthodoxy on very rea- 
 sonable terms, but I forgot at what a loss Unitarians would 
 be without it, and a few such words. Without them, upon 
 what must their taunts and ridicule be expended ? It was 
 useless to tell youi* Correspondent how little stress I and 
 my connexions laid upon this word ; still he is witty at the 
 hazard of being frivolous, like the Baronet who had the same 
 dish served up every day, hecause he had just one joke to 
 which that dish was the necessary precursor. However, 
 let me indulge him in his laugh, while I give him adefinition 
 of Orthodoxy. The orthodoxy of each chapel fund and en- 
 dowment, is that of its founder, and by this its trustees are 
 to be directed in the purposes to which they devote it, unless 
 its founder has otherwise provided in his deed. 
 
91 
 
 He intimates that the founders of CrBss-street Cha'pef 
 left their successors " free to obey the convictions of their 
 own mind," &c. So does every trust deed in Britain leave 
 every human being " free to obey the convictions of his own 
 mind, and to form his own creed." But, in using his free- 
 dom, he is not to carry about with him, at pleasure, pro- 
 perty which has been devoted to specific purposes : this has 
 been made stationary and is not to be driven about by the 
 winds. But what if the case had been otherwise ? Do not 
 the Unitarians find themselves equally " free " to devote 
 chapels, and other property, to what purposes they please, 
 even though there were most express provisions in the trust 
 deeds to the contrary ? I know, and can prove, that the 
 deeds of some of their chapels do require, that the doctrine 
 of the ministers who occupy them, shall be agreeable to the 
 doctrinal Articles of the Church of England. Cockey Moor 
 Chapel is one of them: and Piatt Chapel, as was stated in 
 the Lancashire list, is, if living memoiy can be depended 
 upon, another, and your correspondent can doubtless explain 
 to the public how the trust of Piatt Chapel is executed. 
 
 But T see, still, that nothing can be done without the pro- 
 duction of the deeds themselves. Your correspondent, Mr: 
 Kay tells us, (quite in opposition to Mr. W.) that Cross 
 Street Chapel is a trust for the purposes of Presbyterianism. 
 Well, so be it. Is, then, the deed of trust thus far ob- 
 served ? No such thing. Your sensible and close-thinking 
 correspondent the " Scotch Presbyterian," (who is utterly 
 unknown to me) has demonstrated that the Unitarians have 
 nothing of Presbyterianism about them. What does Mr. 
 W. say to this ? He gives the worthy North Briton com- 
 pliments in return for his arguments, and nothing more. 
 Such as he has he gives unto him. 
 
 Does, then, the execution of this trust consist in merely 
 preserving the word Presbyterian ? If your Unitarian cor- 
 respondents mean any thing, this is the extravagance which 
 they must intend. But have they been faithful even to this ? 
 By no means. Before this discussion commenced, the 
 
92 
 
 Vfovds Presbi/te7ian and Presbyterianistn were pretty well 
 consigned to the shades. Is this the appellation that they 
 usually give to their people, or their chapels ? I have not 
 happened to see it, for many years, before the present re- 
 vival. At the ever-memorable dinner, for instance, every 
 thing was Unitarian — nothing Presbyterian. The persons 
 assembled were " a very numerous and most respectable 
 body of gentlemen professing Unitarian Christianity." The 
 occasion of the meeting, was " the cause of Unitarian Chris- 
 tianity." The inscription on the plate presented, speaks 
 indeed of a " Chapel, in Cross-street, Manchester," but 
 it is not stated to be Presbyterian ; it is " the cause of 
 Unitarian Christianity" that has been " advocated " in it, 
 and for which the late minister is rewarded. When the 
 present minister at Cross-street Chapel mentions himself 
 and his brethren, in his speech, they are all " Unitarian mi- 
 nisters." And, lastly, with the Rev. George Harris, the 
 great theme of his eloquence is " Unitarian Christianity." 
 An English Presbyterian in that happy company, I trow 
 would have been an outlandish character indeed. — But now 
 the word P7'esbyterian is, at once, the object of your cor- 
 respondent's fondest care, and the rock of his defence. 
 
 I can only wish this gentleman had taken a different 
 course, and instead of grasping at a word, had tried to de- 
 fend the thing really in dispute. If he would have done 
 this, he may rely upon it, he would have performed a very 
 essential service to the denomination to which he belongs. 
 In parting with him for the present, I wish to give him no 
 personal offence, but I must tell him, that he will find airs of 
 importance, to possess but a very moderate share of efficiency 
 in the present contest. And let him not confine himself, in 
 future, to the tactics of a Fabius, for it will be perceived that 
 they proceed from a conscious want of strength ; but let him 
 really grapple with the question at issue. 
 
 I now proceed to the mighty task of subscribing my real 
 but humble name to the opinions and reasonings of Lord 
 Eldon, Lord Camden, Mr. Justice Holroyd, Sir Samuel 
 
93 
 Romilly, Mr, Belsliam, and sundry other Unitarians, cum 
 multis aliis, and remain, Sir, 
 
 Your Obedient Servant, 
 
 James Turner. 
 
 Knuts/ortJ, Dec. 11, 1824. 
 
 To George William Wood, Esq. 
 
 Sir, — Religious controversy is by no means suitable, 
 either to my genius or inclination ; but having read your two 
 letters in the Manchester Gazette, the first sigued " An 
 English Presbyterian," and the latter by your proper name, 
 it appeared to me that you had not taken a just view of the 
 subject under discussion, and that, perhaps, a candid and 
 respectful representation of my opinion, with my reasons for 
 forming it, might have some little influence in correcting 
 your's. I am encouraged to entertain this hojie, because, 
 though I have not the honour of being personally acquainted 
 with you, your public character is such as gives you no mean 
 place in my esteem. I have admired your attachment to 
 the cause of civil liberty, — your veneration of some of the 
 principles of dissent, — your desire for the increase of know- 
 ledge, — your compassion towards the objects of human mi- 
 sery, — and your " integrity of conduct and general blame- 
 lessness of behaviour, in all that concerns your dealings with 
 the world." Could you divest yourself of that degree of 
 prejudice, which an attachment to Unitarianism appears 
 to have on your judgment, and consider the point at issue, 
 between you and the " Orthodox Dissenters," as if it were 
 a subject relating only to the common affairs of life, 1 am 
 persuaded your and their views of the case would not ma- 
 terially differ. Were you appointed an executor of a friend's 
 will, and did you know the mind of the testator, as clearly 
 as may be ascertained, the intention of those who erected 
 and endowed the ancient dissenting places of worship, in 
 this and the neighbouring counties, I have that opinion of 
 your " integrity' of conduct," that you would soon decide, 
 
94 
 
 that they are unjustly and illegally held by those who now 
 occupy them. 
 
 I am, Sir, one of the many who think, that the possession 
 of these places by those who call themselves " Unitarians," 
 or " English Presbyterians," is a " perversion of property, 
 which, if proved to be true against any private individual, 
 would be sufficient to banish him from the society" of truly 
 respectable persons. I have not come to such a conclusion 
 precipitately, nor without sufficient data. Having been, for 
 some time past, engaged in collecting materials for the Life 
 of Oliver Heywood, about to be published with the whole of 
 his Works, now in the press, my attention has necessarily 
 been directed to the history of the early Non-conformists, 
 particularly in this county, and the West Riding of York- 
 shire. And, I imagine, that a plain statement of a few facts 
 will convince any impartial person, that most of these cha- 
 pels were built by " Orthodox Dissenters," for the preach- 
 ing of Orthodox doctrines, and the use of Presbyterian 
 congregations ; but the persons now occupying them are 
 neither Orthodox in sentiment, nor Presbyterian in disci- 
 pline. 
 
 The Unitarians maintain doctrines, some of which are 
 the very reverse of those religious truths believed and be- 
 loved by their forefathers. I need not. Sir, inform you 
 what were the doctrinal sentiments of the eai'ly Non-con- 
 formists in general, and the founders of Cross-street Chapel 
 in particular. You are, no doubt, acquainted with the writ- 
 ings of these venerable men ; otherwise I might refer you 
 to the works of Howe, and Baxter, and Bates, and Charnock, 
 and Heywood, and the Treatises and published Sermons of 
 Newcoine. These holy men received and preached those 
 doctrines generally called orthodox. Mr. S. Kay, in his 
 letter of the 24th ultimo, furnishes the public with still later 
 information respecting the orthodoxy of the co;.gregation at 
 Cross-street Chapel. He states, that—" The pious Mr. 
 Mottershead found his congregation, about ninety years ago, 
 rigid Calvinists." Here then, Sir, we have evidence, such as 
 you will not dispute, that thirty-nine years after the death 
 
95 
 of Henry Newcome, in 1695, tho congregation remained 
 " rigid Calvinists." But the congregation of Cross-street 
 Chapel now, and the congregations of most of the old Non- 
 conformist places in Lancashire, and the neighbouring coun- 
 ties, profess the " doctrines of Unitarian belief," and thjey 
 are sufficiently known to you to be directly opposed, in 
 many particulars, to those of " rigid Calvinists." 
 
 But, Sir, the chief argument in your last letter, to prove 
 " thatthe Unitarians have" not " stolen their Chapels from the 
 Orthodox" is, that they are " English Pre&hylerian Chapels, 
 and were built by the English Presbyterians soon after tho 
 passing of the Act of Toleration, and have continued in the 
 uninterrupted possession of that denomination of Protestant 
 Dissenters from that time to the present day." That some 
 of these cha])e]s were built by " English Presbyterians" I 
 admit ; a few before, and others " after the passing of the 
 Act of Toleration ;" but, Sir, I cannot so readily acknow- 
 ledge, that those who now call themselves " English Pres- 
 byterians," are really the same " denomination of Protestant 
 Dissenters" as those who built these Chapels. I find, that 
 the early English Presbyterians observed theyor/n.s, as well 
 as the name of Presbyterianism. O. Heywood, (a Presby- 
 terian Minister, and an intimate friend and companion in 
 tribulation of Henry Newcome, and who was urgently re- 
 quested to become his successor at Cross-street Cha]iel, 
 but declined chiefly on account of his age,) when describing 
 the government of Presbyterian Churches in Lancashire in 
 his days, says, in a manuscript of his father's life : — " They 
 had their eldership in every congregation, — several congre- 
 gations had their classis ; and these maintained intercourse 
 by a provincial assembly, which, for the county of Lancaster, 
 was usually held at Preston. The elders, who sat with the 
 ministers, carried the votes, enquired into the conversation 
 of their neighbours, and usually sat with the ministers when 
 they examined the communicants, and (though the ministers 
 only examined,) yet the elders approved or disapproved." 
 When a person desired admission to these Presbyterian 
 Churches, he signified his intention to the rainister^^or one 
 
96 
 of the elders ; and if, on examination, his religious know- 
 ledge and practice were approved he was admitted. If 
 any member of these churches was guilty of immoral con- 
 duct, or acted contrary to their prescribed rules, he was sus- 
 pended from communion for a time, or excluded, as the case 
 required. On these principles the early " English Presby- 
 terian" churches were formed, and according to them they 
 were governed, I have been informed, from a very respect- 
 able 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 Arianisrn. Now, Sir, what 
 is there amongst the self-styled " English Presbyterians" 
 of the present day, that bears any resemblance to this form 
 of church government, so as to entitle them to be considered 
 as of the same denomination ? The " Scotch Presbyterian," 
 in his letter, very justly remarks, and you have scarcely 
 noticed his pertinent and candid observations: — "Presbyte- 
 rianism is simply a system of ecclesiastical government. 
 Unitarians may, as well as any others, adopt that system, 
 and then they have a right to the name. But I cannot learn 
 that this is the CHse. As far as my information extends, they 
 have no presbyteries ; — their congregations are not under 
 courts of review of my name ; — nor is one single distin- 
 guishing principle of Presbyterianism carried into operation 
 by them." 
 
 You appear, Sir, to imagine, that because you and others, 
 who now worship in these chapels, built by the old " Eng- 
 lish Presbyterians," are their " lineal descendants," there- 
 fore, you are their genuine representatives." Such an argu- 
 ment may hold good to prove your title to an entailed estate, 
 but not your claim to a religious character. Admit the 
 truth of your principle, and you might at the sa'^e time be 
 proved to be a Presbyterian, an Episcopalian, a Papist, and, 
 perhaps, a Heathen. Some of your ancestors were proba- 
 bly Presbyterians : but before that mode of discipline was 
 known in England, Episcopacy prevailed. Anterior to the 
 Reformation, the inhabitants of our country, and your an- 
 
97 
 
 t 
 
 cestors, then living, knew nothing of Christianity only as 
 connected with the Church of Rome. And before the intro- 
 duction of the Gospel into Britain, your ancestors probably 
 were the worshippers of Woden. But how justly would 
 you ridicule the idea of being denominated an Episcopalian, 
 or a Papist, or a Heathen, because you may have lineally 
 descended from those who were properly entitled to these 
 appellations ! Your answer to such an attempt would be, 
 that you are neither an Episcopalian, nor a Papist, nor an 
 Idolater, because you do not believe the doctrines, or ob- 
 serve the forms peculiar to such modes of worship. 
 
 The " English Presbyterians" of the present day may 
 boast that they have " descended from ancestors who have 
 borne that honorable appellation from the earliest infancy of 
 Protestant Nonconformity," but that they " are the genuine 
 representatives of the English Presbyterians," is not ad- 
 mitted by many, even by the Editors of a critical Journal, 
 whose predilections you must acknowledge are not in favor 
 of Orthodoxy. "It is curious indeed," say they, "to ob- 
 serve, how the subsequent history and fortune of each of 
 these bodies (the Presbyterians and Independents,) have 
 been determined by the characteristic difference of their ori- 
 ginal constitution. The moderate aristocracy of Presbyte- 
 rianism, as long as Presbyterianisrn could be said to have 
 any form of governmeiit, enabled its ministers to follow 
 their own inclination with regard to the manner of conducting 
 public worship and the strain of preaching, while the jealous 
 democracy of Independency kept the minister under the eye 
 and control of his people, and punished the first appearance 
 of deviation, though merely negative, from the standard of 
 Orthodoxy. The Presbyterian ministers became men of 
 polished manners — partook largely of the biblical know- 
 ledge, and tlie elegant and scientific literature of the age, 
 droj)ped in every generalion something of the Orthodoxy of 
 their forefathers^ and while their flocks gradually diminishedy 
 contented themselves u)ilh being the rational instructors of 
 the few rattier fJian tlie idols of the jnulfitude. Of late, they 
 seem to have discovered, that, as a religious community, 
 
 u 
 
98 
 tliey must speedily become extinct by adhering to this plan ; 
 new controversies have sprung up among them, and though, 
 with a new principle of cohesion and repulsion, they may 
 still maintain themselves as a distinct body, the history of 
 Presbyterianism as a sect deducing itself from the time of 
 the great separation from the Establishment, in 1 662, 7nust 
 be considered as very nearly closed.'''' Monthly Review, 
 New Series, Vol. LXXXI. p. 411. Thus, Sir!! from the 
 testimony both of opponents and friends, it appears, that 
 those who now call themselves " English Presbyterians," 
 have departed very far, both in faith and church discipline, 
 from the founders of their chapels. 
 
 Perhaps it may be said, " what if those by whom these 
 chapels were built, should have made no provision what- 
 soever for Presbyterianism, or any other ism — if they should 
 have wisely avoided attempting to impose fetters on the 
 human mind, or to stay the progress of religious truth, 
 but, duly appreciating the liberty wherewith Christ 
 hath made them free, should have been contented to leave 
 those who were to follow them free, to obey the convictions 
 of their own minds — to form their creeds, not by the autho- 
 rity of Church or State, but by the light of their own 
 religious enquiries, and the honest dictates of conscience !" 
 In reply to this 1 would observe, that I happen to be 
 acquainted with the contents of the original deeds of some of 
 the " English Presbyterian Chapels," now occupied by 
 Unitarians, and they do make provision both for Presbyte- 
 rianism and what some would call " rigid Calvinism." 
 They state that these chapels are set apart for the use of 
 " Protestant Dissenters of the Presbyterian persuasion," 
 and require that the ministers should preach according to 
 " the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England," or 
 *' the xAssembly's Catechism." The following is an extract 
 from one of these deeds now before me : — - 
 
 " The said edifice, or building, so erected as aforesaid, 
 to be used and employed for and as a meeting pace and 
 conveniency of an assembly of a particular Church or con- 
 gregation of Protestants dissenting from the Church of 
 
99 
 England for the free exercise of their divine and religious 
 worship therein weekly, on the Christian Sabbaths, or 
 Lord's days, and other days statedly and occasionally. The 
 minister or ministers of the said congregation, to be a Pro- 
 testant able minister or ministers of the gospel of the 
 Presbyterian persuasion^ and to pray and preach God's 
 word, administer the sacraments of the New Testament, 
 and perform all offices and duties belonging to that sacred 
 function there, so as such minister or ministers of the said 
 congregation, who, for the time being, shall officiate there, 
 be sound in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, and such 
 as hold and profess the Doctrinal Articles of the Church 
 of England, required to be subscribed by the Pastor or 
 Pastors, the Teacher or Teachers of such congregation." 
 
 How far the original trust deeds of Cross-street Chapel 
 correspond with the above extract I cannot pretend posi- 
 tively to assert. Mr. Kay, however, admits their agree- 
 ment in one part, namely, that the " distinctive appellation 
 which the trusts of the chapel recognize" is, " the Presby- 
 terian congregation of Cross-street Chapel ;" but he carefully 
 avoids taking notice of the doctrine required to be preached 
 within its walls. As Mr. Neweome and the founders of the 
 place agreed in religious sentiment with their brethren of that 
 day ; — as the deeds of chapelt Btiilt about the same time as 
 Cross-street chapel, by the same denomination, very much 
 resemble each otiier ; — and as " Mr. Mottershead found his 
 congregation, about ninety years ago, rigid Calvinists ;" 
 there is strong presumptive evidence that the original trusts 
 of the place make provision for the preaching of truths ac- 
 cording to the " doctrinal articles of the Church of Eng- 
 land," or " the Assembly's Catechism." If, Sir, on en- 
 quiry, and I am willing to suppose you have not yet ascer- 
 tained this fiict, you find that my assumption is trae in re- 
 ference to Cross-street Chapel, as well as the " English 
 Presbyterian Chapels" in general, you will not " reluctantly 
 quit occupations of a pleasanter character, to notice tfie let- 
 ters under the signature of " Another Orthodox Dissenter/' 
 or of any other, because ho ropre^en^* '* Ihr possessidn 
 
100 
 of Orthodox Chapels and Endowments by Unitarians, >s a 
 " perversion of property to the amount of several thousands 
 annually." 
 
 I most sincerely acknowledge, Sir, the rights of conscience 
 in matters of religion, and rejoice that we live in a land, and 
 at a period when any man may publicly worship God in 
 that manner he considers most scriptural. The descendants 
 of Orthodox Presbyterians are fully entitled to embrace and 
 profess the doctrines they think proper, and to lay aside all 
 form of Church discipline if they choose, and to adopt every 
 lawful means for the propagation of their sentiments ; but 
 surely, as men of " integrity of conduct," and especially 
 assuming the name of Christians, they ought not to retain 
 places and endowments that were intended by the pious 
 dead for very different purposes. There is a chapel in York- 
 shire that was built, some time ago, at the expense of the 
 inhabitants of the township. Lately the majority of the 
 hearers wished to have an Independent Minister, but the 
 minority referring to the trust-deed, found that it required 
 the Church prayers should be read there. This was consi- 
 dered decisive by the majority, who withdrew, and at the 
 expence of 1600/. erected another chapel, in which the 
 worship of God is conducted according to the custom of 
 the Independents. If Unitarians, and the present " English 
 Presbyterians," had acted on this honest principle, the pre- 
 sent controversy would not have existed. 
 
 The " English Presbyterians," Sir, of this day, may 
 consider themselves more enlightened, and greater lovers of 
 liberty than their forefathers, and treat with contempt the 
 religious system they loved ; but the late Dr. Taylor, of 
 Norwich, who differed from them in doctrinal sentiments, 
 speaks of them in strong terms of commendation. When 
 addressing the Dissenters in Lancae hire on a particular oc- 
 casion, he says : " The ministers ejected in the year 1662, 
 were men prepared to lose all and to suffer martyrdom 
 rather than desert the cause of Civil and Religious Liberty. 
 They were excellent men, because excellent, instant, and 
 fervent in prayer. Those who knew them not might despise 
 
101 
 them, but your forefathers, wiser and less prejudiced, es- 
 teemed them highly in love for their work's sake. You 
 were once happy in your Heywoods, your Neiocomes, your 
 Jollies, &c. &c. who left all to follow Christ. But Provi- 
 dence 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. 
 -How many were converted, and built up in godliness and 
 sobriety, by their prayers, pains, doctrines, and conversa- 
 tions ! Let my soul fur ever be with the souls of these 
 men,"* 
 
 Permit me, Sir, to conclude this letter with the following 
 quotation fiom the venerable John Howe, who, after having 
 fully described the character of Mr. Newcome, concludes 
 thus : — *' He was a burning and a shining light ! O, Man- 
 chester, Manchester ! that ancient famed seat of religion and 
 profession, may Capernaum's doom never be thine ! May 
 thy HeyrickjHollingsworth, Newcome, and thy neighbours, 
 Angier and Harrison, and divers more, never be witnesses 
 against thee !'* 
 
 I am, Sir, your's very respectfully, 
 
 Richard Slate. 
 
 stand, near Manchester, Dec. 3rd., 1824. 
 
 To (he Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 Sir, — The controversy which is now agitated at Man- 
 chester between the Orthodox and the Socinians, or as they 
 choose to call themselves, the Unitarians,! has attracted 
 much notice, and excited general interest. The Orthodox 
 question the right of the Socinians to the old Dissenting 
 
 • Dr. Taylor's Scripture Account of Pniyer. 
 
 t As the name of Presbyterian hasbeenagainrevivedbysonieof this sect as their 
 distinctive appellatioii, it may be worth while to show how far one oftheir own 
 Ministers considers it appropriate. In a sermon preached at the opening of the 
 Renshaw-street chapel, iu Liverpool, by Mr. Grundy, the late minister of " The 
 Presbyterian Congnegation in Cross-street," there is the following passage :--• 
 " Arian and Sociniau are the terms generally assigned to us : and these, til llately, 
 were frequently considered as synoiiimous with Deistor Infidel. The^«v» Pres- 
 byterian is HOW common I 1/ used ; but, I confess, some difficulty appears t« me to 
 
102 
 Chapels, because, it is well known, that the foundere of 
 those places were hostile to their creed, and, it is presumed, 
 that the trust deeds sanction very different sentiments. In 
 reply, these gentlemen do not produce their trust-deeds, 
 and they are very cautious and backward to give any infor- 
 mation about them. Professing to be the friends of free 
 inquiry, they take the liberty of rejecting any opinions, 
 though they may be recorded in the old parchments, and of 
 receiving any other opinions, though they might be held in 
 detestation by their pious ancestors ; and, at the same time, 
 they think it right to hold the chapels which those writings 
 were intended to secure, and to enjoy the endowments which 
 those ancestors bequeathed. They say, that whatever might 
 be the original constitution of a place of worship, it must be 
 governed by the will of the majority ; and if there are any 
 who do not approve of that government they must submit or 
 secede ; and this, they tell us, is the true principle of Pro- 
 testant dissent. If so, it is natural to ask — what is the au- 
 thority or use of a trust-deed ? what regard is to be paid to 
 the will of a testator ? and what security is there for the right 
 occupation of trust property, and the right application of tes- 
 tamentary benefactions ? And it is incumbent on our oppo- 
 nents to meet these questions more directly, and to answer 
 them more satisfactorily, than they have yet done. But it 
 is not necessary to expose the illegality and injustice of this 
 principle, as that is already accomplished very successfully 
 by Mr. Hadfield. I wish, rather, to draw the attention of 
 your readers to the following statement of facts. 
 
 At Stainland, a populous village in the parish of Halifax, 
 a chapel was built in 17^4, by the inhabitants, at their own 
 
 attend the use of it : because, it has either no definite meaning as to opinions or 
 discipline, or if if have any meaning, it signifies something which we are wot. 
 The phrase Rational Christian is, in one respect, objectionable. It is deemed in- 
 vidious and savouring of pride. Though it ought to be understood, that, when the 
 term is used, it does not mean rational as opposed to irrational ; it denotes per- 
 sons who make reason their guide in religious principles and doctrines, in oppo- 
 sition to those who consider religion as an afl'air q{ feeling . Since we must have 
 some discriminating appellation, would that we could unite in the use of one 
 term, so defined as to include us all, the term Unitarian." 
 
103 
 expence, and for their own accommodation^ and it was un- 
 connected with any religious denomination. In 1813, part 
 of the congregation wanted an Independent minister to be 
 chosen, and that part were the majority of the seat- 
 holders. Bat the minority appealed to the trust-deed, which 
 requires that the prayers of the Church of England shall be 
 read. That appeal settled the question, Tlie majority 
 peaceably, and at once, gave up to the minority the chapel, 
 the burying-ground, and all appurtenances ; and incurred 
 the expences of £1700 in building a new chapel. 
 
 This seems a case in point. If the Socinians had been in 
 these circumstances, we may infer, from their own represen- 
 tation, that they would have slightetl the authority of the 
 trust-deed, and claimed the liberty of avowing contrary sen- 
 timents. They would also have said to the opposite party, 
 " Your appeal to the trust-deed avails nothing ; we have the 
 greater number of votes, and therefore we have a right to 
 govern, but if you are discontented you may withdraw." The 
 Independents at Stainland, like all Dissenters, exercised 
 the right of private judgment, and claimed the liberty of 
 thinking for themselves, but they also felt the obligation of 
 leaving a place which did not belong to them. They had no 
 idea that a lineal descent from the founders, or that the votes of 
 a majority could subvert the fundamental constitution of a 
 Chapel, or that they could give trust property to those for 
 whom it was never intended ; and they would have stared 
 with astonishment at any man who should have attempted 
 to justify such nefarious conduct by calling it a dissenting 
 principle. 
 
 From childhood I have been zealously attached to dissent- 
 ing principles, but, I confess. Sir, that 1 am not much dis- 
 posed to learn them from Socinians ; for, on looking at their 
 services to the dissenting interest, the injuries they have done 
 are much more obvious than the benefits. I am not much 
 disposed to learn dissenting principles from those who have 
 dispersed many a flourishing congregation, and have re- 
 duced many a chapel, which was originally built with great 
 dilliculty, and at a heavy expence, to u state of desertion 
 
104 
 and desolation. Let these gentlemen prove what good they 
 have done to the common cause before they instruct us in 
 the characteristic principles of Nonconformity. In my ap- 
 prehension, the best teachers of dissenting principles are the 
 men vs^ho have demonstrated their attachment to the dissent- 
 ing interest, not merely by speeches and professions, but by 
 arduous deeds and costly sacrifices ; who fought the battles 
 of freedom, and purchased our privileges at the price of 
 their blood ; who built our chapels, and bequeathed our en- 
 dowments. They were the men who reduced themselves 
 to poverty, and exposed themselves to reproach, to fines, 
 and to imprisonment, for adhering to the gospel of Christ, 
 and to the rights of Christians. They were honoured by 
 God with extensive usefulness to mankind, and their talents 
 and virtues would have shed a lustre on any community. 
 To them all modern Dissenters are under infinite obliga- 
 tions ; and we should regard them with the reverence and 
 gratitude which are due to the ornaments of human nature, 
 and the benefactors of society. 
 
 Happy should we be, were it possible for them to decide 
 the present controversy. In their estimation the intrusion 
 of Socinian preachers into their pulpits, the nullifying of 
 trust-deeds, and the perversion of endowments, would be 
 utterly irreconcilable with every dictate of honour, and 
 every principle of justice. Indeed, could they return from 
 the world of spirits, and visit their former residences, it is 
 impossible to conceive of any thing more calculated to affect 
 their souls with grief and horror than to observe the chilling, 
 withering, ruinous influence of Socinianism on those places 
 for whose establishment and prosperity they prayed and 
 preached, they studied and acted, they exerted their powers 
 and devoted their lives. 
 
 According to the lists of chapels which you have published, 
 it appears that they are more numerous in Lancashire than 
 in Yorkshire, though the latter is the larger county, abounds 
 with Dissenters, and contains more places of worship. The 
 difference is remarkable, and may be accounted for. At 
 the time when Dr. Priestley and his friends began to avow 
 
105 
 and propagate their sentiments, the Independent Academy 
 was established at Heckmondwike. Of the origin and the 
 principle of that institution, this account is given in the His- 
 tory of Dissenters, vol. 4. p. 276 : — " It arose from the 
 pious zeal of a few ministers and public spirited Christians 
 in London, who consulted together on the necessity and the 
 means of dispelling the cloud of Socinian darkness, then 
 spreading over the Northern counties of England. They 
 formed themselves into a society for educating young men 
 for the work of the Ministry in the West Riding of York- 
 shire, and in May, 1756, resolved to support an Academy 
 in those parts, and chose James Scott, Minister of Heck- 
 mondwike, to . superintend the studies of the young men. 
 Justly concluding, that unregenerate Ministers had been 
 the cause of the evil they wished to counteract, they deter- 
 mined to admit no one into their Seminary who did not give 
 a satisfactory account of his experience of the vital change, 
 as well as a declaration of evangelical sentiments." From 
 the commencement of the institution at Heckmondwike, to 
 the present time, the Orthodox Dissenters, in Yorkshire, 
 have never been without an Academy, and now they have 
 two, one at Idle, and another at Rotherham ; and there is 
 also a flourishing Baptist Academy, at Bradford. By the 
 zeal and activity of the students and young ministers, who 
 have been educated in these seminaries, besides the formation 
 of many new interests, there have been several old dis- 
 senting congregations in the county recovered back to their 
 original principles, and for want of one in Lancashire they 
 have sunk into their present state. 
 
 It is gratifying to observe, that this important deficiency 
 is now supplied by the institution at Blackburn. If the 
 friends of orthodoxy in Manchester, and the places adjacent, 
 understand their own interest, and wish to keep up their 
 own cause, they will support that seminary with vigour ; 
 and it must be the wish of every subscriber, that the young 
 ministers who are educated there, may imbibe the spirit, 
 and imitate the example of the Henrys and Heywoods, the 
 Newcomes and Jollies of former times— that they may ad 
 
106 
 here to the Gospel of Christ with the same firmness, adorn 
 it with the same excellence, and propagate it with the same 
 zeal. — I am, Your's, &c. 
 
 John Cockin. 
 
 Holmfirth, Dec. 9, 1824. 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 
 Sir ; — Although my objections to newspaper discussions, 
 which have reference to differences of opinion in religion, 
 continue in full force, if they are not considerably augmented 
 since my former letter, I must again rely upon the patience 
 and candour of your readers for a few observations to which 
 Mr. George Hadlield's letter, in your paper of Saturday last, 
 has given rise. 
 
 No one can deprecate more sincerely than myself any 
 censures or reflections on the religious opinions of others ; 
 more especially by those who profess to advocate and assert 
 for themselves the rights of private judgment. You will, 
 therefore, Sir, permit me to express my disapprobation of 
 the intemperate and uncharitable language said to be used 
 at a late dinner, and which would seem to have been the 
 cause of the present discussion. This sentiment of disap- 
 probation I hold in common with the great majority of the 
 religious community with whom I am associated ; and I am 
 sure that your candid and respectable Correspondent, Mr. 
 Birt, will gladly avail himself of the opportunity to entertain 
 a more favourable impression of that body of Dissenters, 
 who, he imagines, have adopted, in an unqualified manner, 
 sentiments and language which he justly condemns. 
 
 My only object in obtruding myself upon your readers 
 was to vindicate the religious society with which I am con- 
 nected, from the serious charge of a wrongful appropriation 
 of property ; to which if we had submitted in silence, it 
 might have been supposed that the charge was well grounded, 
 and that we were afraid to meet it. 
 
 Permit me now. Sir, to advert to Mr. Hadfield's letter, a 
 particular examination of wliich I must decline. How far 
 
107 
 
 Mr, Hadfield, who is a stranger to our Society, one who 
 does not profess to assert any claims, either on his own be- 
 half, or that of any other individual in particular, to the 
 " ample endowment which it has been said, we improperly 
 possess, has a right to put the interrogatories which his letter 
 contains, after the distinct disavowal which I have already 
 given to those enquiries, when propounded by your anony- 
 mous Correspondent, on a former occasion, I cheerfully 
 leave to the determination of a discerning public. 
 
 It will, I apprehend, be quite sufficient for me to repeat 
 that Cross-street Chapel has no endowment or property of 
 Orthodox creation, and that neither is the Chapel itself, nor 
 are any funds connected with it, directly or indirectly, fet- 
 tered by any restrictions which confine their appropriation 
 to the use of the advocates of any particular articles of 
 Christian faith or doctrine ; and that such Chapel and funds 
 are properly applicable in the most extensive legal seuoe, to 
 the Presbyterian Dissenters, who now worship within the 
 chapel walls, whatever may be their sentiments, generally 
 or individually on those points of Christian faithy which, 
 sometimes, it is to be feared, to the neglect of Christian 
 duties, engage so much of the attention of mere theological 
 disputants. 
 
 With this declaration I take leave of your readers, as I 
 must decline being any longer a party in the present con- 
 troversy, assuring Mr. Hadfield, however, and your corres- 
 pondent " Another Orthodox Dissenter," that they must 
 bring against us a more powerful train of arguments and 
 facts, than they are possessed of, before they can wrest from 
 us an edifice, which has descended to us from our fore- 
 fathers, and to which no one has ever disputed our title, 
 before their interference ; an interference, I will take leave 
 to say, as unjustifiable, as it was uncalled for. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 Saaiuel Kay. 
 
 Dec. 18, 1824. 
 
108 
 
 To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette. 
 
 Sir; — The unsound character of Socinianism was but 
 imperfectly known to many of your readers until the late 
 enquiry and exposure ; and I frankly acknowledge that, 
 previously to my reading the details which have been re- 
 cently submitted to the public, this was very much the case 
 with myself. 
 
 It is now, however, placed beyond contradiction, that the^ 
 
 * The following is an extract from the Sermon of the Rev. George Harris, 
 preached at Burj-, June )9th, 1823, viz. " I would seriously put it to the 
 understanding of every individual in this assembly, is it such conduct or the 
 actions of those I have previously glanced at, which has caused the desertion 
 of many of otir chapels, and has occasioned them to fall into the hands of 
 those whom ive believe to be the inculcafors of most pernicious dogmas ? 
 I am aware that I am touching a very delicate subject. But what I have al- 
 luded to is an evil under the sun, and how is this evil to be removed and era- 
 dicated unless the causes of its existence be exposed ? Concealment here 
 would be useless, and the prophesying of smooth things pernicious in the ex- 
 treme. Such is not the way for us to excel. Let the sources of evil be ascer- 
 tained, and then only can the remedy be applied. I ask then again, is it the 
 bold declaration of unpopular truth, or is it the concealment of that truth 
 which has deprived us of our places of imrship? Has any person who in his 
 day and generation boldly preached to his people the word of life, at his' de- 
 cease been succeeded by a Calvinistic divine 9 Is it in a pulpit ?n the metro- 
 polis from which the pure and unadulterated truths of Christianity have been 
 openly and zealously promulgated, that an Orthodox Candidate is now sup- 
 plying ? No ; these deeply to be lamented circumstances have not followed 
 fearless Unitarian preaching, they have not been the eonscquence of popular 
 plans and measures. But they are the etfects of a conduct the direct reverse. 
 Many of you must be aware of this. Let the causes of these evils be accu- 
 rately ascertained and stated, and may the instances ivhich are within our 
 knowiedge be to us as beacons ivarning us against similar shipwreck of the 
 societies over which we have been called to preside, or as members of which 
 we are enrolled." The chapels, over the loss of which the preacher is here 
 lamenting, and most of those which he wishes the Unitarians to retain, 
 were built by Calvinists for Calvinistic doctrines ! ! ! He tells us In 
 the preface, that at the Annual Meeting held in the chapel at Burj-, the Rev. 
 William AUard in the chair ; it was moved by the Rev. John Yates, and se- 
 conded by the Rev. J. G. Robberds, \hat the tnost cm'dia I ("AanA-* of the Meeting 
 should be given to the Rev. George Harris for his very interesting arid impres- 
 .sive discourse ; and after dinner at " The Hare and Hounds," on the motion 
 of the Rev. Robert Cree, seconded by the Rev. Henrj- Clarke, he icas unani- 
 mously rcijuesfed to publish it. 
 
109 
 majority of those pretended advocates of Christian morality 
 and Christian doctrine, occupy chapels, and subsist upon 
 endowments, designed for the support and propagation of 
 principles directly opposed to those which they maintain ; 
 and further, it appears that much the greater number of 
 their chapels, and of the endowments on those chapels, as 
 well as the monies they obtain from Lady Hewley's estates, 
 are enjoyed by them in direct contravention not only of the 
 intentions of tlieir founders, but also of the law of the land, 
 and of every moral and religious principle. 
 
 It is entertaining to hear the Unitarians talk of Presbyte- 
 rianism, as if none but Presbyterian congregations were 
 admitted into their communion. Was Mr. Jollie, of Shef- 
 field, a Presbyterian ? Was the chapel at Rawtonstale ever 
 Presbyterian ? Was enquiry ever made as to any denomi- 
 nation to whom a well-endowed chapel belonged previous to 
 its admission amongst their body ? 
 
 The desolating influence of the professors of these senti- 
 ments upon once flourishing dissenting churches and congre- 
 gations, but which have been reduced by them to wildernesses 
 and deserts, is, indeed, most afflicting ; for whether the en- 
 dowments upon these chapels, thus obtained by the disciples 
 of Socinus, were raised by persons of their own faith, or by 
 others of the most opposite sentiments, has never been 
 made the subject of inquiry. Chapels so endowed, when 
 once obtained, they have always pertinaciously held, while 
 the endowments, with the aid of Lady Hewley's estates, 
 have frequently made up a salary which has sufficed to keep 
 the minister in, and the people out ; but where such endow- 
 ments happily did not exist, they deemed the chapels in 
 some cases which I could mention, not worth retaining, 
 and have abandoned them to persons of the same senti- 
 ments with the founders of such chapels, and thus the an- 
 cient splendour of these places, consisting in a numerous 
 congregation, and in religious improvement, has been hap- 
 pily restored. " Unitarianism" says an excellent Corres- 
 pondent, who has, by sad experience, known and felt its 
 baneful influence, " is a sj/sfem thai cannot support itsc/f. 
 
110 
 
 This makes it so lamentable that the property of pious 
 Christians should be made the means of upholding and dif- 
 fusing those errors which are destructive as far as their in- 
 tluence extends, and which, but for that property, would be 
 confined within a very small circle."* 
 
 An example of Unitarian usefulness in a place which was 
 once in most flourishing circumstances, I will give, in the 
 words of its late minister, himself an Unitarian. " The 
 funds belonging to this place, which have arisen out of the 
 donations, of the wealthy members of the Society from time 
 to time for the use of the minister, and the support of the 
 poor, are very considerable, and are managed by trustees 
 chosen in succession out of the congregation. They have 
 eight alms-houses, which are liberally endowed, and in which 
 poor widows reside ; funds for the education of young men 
 for the ministry, for the instruction of the children of the 
 poor, and other very important charities. The cojigrega- 
 twn, though respectable, is not large, the opinions of the 
 Unitarians being by no means popular in this part of the 
 kingdom^ 
 
 Will the reader believe that this refers to the chapel where 
 Matthew Henry once dispensed the word of life to crowds, 
 who hung upon his lips, from which flowed religious know- 
 ledge and instruction to refresh and gladden the Church — 
 that from this place (Chester,) " sounded out the word of 
 the Lord, and in every place their faith to Godward was 
 spread abroad." 
 
 And what has it now become under the enlightening sys- 
 tem of Unitarianism ? The place is beautiful and lovely even 
 in its ruins and ashes ! The impress of Matthew Henry's 
 image, in faint but fairest lines, is still upon it, although its 
 glory is gone. It still has its alms-houses for poor widows — 
 its funds for the instruction of young men for the ministry, 
 
 • Mr. Harris in his Sermon alreadj' referred to, states that the Lancashire 
 Unitarians, who are probably near a fourth of the entire sect in England, Scot- 
 land, and Wales, raise for religious purposes only about 3500/., exclusive of 
 Endowments ! ! ! He, therefore, candidly declares to his hearers, '♦ You will 
 perceive that we are most lamciitabh/ defirient." 
 
ni 
 
 and also for the instruction of the children of the poor, and 
 other important charities, intended (as Dr. Colton said of 
 Lady Hewley's liberality, in the funeral sermon which he 
 preached on the occasion of her death,) " to perpetuate and 
 perfume the names of their founders in the church — ^to con- 
 tinue their serviceableness upon earth — and to excite others 
 to an imitation of them." But there Unitarianism, like 
 the mildew, has seized upon the whole, and spoiled alike 
 the ancient renown and present usefulness. Is every Unita- 
 rian bosom so steeled against the best interests of humanity 
 as to refuse its pity at the desolations which his own prin- 
 ciples have inflicted upon this once interesting but now 
 fallen and forsaken spot ? The pathetic language of the 
 captive Jews admirably conveys the sentiments of Christian 
 sympathy on this afflicting subject, — " We wept loheti we re- 
 membered Zion. We hung our /larps upon the willows. 
 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her 
 cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave 
 to the roof of my mouth." 
 
 The truth and justice of these complaints are most strik- 
 ingly evinced upon a much larger scale in the present cir- 
 cumstances of that noble district — the county of York. 
 There the Unitarians })Ossess every possible anvantage. — 
 There is their Academy. — There once laboured Dr. 
 Priestley. — There they have obtained possession of the 
 Estates of Lady Kewley, designed for purposes most op- 
 posite to those to which the " lofty principles" of the pre- 
 sent Trustees choose, in their discretion, (a discretion un- 
 sanctioned by the law) to appropriate those Estates. With 
 all these advantages, what has Socinianism there done? 
 What un.'.dtivated ground has it occupied and improved ? 
 What has it done for the instruction of the people at large, 
 in any way commensurate with these immense advantages ? 
 
 Surely the impotency of error was never so strikingly 
 displayed ! Whilst every denomination of Orthodox Chris- 
 tians has enlarged its boundaries and increased its influence 
 at home, and in all parts of the globe, by means of Missions, 
 these men have done — what ? Ever since that great county, 
 
112 
 now containing above a million of souls " was yet fresh 
 from the hands of the Creator," they have built the two little 
 chapels at Thorne and Stainforth, united under owe minister! 
 This (excluding the two old chapels purchased by the Uni- 
 tarian Baptists, who are a distinct sect) is all they have 
 originated ! The remaining sixteen chapels which they pos- 
 sess in tliat county and where they disseminate their princi- 
 ples, they occupy in direct opposition to the sentiments of 
 the founders of those chapels, and against law, justice, and 
 equity, upon which the sacred rights of property are founded. 
 
 It is obvious, then, that the professors of Socinian doc- 
 trines in their dealings with trust property, are not, and dare 
 not, be faithful to the trusts and intentions of the founders. 
 The moment they resolve upon making a just restitution of 
 the property which they have unrighteously obtained, and 
 appropriate it to its legitimate purposes, that very moment 
 they decree their own extinction as a sect. 
 
 No man who venerates the rights of conscience, and the 
 principles of religious liberty, can be indifferent to the 
 statement of my friend Mr. Cockin. — The want of success 
 to Unitarian efforts he attributes — not to the strength of 
 prejudice — not to the spirit of persecution — not to the secu- 
 lar power — nothing of this sort. He accounts for it all, by 
 the establishment of dissenting academies — by moral means 
 and the force of truth alone. He would I will venture to 
 assert, be as indignant at the employment of other means 
 as he has shewn himself to be against those attempts 
 which have been made to call the violation of Trust Deeds 
 by the name of " Dissenting principles." 
 
 In this county, of an almost equal population with York- 
 shire, the same advantages have not been enjoyed, and 
 consequently in upwards of thirty pulpits, surreptitiously 
 obtained and unjustly and illegally held, and from which 
 Orthodox principles were at one time faithfully promulgated 
 to large congregations, Unitarian morality is now taught 
 and inculcated ; and these are now become what Mr. Harris 
 justly describes as " the half-way houses to infidelity." If a 
 correct account of most of these cha])els could be obtained, 
 
113 
 a sad sw'ne of ruinous desolation would be developed, of 
 which the public is little aware, and which would clearly 
 shew that the endowments provided by Orthodox Christians 
 of past ages, instead of proving advantageous to the cause 
 for which they made these costly sacrifices, have, by falling 
 into the present hands, proved to be curses instead of bless- 
 ings. There is much truth in the remark of Mr. Harris, 
 who, notwithstanding all that has been said, has far more 
 reason to complain of his friends than of his opponents. " I 
 have no doubt," says he, " that in building and endowing 
 chapels they (the Orthodox of former days) were actuated 
 by upright, and pious, and benevolent motives. But I may 
 be allowed to say, that I am sorry they did endow them, 
 because I look upon endowments as prejudicial to the cause 
 of dissent, to tend to indifference and lukewarmness, and to 
 produce endless vexation." Unhappily the cause of dissent 
 has not been the only sufferer by the present misappropria- 
 tion of these chapels and endowments, though that has been 
 deeply dishonoured by it, but the cause of vital religion, 
 and the best interests of men, have suffered in an infinitely 
 greater degree. 
 
 Difficult indeed has been the undertaking of the Gentle- 
 men who have appeared as the advocates of these proceed- 
 ings. Mr. Turner informed them " their unmitigated task, 
 according to their own statement, was, to prove that the 
 property of truth belonged to error." I was confident 
 the two gentlemen who have since appeared before the 
 public, would not long advocate such a cause as this, and 
 the result has shewn I was not mistaken. One of those 
 Gentlemen, I am informed from several sources, has else- 
 where recorded his sentiments against the principle I now 
 complain of: and the other, (Mr. Kay) with his usual can- 
 dour and manliness, has admitted " thai /w 7niis( decline a 
 particular examination of my former letter^"" and, also, ^^ that 
 he tnust decline being any longer a party to the present con- 
 troversy''' In plain English ho acknowledges that he can 
 neither maintain the accuracy of his former opinions, nor 
 dispute the correctness of mine. Indeed the subdued tone 
 
 I 
 
114 
 
 ■which pei-vades the whole of his last Gommunication must 
 be obvious to every reader. In liis former address Mr. Kay, 
 with all the glee of anticipated victory, invites and even 
 challenges us to institute legal proceedings : — " Our con- 
 gregation," says he " is ready to meet them without fear :" 
 but now, so shaken is his confidence either in his clients or 
 his cause, that he cannot sufficiently deprecate any attempt 
 on our part to disturb their possession and almost implores 
 us to forbear. 
 
 There is, therefore, very little in Mr. Kay's letter which 
 it is material to answer. He now says, " I apprehend it 
 will be quite sufficient for me to repeat that Cross-street 
 Chapel has no endowment or property of Orthodox creation^ 
 His former letter stated, that " Cross-street Chapel has no 
 endowment at all coeval with its foundation, nor has it any 
 auxiliary funds ^ hut such as owe their origin to some of the 
 'present generation.^'' 
 
 I am perfectly sure that Mr. Kay would not intentionally 
 mislead, but his letters have evidently been got up in haste, 
 and abound with errors, and therefore we cannot so im- 
 plicitly rely on his accuracy as he seems to expect. I still 
 think he is mistaken in reference to the particular endow- 
 ment before referred to, and, in addition to this, Mr. As- 
 ton, in his picture of Manchester, p. 158. says, the interest 
 of the following sums, some of them, at least, given in Or- 
 thodox times, is distributed to the poor who frequent the 
 Chapel at Cross-street: namely, by Lady Mosley, in 169/, 
 50/; by Nathaniel Gaskell, in 1716, 50/; by various bene- 
 factors, in 1739, 100/,; by Thomas Butter worth, in 1/42, 
 100/.; by Daniel Bayley, in 1761, 50/.; and by Josiah 
 Birch, I78I, 50/. Mr. Aston has not told us whether the. 
 interest of the two sums of 500/. and 100/. given by Ann 
 Butterworth, in 1735, and Daniel Bayley, in 1762, goes 
 to the poor of Cross-street Chapel, but Mr. Kay will pro- 
 l^ably inform us how it is appropriated : and some of these 
 dates, at least, are " Orthodox." I apprehend, however, 
 that Mr. Kay will, at once admit, that Lady Mosley was 
 orthodox, in the year 1697, two years after the death of 
 
115 
 
 Mr. Newcome, and during the ministry of *Mr. Chorltoii, 
 and that these benevolent persons, who thus provided for 
 the poor of Cross-street congregation, are no longer num- 
 bered amongst " the present generation.'''' ' 
 
 Mr. Kay's anxiety to clear the Cross-street Chapel of the 
 supposed charge of applying " Orthodox" endowments to 
 " Socinian" purposes, does him great honour and deserves 
 better success : and whenever the question is, as I trust it 
 soon will be, agitated by the Trustees, for whom he is So- 
 licitor, whether the Chapel itself shall be given up to the 
 purposes for which it was originally bought and paid for 
 by Mr, Newcome and his friends, I trust he will do full 
 justice to so honourable a principle. 
 
 He further says, that " the chapel is not^ directly or indi- 
 rectly, fettered by any restrictions which confine its aj^pro- 
 priation to the use of the advocates of any particular Articles 
 of Christian faith or doctrine, and such chapel is properly 
 aj^plicable, in the most extended legal sense, to the Presbyte- 
 rian Dissenters ivho now ivorship within the chapel walls, 
 whcdever (mark reader!) 7nay be their sentiments generally 
 or individually on points of Christian faith! !" 
 
 Was there ever such another deed drawn as this is said 
 to be ? If this be a correct statement, then the property 
 may be demanded by the Roman Catholics or by any other 
 sect, who are quite as much Presbyterians as the present 
 congregation ; there may be a contest every Sabbath for the 
 possession of the Pulpit and Pews by any sect or party 
 whatever : but those opinions of Mr. Kay (for they are only 
 his opinions, and as such I treat them) are most egregiously 
 unfounded. In my opinion, there is not a chapel thus cir- 
 cumstanced in the kingdom. 
 
 The single question in dispute is this : Do the Trustees of 
 Cross-street Chapel act legally in appropriating to the main- 
 tenance of Sociniaii doctrines and the use of a congregation 
 which .totally disclaims the Presbyterian form of Church 
 
 * Mr. Choilton dedicated his funeral Sermon for Mr. Ncwvonu* to this ex- 
 relleiit Lmlv, of wliom he speaks in very hi,i;;h terms. 
 
116 
 Government, that propert}^ which in or about the year 1693 
 was settled in Trust for the sole benefit of a Presbyterian 
 congregation and for the preaching qf the Orthodox faith 
 exclusively ? — Now while I admit that the present congre- 
 gation, or any other, may avail themselves of this Chapel 
 by introducing the Presbyterian discipline, and an Orthodox 
 ministry, I, at the same time, utterly deny, upon Mr. Kay's 
 own statement, that the Trustees have any right to per- 
 mit Unitarian doctrines to be preached in that Chapel, or 
 that the present congregation is Presbyterian. 
 
 Mr. Kay, however, with singular inconsistency, persists in 
 calling this congregation " Presbyterian ;" but, I appre- 
 hend, that the late minister of Cross-street Chapel, Mr. 
 Grundy, is as good a judge of this matter as Mr. Kay ; 
 and what says he ? " The term Presbyterian is now used 
 {i. e. by his fellow Unitarians) but I confess some difficulty 
 appears to me to attend the use of it, because it has either 
 no definite meaning as to opinions or discipline, or if it have 
 any meaning, it signifies something W^HICH we are not." 
 Thus, Mr. Kay's own minister, and religious teacher, and 
 the minister and teacher of the congregation, which, in spite 
 of itself, he still Insists is " Presbyterian," tells him he is 
 wrong ; and, upon this authority alone, it is plain, the 
 Trustees are now misapplying the trust property. 
 
 How Mr. Grundy could consistently preach Socinian doc- 
 trines in a Chapel which had been erected for Orthodox 
 sentiments, and Presbyterian discipline, it is no business 
 of mine to explain, nor, if it were, could I perform the task 
 to my own satisfaction, or, to the conviction of others ; but 
 I think he would have shown better taste, and a sounder 
 judgment, if he had withheld his boast, at the late Unitarian 
 Dinner, of the liberality of the Trustees of Cross-street 
 Chapel, for the services of himself and his colleague, in a 
 Chapel which was built by the friends of Mr. Newcome, 
 lor the promulgation of their own principles, to which his are 
 confessedly and diametrically opposed. 
 
 The reason why Mr. Kay perseveres in the use of the 
 torm " Presbyterian" is quite obvious, although the new 
 
117 
 Meeting House in Salford is called " i'lnfarian ,•" the 
 Chapel in Mos ley-street (Mr. Taylor's) is called " U)ii- 
 tarian ;" the sentiments of the minister of Cross-street 
 Chapel, we are told, are not Presbyterian, either in opinion 
 or discipline, but " Unitarian ;" — still he calls the congre- 
 gation " Presbyterian." It is clear he has been rambling 
 amongst the " venerable parchments," and finds that " this 
 is the only distinctive appellation which the trusts of the 
 Chapel recognise," as they were drawn up by Mr. New- 
 come and his friends al)out the year 1693, and, therefore, he 
 adheres to the name though the principles of that denomi- 
 nation and the intentions of the founders of the Chapel are 
 now totally disregarded. 
 
 Mr. Kay has chosen to rely upon the act of Toleration 
 passed in the year 1688, in support of the present Socinian 
 ministry, and thereby he has admitted, as the fact is, that 
 there was no other authority under which this Chapel built 
 in 1693 could be legally settled in trust. This act, how- 
 ever, expressly provides, as I have formerly stated, that no 
 *' ease, benefit or advantage should be thereby given to any 
 person that should dany^ in his preac/iing or writing, the 
 doctrine of the blessed Trinity.^'' Now, the present minister 
 denies that doctrine, and, I ask, by what right the Trus- 
 tees permit him to use that Pulpit, and occupy that Chapel, 
 and possess the emoluments thereof under a Deed, dated in 
 or about the year 1693, being only five years after this act 
 passed, and under the authority of which alone the Chapel 
 could be legally settled in trust at all ? 
 
 The inevitable inference is, that the Chapel is legally 
 settled for the purpose of promoting Orthodox doctrines, as 
 Mr. Newcome and his friends, unquestionably intended it 
 should be. Of that intention there is, indeed, abundant evi- 
 dence and none more satisfactory than that of Mr. Kay 
 himself, the Solicitor of this Chapel, and a friend of the doc- 
 trines now preached there, and therefore all admissions by 
 him are invaluable. He has candidly admitted that for tlie 
 space of forty years after its foundation, and long after that, 
 the congregation were " rigid Calvinists," and therefore no 
 
118 
 one can doubt v/hat were the intentions of the founders of 
 this Chapel. 
 
 In every point of view, therefore, the Chapel is legally and 
 justly applicable to the purposes designed by its founders ; 
 and I hope that the Trustees will see the justice of this, and 
 that such of the congregation as may feel dissatisfied with 
 an Orthodox ministry will provide for themselves elsewhere, 
 as all other Dissenters do in similar circumstances. "Trust 
 property is not left to persons to do what they please with it, 
 but for purposes which are to be promoted by it ; and when 
 persons cannot, or will not, devote it to those purposes, 
 they ought, in common honesty to relinquish all connection 
 with it." This is the opinion of my friend, Mr. Turner, in 
 which every man will concur, unless he thinks that " it is 
 in religious concerns alone, that no regard is to be paid to 
 the views and wishes of the dead." 
 
 An attempt has been made, in the course of this contro- 
 versy, by the advocates of the Socinians, to justify the re- 
 tention of these Chapels on some supposed, but undefined, 
 dissenting principle. I confess I should like to hear what 
 that principle is, which no person, but a Socinian, either un- 
 derstands or acknowledges. I have certainly heard of it 
 before, but it came from the same source — the Socinians-. 
 At the Wolverhampton Chapel, which was originally or- 
 thodox, on the resignation of the minister, the majority of 
 the congregation, in the year 1781, chose Mr. Jameson, a 
 decided Calvinist, to succeed him, and he removed to Wol- 
 verhampton with his family and furniture, but the minority, 
 consisting of a few Socinians, locked and guarded the doors 
 of the Meeting-house against him, without any notice having 
 been given to him ; and no admittance could be gained 
 without having recourse either to violence or to legal mea- 
 sures. Mr. Jameson, being a man of a peaceable disposi- 
 tion, would not suffer the former to be resorted to : and 
 the want of means, and the heavy expenses thrown upon his 
 friends, prevented their having recourse to the latter ; they 
 therefore fitted up a barn for a temporary accommodation ; 
 and in this way Socinianism triumphed in the Chapel at 
 
119 
 that time. Thirteen ministers of that persuasion, in a recent 
 publication, call this expulsion of the majority from tlie 
 Chapel to the barn " cjiiietli/ retiring and ac<piiesci)ig.'' — 
 Whereupon, they say, " the Meeti7ig-house, with all its ap- 
 purtenances, upon the uninersally admitted principles of Pro- 
 testant Dissenters, became the rightful property of those 
 loho remained, and upon these just and sacred .principles of 
 Christum liberty, the principles upon which it ivas fu^st 
 formed the congregation continued to assemble." 
 
 A more impudent slander upon Dissenting principles 
 was surely never uttered ! The friends of these "just and 
 sacred principles," have, however, been compelled to make 
 restitution of the Chapel, and the suit with them has set- 
 tled a legal principle, which will undoubtedly sooner or 
 later, lead to most important results. 
 
 In opposition to the sentiments of these men, I have great 
 pleasure in giving the opinion of a man who is unquestion- 
 ably one of the most able and eloquent champions of religious 
 liberty of the present day. In a letter, with which he has 
 favoured me, he says, " At this controversy (in Manchester) 
 and the complete exposure of Unitarian delinquencies, I 
 have great delight. I would die rather than utter a calumny 
 against the persons of Unitarians, or raise a forceful finger 
 to prevent, by persecution, the promulgation even of the 
 doctrines they conscientiously believe. But I have always 
 entertained and defended the opinion, now publicly and 
 well expressed, that their appropriation to their worship of 
 edifices and funds raised for other purposes is degrading to 
 their body, and is an unworthy and fraudulent perversion 
 which they can never defend," — I am, Sir, 
 
 Your obedient Servant. 
 
 GEORGE HADFIELD. 
 22 W. Dec. 1824. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 A LIST of the Chapels in England, Wales, 
 and Scotland, which with their Endowments 
 are now appropriated to the propagation of the 
 Socinian Doctrines. 
 
 N. B. — The Design of the following List, is to illus- 
 trate the justice and importance of the great Principle which 
 this Publication is designed to advocate ; viz. That in the 
 administration of property invested in Trust, the intentions 
 and purposes of the Founders, should in all cases, be in- 
 violably maintained. 
 
 The Editors beg most distinctly to state, not only that 
 there are in this List, no intentional inaccuracies, but that 
 every possible effort has been made to have it perfectly 
 correct. Yet they are aware that owing to the great diffi- 
 culty of such an undertaking, there may be, after all their 
 pains, some incorrectness and deficiencies. In case of a 
 republication, they will be happy in the opportunity of rec- 
 tifying every mistake and supplying every deficiency ; or it 
 will give them pleasure if some one who is perfectly in- 
 formed on the subject, should complete what they have thus 
 begun. It is scarcely necessary to add, that even supposing 
 
121 
 some mistakes with respect to particular cases may exist, 
 that circumstance will have no effect to invalidate the prin- 
 ciple, or to diminish the force of the general statements. 
 
 The information on which this list is formed, closes for 
 the most part with the year 1824. 
 
 •4^' 
 
 ENGLAND. 
 
 CAMBRIDGESHTRK. 
 WisBEA CH.— ■Originally Orthodox. 
 
 CHESHIRE. 
 
 Allostock, near Knutsford. — Originalb/ Orthodox. — 
 Built about the year 1 7OO. There is an estate of twenty- 
 seven acres at Rainow, near Macclesfield, belonging to 
 it, which was purchased with property left for that pur- 
 pose by the Rev. S. Garside, the second minister, who 
 was unquestionably of Orthodox sentiments. There is also 
 a smaller endowment — A small congregation, attached to 
 the peculiarities of the late Mr. Cudworth got possession 
 of the place upwards of thirty years ago. The Unitarians 
 at some neighbouring places, had a trial at law with them, 
 and were foiled, but withheld the endowments. They have, 
 however, lately agreed with the preacher, who is very aged, 
 to accept of a share in the endowments, in consideration of 
 which he has surrendered the chapel to them. It is now 
 held by the Unitarian minister at Knutsford, but there is 
 in fact, no Unitarian congregation whatever at this place. 
 Wliat became of the Endowment during the twenty-years 
 
122 
 it was witlilield from tlie old minister cannot be ascer- 
 tained. 
 
 Mr. J. x\shton, (the Unitarian Minister, at Knutsford) 
 who enjoys the endowment settled upon tliis chapel, for 
 preaching occasionally without having any regular congrega- 
 tion to hear him, has inserted a letter in the Monthly Repo- 
 sitory in explanation of his conduct, and contends that " no 
 class of Christians should be put to the slightest inconve- 
 nience or hardship, or be visited with the least obloquy, be- 
 cause, in the exercise of their unquestionable right to think 
 for themselves, it is their fortune to think in certain respects 
 differently from ancestors to tchose piefi/ they and their 
 fathers have been indehted for some of their religious accom- 
 modations and advantages." This is Mr. Ashton's apology 
 for the perversion of this chapel and its endowments, and 
 the Chape] and endowments at Knutsford also, which this 
 Unitarian pluralist enjoys. He acknowledges that his " very 
 humble, but well-intentioned exertions," at Allostock have 
 been attended " with little success" which he attributes to 
 " the character of the neighbourhood," and says nothing of 
 the endoicment, 
 
 Altrincham. — Built by the Unitarians in 1814. — The 
 minister at Hale Barns Chapel officiates also at this 
 place. 
 
 Chester. — Originally Orthodox. — Built for the cele- 
 brated Mr. Matthew Henry and his congregation, about the 
 year 1700. In this chapel a copy of Mr. Henry's Exposi- 
 tion of the Bible has been placed on desks, for general pe- 
 rusal, probably ever since its first publication. A gentle- 
 man who visited the chapel, some years ago, observed that 
 one of the volumes on the New Testament was missing, 
 and that several leaves were torn out of another, while the 
 New Unitarian Version was in the pulpit, and in several of 
 the pews. 
 
 CoNGLETON. — Originally Orthodox. — This interest was 
 founded by the adherents of two very godly ejected minis- 
 ters, Mr. Moxon and Mr. Machin. It is believed that the 
 
123 
 
 congregation held Orthodox sentiments at the time when the 
 present chapel was built, A. D. I7 10. It is endowed with 
 a house, or houses and land, and with some other property. 
 The houses and land, it is understood, were given by per- 
 sons of Orthodox views ; the other property was left, more 
 recently, by a minister of Unitarian sentiments. 
 
 Cross-street, near Altrincham. — Originalhj Orthodox. 
 — Endowment forty pounds, 'per annum. Usual number 
 of hearers eight. 
 
 Dean-row, near Wilmslow. — Originally Orthodox. — 
 Built in 1693. 
 
 DucKiNFiELD. — Originally Orthodox. — Built A. D. I/O?* 
 for the congregation of the eminent Mr. Samuel Angier, 
 the friend of Dr. Owen. There is a freehold estate of 
 thirty three acres, belonging to it, left by Mr. James Hay- 
 W'Ood, an Orthodox Dissenter, and one of the founders of 
 the chapel. 
 
 Hale Barns. — Originally Orthodox. — Built upwards of 
 a century ago. See Altrincham. 
 Hyde. — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 Knutsford. — Originally Orthodox. — Built in 1689. Mr. 
 Tong, the biographer of Mr. Henry, was with this people 
 at the time of erecting the chapel, but left them shortly 
 afterwards for a situation at Coventry. There is a very 
 pleasing and particular account of the origin of this interest 
 in his Life of Henry, 
 
 Macclesfield. — Originally Orthodox. — Built in 1692. 
 There are many interesting particulars respecting this place 
 also in Tong's life of Henry. The Congregation is almost 
 extinct. 
 
 MiDDLEW^lCH. — The Chapel here was Originally Ortho- 
 dox, and was endowed ; but it passed into the hands of the 
 Unitarians, and in order to entitle the late Rev. John 
 Phillips, then the minister of a Chapel at Kingsley, to the 
 endowment or funds for preaching at Middlewich, it became 
 necessary to hire a Congregation of a few persons to attend, 
 at the rate of eight-pence per diem. Since his death the 
 cha])el has been converted into cottages, but our correspond- 
 
124 
 ent cannot inform ns bow the rents and endowments are 
 now applied. 
 
 Nantwich. — Originally Orthodox. — Present chapel built 
 1719. The excellent Mr. Samuel Lawrence, who was 
 the bosom friend of Mr. Henry, was one of the earliest 
 ministers of this Congregation. — See Tong's Life of 
 Henry. 
 
 Stockport. — Originally Orthodox. — Built in 1722. 
 Scarcely any hearers remain. 
 
 WiLLiNGTON, near Delamere. — Bmlt by the Unitarians 
 in 1823. 
 
 DERBYSHIRE. 
 
 AsHFORD. — Originally Orthodox. — Tiie old Chapel at 
 Ashford was built for that celebrated Nonconformist Divine, 
 Mr. William Bagshaw, usually called " the Apostle of the 
 Peak." The eminent Mr. John iVshe, whose life was pub- 
 lished by Dr. Clegg, was successor to Mr. Bagshaw, at this 
 place. The chapel, however, has been almost wholly re- 
 built, and also endowed, by two gentlemen of Anti-Trini- 
 tarian sentiments. 
 
 Belper. — The congregation here was originally Ortho- 
 dox ; but the present chapel was built entirely by a gen- 
 tleman of Unitarian sentiments. The congregation 
 probably owes it rise to the preaching of Mr. Samuel 
 Charles, M. A., who was ejected from the neighbouring 
 parish of Mickleover, and, according to Calamy, preached 
 at Belper. 
 
 Bradwell. — Originally Orthodox. — The congregation 
 at Bradwell was also gathered by the labours of Mr. W. 
 Bagshaw, for whom the first Meeting-house was built. 
 Mr. Kelsall, a most excellent Independent Minister, who 
 laboured here for fifty years, and who had acquired some 
 property by a share in a mine, built the present commo- 
 dious Chapel. 
 
125 
 
 Buxton.— OngiWrtZ/y Orthodox. — There is a house be- 
 longing to this Chapel, now let as an inn, for 40/. per an- 
 num , and which was built by the last stated Minister, of 
 whose sentiments it is difficult to speak, but who is thought 
 to have "been an Arian. It is supposed to have been built 
 on the site, of an old house belonging to the chapel. It is 
 understood that there are other funds belonging to this 
 place. But as there are no persons of Unitarian senti- 
 ments in Buxton, or the neighbourhood, the chapel is shut 
 up, except occasionally in the bathing season. 
 
 Chesterfield. — Originally Orthodox. — The interest here 
 was raised by the labours of Mr. John Billingsley, an 
 eminent ejected minister. The chapel was built in 1694, 
 at the expense of Cornelius Clarke, Esq. of Norton. So- 
 cinian tenets were introduced here subsequently to 1742. 
 
 TiERBY. — Originalli/ Orthodox. — Built in 1679. It has 
 a small endowment, but the testator is thought to have 
 been an Arian. 
 
 DuFFiELD. — Built chiefly at the expense of a gentleman 
 of Arian or Unitarian sentiments. 
 
 FiNDERN. — Originally Orthodox. — Liberally endowed ; 
 but it is understood that the congregation had become Arian 
 before the endowment was founded. 
 
 HuCKLOW. — Originally Orthodox. — The congregation at 
 this place, is one of those which were founded by Mr. John 
 Ashe. The excellent Mr. Robert Kelsall divided his la- 
 bours, for many years, between this place and Bradwell. 
 The chapel has been taken down and rebuilt since the con- 
 gregation became Unitarian. 
 
 Ilkiston. — The particulars of the origin of this chapel are 
 unknown to our Derbysliire correspondent ; but as it was 
 erected very early in the last century, there is scarely a doubt 
 that it was Originally Orthodox. — It is liberally endowed. 
 Mr. Grundy who has lately removed from Manchester to 
 Liverpool, was minister at this chapel from 1808 to 1811. 
 
 Lea Wood. — Built by a gentleman of Unitarian senti- 
 ments. 
 
126 
 
 MiDDETON Stoney. — Originally Orthodox. — This place 
 has several small endowments. 
 
 Norton. — Originalbj Orthodox. — Mr. H. H. Piper, who 
 formerly professed Orthodox sentiments preaches here. He 
 was for some time a student in Hoxton Academy, and 
 afterwards at Homerton Academy, and now preaches at 
 Norton, under the fostering care of two of Lady Hewley's 
 Trastees. 
 
 Ripley. — A modern chapel built by the Unitarians. 
 
 DEVONSHIRE. 
 
 CoLLUMPTON. — Originally Orthodox. — The first minister 
 was the Rev, W. Crompton, M. A., who was ejected in 
 1662. He was succeeded in 1698 by the Rev. R. Evans 
 who continued there upwards of forty years until his death. 
 He was the grandfather of the venerable R. Evans, of Ap- 
 pledore, who died in 1824, 
 
 CoLYTON. — Originally Orthodox. — The first minister was 
 the Rev. John Keridge, M. A. who was ejected from Lyme, 
 Dorset. He died in 1705. About a century ago the con- 
 gregation divided, and for a time worshipped in two places. 
 For many years however there has been but one, and that 
 is extremely reduced. 
 
 Crediton. — Originally Orthodox. — The first ministers 
 were the Rev. John Pope and Robert Carel, who were ejected 
 in 1662. About the beginning of the last century Josiah 
 Eveleigh became the minister. He was thoroughly Ortho- 
 dox and published a Tract in defence of the Divinity of 
 Christ, entitled " The Church's Rock." At that .time the 
 present Meeting house which is a very large. one was 
 erected. He was succeeded by Micaiah Towgood, who 
 continued there for twelve years during which time he was 
 Orthodox, and then removed to Exetet*. His successor 
 Mr. Berry degenerated to Arianism, and the congregation 
 
127 
 gradually diminished, so that at present scarcely any hearers 
 remain. The endowments are large. 
 
 Exeter. — Originally Orthodox. — There were originally 
 three Meeting-houses here, but the congregations were united 
 and the ministers preaclied interchangeably at the different 
 places. One of the ministers, the Rev. John Lavington, 
 was a zealous champion for the truth at the time of the ce- 
 lebrated controversy on the doctrine of the Trinity which 
 originated in the defection of Messrs. Pierce and Hallet to 
 Arianism. The endowments are large. 
 
 HoNiTON. — Originally Orthodox. — Several of the ejected 
 ministers a])pear to have preached here subsequently to 
 1662. The Rev. John Ball who settled here about the 
 close of the seventeenth century published some pamphlets 
 in opposition to the new style of preaching which was getting 
 into vogue among the Dissenters in the West about 1730. 
 He died in 1745 in the 91st year of his age, having been 
 minister at Honiton above fifty years. 
 
 Lympstone. — Originally Orthodox. — The first minister 
 the Rev. Samuel Tapper who was ejected in 1662 and died 
 in 1/09. His successors Joseph Manston and Ebenezer 
 Hancock, were both Orthodox. The latter died in 1757- 
 
 MoRETON Hampstead. — Originally Orthodox. — The first 
 minister the Rev. Robert Woolcombe was ejected in 1662 
 and died 1692. His successor was Mr. Angel who died in 
 1721, and was succeeded by Micaiah Towgood, who re- 
 moved hence to Crediton in 1736. 
 
 Plymouth. — Originally Orthodox. — The Rev. Nathaniel 
 Jacob who was ejected in 1662 and died in 1690 was the 
 ,first minister. He was succeeded by Nathaniel Harding 
 who remained then; till his death in 1744. 
 
 SiDMeUTH. — Originally Orthodox. — There were two 
 ministers at this place in 1715 the Rev. Messrs. Steven- 
 son and Palk who were both Orthodox. The former re- 
 moved soon after .to Bath, and the latter after many years to 
 South Molton. 
 
 Tavistock. — Originally Orthodox. — The Rev. Henry 
 Flamank, an ejected minister who died in 1692, was sue- 
 
128 
 
 eeeded by Jacob Saundercock also Orthodox, who died in 
 1729. 
 
 ToTNESS. — Originally Orthodox. — The first ministers 
 were the Rev. Francis Whiddon and John Galpine, both 
 ejected in 1662. 
 
 DORSETSHIRE. 
 
 Bridport. — Originally Orthodox. — Existed at an early- 
 period of tolerated Dissent, and continued for a long time 
 decidedly evangelical. The old Meeting-house was taken 
 down and rebuilt about thirty years ago. 
 
 Dorchester. — Originally Orthodox. — This cause dates 
 from the Ejectment under Charles II. and the place was de- 
 cidedly Orthodox until little more than fifty years ago. On 
 the withdrawment of the evangelical doctrine many of the 
 hearers went off to Lady Huntingdon's Chapel, and the 
 congregation is now very small. 
 
 Poole.— Originally Orthodox. — Built in I705 aud en- 
 larged in 1720. Sixty-eight years ago a separation took 
 place and the minister withdrew with sixty or eighty of the 
 people. His successor was an Arian though all the people 
 were avowedly Orthodox. The congregation is very small. 
 
 DURHAM. 
 
 Stockton. — Originally Orthodox. — The excellent John 
 Rogers, M. A. (See Non-conformist's Memorial, Vol. I. p. 
 379.) licensed a place atStockton, in 1672. The first resi- 
 dent minister was Thomas Thompson, a student of Mr. 
 Frankland's, who was ordained July 11, 1688. A chapel 
 was erected and opened here July 21, 1699. Mr. Thomp- 
 son died Nov. 24, 1729, having been minister here nearly 
 forty-one years. He was succeeded by his son Mr. John 
 Thompson, who died in 17''>3. Mr. Andrew Blackie bis 
 
1^9 
 successor is believed to have been an AHan. In 1754 
 the chapel was rebuilt. There are endowments upon it. 
 One of the ministers of this place, who for several years 
 had been a preacher of Unitarianism, having avowed him- 
 self a Trinitarian, was discharged and ejected by a legal 
 process about six years ago. 
 
 Sunderland. — Recently built by Unitarians. 
 
 ESSEX. 
 
 Colchester. — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 Saffron Walden. — Originally Orthodox. Lately re- 
 built. Endowment about 200/, per annum. The congre- 
 gation a mere handful. 
 
 Stratford. — Recently built by Unitarians. 
 
 Walthamstow. — Originally Orthodox. — Built by the 
 late Mr. Coward, the friend of Watts and Doddridge about 
 1733. The first minister the Rev. Hugh Farmer a learned 
 writer on Miracles, Demoniacs, &c. 
 
 GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 
 
 Bristol. — Built by the Unitarians. 
 
 C1RENCE.STER. — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 Frescuay .—Ditto. 
 
 Gloucester. — The meeting in Barton Street, Glou- 
 cester, was built in 1699 'for the Rev. James Forbes, of 
 whom an account may be seen in Palmer's Nonconformist 
 Memorial, under the article, " Gloucester Cathedral." 
 
 He was succeeded by Mr. Dertham who was also pound 
 in the faith. 
 
 Next came Dv. Hodge, reputed an Ari;in. who was 
 
 K 
 
130 
 succeeded by Mr. Dickenson, from Yorkshire, a Baxterian, 
 but long before he died, he resigned his ministry, but con- 
 tinued to live in the Parsonage House. Messrs. Tremlet, 
 Aubrey, and Brown, all of whom were considered Socinians, 
 followed Mr. Dickinson in succession, and the congregation 
 sunk from 200 or 300 to 20 or 30. Between one and two 
 years it has been shut up. ' 
 
 The Endowments are, — 
 
 1. A Parsonage House, given by Mr. Brown (not the last 
 preacher) but one of their members early in the last cen- 
 tury, who also gave 
 
 2. An Estate, at Upton St. Leonard's, three miles from 
 Gloucester, which one of the late Trustees sold to him- 
 self for eight hundred pounds which he bought into the 
 funds , 
 
 3. 200/. sterling, left by — Wade, Esq., of Pud-Hill, near 
 Nailsworth, who died between thirty and forty years 
 ago. 
 
 4. 200/. sterling was left by Miss Olivers, who died since 
 Mr. Wade, and were hearers of Mr. Tremlet, 
 Marshfield. — The following is an extract from a paper 
 
 printed and published at Marshfield, Dec. 21, 1819. " It 
 appears from authentic documents that after the persecution 
 which disgraced the age of Charles the Second, and the mis- 
 guided zeal which marked the course of the Bartholomew Act, 
 there was a worthy Dissenting Minister, named Seal, who 
 preached the doctrines contained in the thirty-nine Articles 
 of the Established Church, and which our venerable bishops 
 the reformers, sealed with their blood. Mr. Seal lived and 
 preached from 1680 till the Revolution, when William and 
 Mary ascended the throne : his manuscript sermons assert 
 the doctrines of the Atonement, Justification by Faith, and 
 the Divinity of Christ. 
 
 That the Dissenters of that day were Independents, ap- 
 pears by the certificate granted by the magistrates, August 
 8, 1699 ; whereby they were permitted to worship God in 
 the house of Charles Rudder. 
 
 The different trust deeds of later dates which convey the 
 
13L 
 
 legacies, speak pf the Dissenters as Independents or Pres- 
 byterians, terms 2vkich in those times they seemed to conside?^ 
 as synoiiymoiis. 
 
 About the year 1752, the old meeting-house was built 
 by public subscription, and is now used by the Unitarians. 
 The lease, release, and trust deed, bear date June, 1752. 
 These deeds declare as follow : " That the meeting-house 
 was erected for the use of the Independents or Presbyte- 
 rians ; that ten trustees shall be appointed from age to age, 
 who shall manage the affairs of the society, and keep a pro- 
 per book of accounts, rules, and so forth ; which book 
 shall be binding against the ministers and trustees. That 
 when death, or refusal lO act, or removal beyond five miles 
 from Marshfield, shall take away five of the said trustees, 
 then the remaining trustees, with the minister, shall choose 
 five persons from among the congregation, to supply the de- 
 ficiency." 
 
 Soon after the meeting-house was built, the minister and 
 principal persons gradually embraced the Arian doctrine 
 concerning Christ ; and still receding from the sentiments 
 of their predecessors, at length became Unitarians, and fol- 
 lowers of the late Dr. Priestley. 
 
 HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 Newport, L^LE of Wight. — Built by Unitarians. 
 Portsmouth (High-street^— Originally Orthodox. 
 
 (St. Thomas's-street) — Do. Liberally 
 
 endowed . 
 
 RiNGVrOOD. Do. 
 
13*2 
 
 HERTFORDSHIRE. 
 
 St. AhBAifs. —-Ongmalli/ Orthodox. — Founded A. D. 
 1690. One of the earliest ministers was Mr. Grew, for 
 whom Mr. John Heywood (son of Oliver Heywood) who 
 was chaplain to Mr. Marsh, of Gorson, often preached. 
 Mr. Grew was succeeded by Samuel Clark, D. D. (a lineal 
 descendant of the well known Samuel Clark, ejected from 
 St. Benet Fisk, London) a great friend of Dr. Doddridge. 
 He founded the first Dissenting Charity School out of Lon- 
 don, about 1710. He was followed by his son-in-law Rev. 
 Jabez Hinos for about sixty years, who inclined to Arian^ 
 ism. The present minister decidedly Socinian. 
 
 
 KENT. 
 
 
 Bessels Green.- 
 
 —Originally Orthodox. 
 
 Canterbury. — 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 Chatham. — 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 Deptford. — 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 Dover, — 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 Maidstone. — 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 Rochester. — 
 
 Do. 
 
 Almost extinct. 
 
 Tenterden. — 
 
 Do. 
 
 Large Endowments 
 
 The Editors regret they have not the means of giving a 
 more complete history of the chapels in this county. 
 
133 
 
 LANCASHIRE. 
 
 Blakeley, near Manchester. — Mr. Thomas Pyke, 
 ejected from Ratclifl'e Church preached at this place when 
 Charles issued his indulgences in 1672, and was very useful 
 in the conversion of souls. He was a faithful and orthodox 
 minister. When his end drew near he said to those about 
 him, that he found the best preparations of the best men 
 were little enough when they came to die. He died in July, 
 1676, about fifty-four years of age. O. Hey wood, in his 
 occasional visits to Lancashire, sometimes preached here. 
 Mr. Brooks, who was ordained June 18, I7OO, at Maccles- 
 field, when Mr. Matthew Henry was one of the ordainers, 
 is called Mr. Brooks, of Blakeley, and probably preached 
 here at that time. Mr. John Heywood who was ordained 
 at Warrington, June 16, I702, was minister at Blakeley, in 
 1709, and died here in 1731. Later ministers of this place 
 are Messrs. Valentine, Berm, Pope, afterwards tutor at the 
 Socinian College Hackney, and Harrison. This place is 
 endowed but by whom and to what amount the writer does 
 not know. 
 
 BoLToN-LE- MOORS. — Bank Chapel. Mr. W. Tong, au- 
 thor of the life of Matthew Henry, and of a Preface to Mr. 
 I^amuel Bourn's Sermons, says of this town, " it has been 
 an ancient and famed seat of religion. At the first dawn of 
 the Reformation the day spring from on high visited that 
 place and the adjacent villages, and by the letters which we 
 have of those brave martjn-s, Mr. Bradford and Mr. (^eorge 
 Marsh, it will appear what persons and families in that 
 neighbourhood had so early received the gospel in its ])urity 
 and simplicity ; and it has often been a pleasure to mo to 
 observe, that it still continues in several of those families, 
 and it will be their greatest honour never to depart from ?/." 
 Mr. Godwin, Vicar of Bolton, was ejected iir 1G62. After- 
 war-ds he preached here as he had opportunity. In 1672 he 
 took out a license and preached twice every Lord's Day in n 
 
134 
 
 private house. He died at Bolton Dec. 12, 1685, aged se- 
 venty-two. Mr. Park was lecturer at Bolton at the time of 
 the ejectment. He also preached here occasionslly to some 
 of his old hearers till 1669, in which year he died aged se- 
 venty. These holy men may be considered as having laid 
 the foundation of the dissenting cause at Bolton. Mr. John 
 Lever ejected from Cockey Moor Chapel, about three miles 
 from Bolton, succeeded these worthy men in their labours, 
 and collected a numerous congregation. He died July 4, 
 1692, aged fifty-eight. Mr. Robert Seddon, a native of 
 Prestolee, near Bolton, who had been ejected from the rec- 
 tory of Langley, in Derbyshire, became his successor. He 
 was very laborious in his Master's work, though advanced 
 in years when he came to this place. Having purchased a 
 house in Bank-street, Bolton, with a considerable quantity 
 of land behind it, he gave the people liberty, as they wante<l 
 a more convenient place of worship, to erect the present 
 spacious chapel on it.* He did not long enjoy his new chapel 
 as he died of a paralytic stroke at his brother's house, in 
 Prestolee, March, 1695, aged sixty-six, and was buried in 
 Ringley Chapel Yard. The tenth sermon in the Collection 
 of Country Farewell Sermons is his. O. Heywood preached 
 at Bolton, in June, 1696, and administered the Lord's 
 Supper to several hundred communicants. Mr. Samuel 
 Bourn, nephew to Mr. Seddon, whom he recommended to 
 his people on his death-bed, became his successor. Mr. 
 Bourn continued his labours at Bolton till March 4, 1719, 
 on which day he entered into the joy of his Lord, in the se- 
 venty-second year of his age. His religious sentiments 
 w^ere decidedly orthodox, as appears from a volume of his 
 Sermons, published after his death, to which is prefixed a 
 preface by Mr. Tong, in which he gives the following de- 
 scription of Mr. Bourn as a minister : " I thought him one 
 of the best preachers I ever heard, and I doubt not but I 
 speak the sense of those that are much better judges. He 
 
 • The first preaching- place occupied by the Non-conlormists in Bolton, 
 was on the south side of Deansgate, at the back of the public house called 
 the Woolpack, and the house now occupied by Mr. Yates, the Bookseller. 
 
135 
 
 faithfully continued in the doctrine of the Reformed churches, 
 not merely because it was theirs, but because upon long 
 and intimate acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures and with 
 his own soul, he found it to be the doctrine of the gospel, 
 and a doctrine according to godliness. / hare heard 
 him lament some deimitions he had observed, from what he 
 believed to be the truth as it is in Jesns^ If Mr. Bourn 
 was grieved at the appearance of the first deviations from 
 orthodox sentiments among his dissenting brethren, how 
 would his righteous soul have been distressed could he have 
 foreseen the near approaches which some of his successors 
 have made to the system of Infidelity ! He left a legacy of 
 20/. towards the expences of the weekly lecture established 
 in this chapel. Mr. Withington appears to have been here 
 a very short time after Mr. Bourn. Afterwards Thomas 
 Dixon M. D. was minister at this place, who died in 1729. 
 He was followed by Mr. Buck, who continued to be minis- 
 ter here several years. Mr. Philip Holland came to Bolton, 
 in 1754, and preached what are called Unitarian senti- 
 ments.* During his ministry those who loved the Saviour's 
 honour, and gloried in his cross as the only foundation of a 
 sinner's hope, withdrew from the place and sought their re- 
 ligious edification elsewhere. Some of these united in the 
 erection of the Independent Chapel in Duke's Alley. Mr. 
 John Holland succeeded his uncle, and was ordained at this 
 place, May 13th, 1789. He resigned his charge on account 
 of ill health. Mr. Jones removed from Walmsley Chapel to 
 this place, and was here a short time. The present minis- 
 ter is Mr. Franklin Baker, who was ordained, September 23, 
 1824. This place has considerable (endowments. A 
 weekly lecture was established here on Monday, the market 
 day, by Mr. Nathaniel Hilton, of London, but a native of 
 Bolton. Several sermons preached by Messrs. Newcome, 
 Baldwin, Pendlebury and Walker, the first lecturers, are 
 
 • His friend Job Orion saw and bewailed this in a letter to Mr. Hughes of 
 Berry, in which he says; "I am sorrj- to find my friend Holland sink the in- 
 spiration of the Apostles, and their epistles lower than I think he can justify, 
 I have freely written to him on the subject. 
 
136 
 still extant in MSS., and are decidedly evangelical. The 
 endowments in support of this Lecture are known to be of 
 orthodox orgin, and this is probably the case with some of 
 the others. 
 
 Bolton, Deansgate chapel.— This is one of the few places 
 in this county of which the Unitarians have obtained a legal or 
 honourable possession. It was purchased by the friends of 
 Mr. G. Harris the present minister, when he removed from 
 Liverpool. 
 
 Bury. — The Rev. H, Pendlebury, a truly orthodox and 
 useful preacher, ejected from Holcombe Chapel near Bury, 
 was the founder of the dissenting cause in this parish, having 
 persevered in his labours, as the times would admit, during 
 forty-four years. Many of the inhabitants of the town were 
 strongly attached to his ministry, and attended his preach- 
 ing till his death in 1695. In the days of his successor, 
 Mr. E. Rothwell, that part of the congregation residing in 
 Bury, being suflSciently numerous and wealthy, resolved to 
 erect the present chapel in Silver-street, in the year 1719. 
 Mr. Braddock was the first minister of this chapel, and is re- 
 puted to have been orthodox in sentiment. He was minister 
 here forty-five years. He was followed by Mr. John Hughes 
 from Daventry Academy to whom many of Job Orton's letters 
 are addressed.* He occupied the pulpit about thirty five years, 
 and was probably an xArian. Mr. Allard the present minis- 
 ter has been here above twenty years. Dr. Watts's Psalms 
 and Hymns have very lately been expelled from this place 
 of worship, and a new selection adopted in their room. 
 There are endowments attached to the chapel of about 801. 
 per annum. It is understood that the minister officiating in 
 this place receives a portion of Lady Hewley's Funda. 
 
 Chorley. — Little is known of the early hi.story of Non- 
 
 * In one of these he says : " I would wish to revive somethingi of that 
 spirit which appeared so eminently and beautifully in your predecessors, Pen- 
 dlebury, Rothwell and Braddock. I hope you will never give any of jour aged 
 hearers reason to complain, that it is not with them as in jears past, but will 
 support the high credit which the ministry at Bury hath long been in, for 
 seriousness, Zealand usefulness." 
 
13t 
 
 conformity in this town. Mr. Henry Welch, who was dis- 
 tinguished for his unfeigned piety and ministerial faithful- 
 ness, was ejected from the parish church of Chorley. He 
 died in IG65, aged 64. The chapel now occupied by the 
 Unitarians is said to have been built by Abraham Crompton, 
 Esq., of Chorley Hall, in 1725. Mr. Samuel Bourn, son of 
 Mr. Bourn of Bolton, was the first minister at the chapel 
 and removed from hence to Birmingham in 1732. In the 
 latter part of his life he embraced the Arian system. After 
 him Mr. Bent was minister here many years, but the writer 
 is not acquainted with his religious sentiments. Mr. Tate 
 is the present minister, who was formerly a preacher amongst 
 the Wesleyan Methodists. The chapel is endowed. 
 
 Chowbent. — Mr. James Woods ejected from the episco- 
 pal chapel in this place continued to exercise his ministry 
 among his former hearers, according as circumstances per- 
 mitted, in public and private. He was the means of raising 
 a large and respectable congregation of dissenters here, over 
 whom he presided many years. He was esteemed an inde- 
 fatigable and useful minister. He died about the year 1669. 
 His son succeeded liim in tlie pastoral office till his death in 
 February 1759, having been minister here sixty years. He 
 is said to have been a faithful servant of Christ. The father 
 and son preached at this place above a century. Mr. Matthew 
 Hemy, who was much esteemed here by those who ueca- 
 sionally enjoyed the benefit of his labours, came from 
 Chester to visit his old friends at Chowbent about a fort- 
 night before his death in June 1714. It is recorded of the 
 younger o£ these Woodisi, that when intelligence was bi-ought 
 to Chowbent of the approach of the Scotch Rebels in 171^j 
 he headed his congregation armed with scytlies and other 
 implements of hmsbandiy, and marched with them to Walton, 
 near Preston to dispute witli them the passage of the Ribble, 
 but the king's forces arriving in time, and the subsequent 
 capitulation of the Scots rendered General Wood's intended 
 assistance unnecessary. The present chapel at Chowbent 
 was erected in 1722. It is a large handsome building and 
 is amply endowed. Mr. Davies has been minister hero 
 
138 
 many years. The congregation is so small that in this 
 large chapel, only fifteen persons have sometimes been pre- 
 sent during service in the winter of 1824. 
 
 CocKEY-MOOR.— The Bartholemew Act in 1662, fomid 
 Mr. John Lever at this place. The congregation appears 
 to have continued worshipping in the episcopal chapel here 
 many years afterwards, notwithstanding the Act of Unifor- 
 mity. They obtained the assistance of their former pastor 
 and other ejected ministers as they could. Mr. John 
 Crompton, who died in August 1703, is' called minister of 
 Cockey Chapel by Mr. Matthew Henry, who notices his 
 death and speaks of him as a man of the first rank, both for 
 ministerial gifts and graces, stedfast to his principles in 
 trying times, and an ornament to his holy profession. The 
 Chapel now occupied by the Unitarians was erected in 
 1718. The trust deed specially states that " the ministers 
 of the said congregation who for the time being shall offi- 
 ciate there must be sound in the faith of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and such as hold and profess the Doctrinal Articles 
 of the Church of England, required to be subscribed by the 
 pastor or teacher of such congregation." Mr. Whitworth 
 was minister at the time the new chapel was built, many 
 notes of his sermons taken at the time of delivery are yet 
 extant, and prove that the doctrinal sentiments he preached 
 corresponded with those of the Church of England, to which 
 he was required to subscribe. He died February 13th, 
 1721 , in the sixty-sixth year of age, after having been minis- 
 ter at Cockey Chapel twenty-five years. He was buried in 
 the chapel where his gravestone may yet be seen.* He 
 was succeeded by Mr. Peter Seddon who had been settled 
 at Penrith, in Cumberland, and died April 26th, 1731, in the 
 forty third year of his age. He lies buried in the yard of 
 Cockey Dissr^nting Chapel.t Mr. Dobson followed him, 
 
 * The writer has seen some notes of Sermons preached at Cockey Chapel 
 in the years 1T24 and 1726, which are decidedly evangelical, by a Mr. Dixon, 
 but does not Itnow that he was the stated minister of the place at the time. 
 
 t There is a MS. sermon of Mr. P. Seddon 's still in a state of preservation 
 preached by him at Cockey about a month before his death, which contains 
 sttlisiactory evidence of his orthodoxy. 
 
i:^9 
 
 and continued parlor of this people thirty-six years. He 
 died August 291h, 1767, aged 'J5. Then came Mr. Barnes, 
 whose popularity was so great that it was found necessary 
 considerably to enlarge the chapel, which was well filled 
 during his ministry. On his removal to Manchester in I78O, 
 Mr. Joseph Bealey became the minister, He removed to 
 Warrington, when Mr. King officiated at this place ; but 
 when Mr. Bealey had been at Warrington about two years, 
 he returned to Cockey-moor, and remained here till his 
 death in 1813. In the latter part of his life he acknowledged 
 himself to be a decided Unitarian, but still continued to re- 
 tain possession of the pulpit. Before his death the congre- 
 gation very much declined, many of his former hearers dis- 
 approving of his new sentiments sought their spiritual in- 
 struction elsewhere. Mr. Brettell educated at York Aca- 
 demy was minister here a short time, and then removed to 
 Rotherham. Mr. Whitehead is the present minister and 
 preaches to a small congregation. The amount of the 
 endowments received by the Trustees is about 120/. per 
 annum. 
 
 Dob-lane, near Manchester. — This place is sometimes 
 called Newton-heath. The chapel owes its origin, it is 
 believed, to the evangelical labours of Mr. William Walker, 
 who was ejected from an Episcopal place of worship in this 
 neighbourhood. He afterwards preached at Rivington, and 
 was one of the Bolton Lecturers. Some notes of his sermons 
 are still preserved, and the orthodox truths they contain are 
 a perfect contrast to the doctrines taught in a number of 
 sermons the writer has seen, which were preached here by 
 Mr. Robinson, between the years 1755 and 1775. Mr. 
 Lewis Loyd, now an eminent banker in Manchester and 
 London, was formerly minister at this place. 
 
 Gateacre, near Liverpool. — This chapel was built by 
 the friends of oxthodoxy and is very liberally endowed. 
 Little information has been obtained concerning the earliest 
 ministers at this place. When Mr. Joseph Lawton came to 
 Gateacre he preached evangelical doctrines, and was very 
 
140 
 fliligent in catechizin* the young, and visiting the sick. At 
 one period, he was suspected of Arianism, and some of the 
 congregation left the ministry to attend Toxteth Park chapel, 
 where the gospel was then preached. He is said to have 
 disavowed his Arian sentiments tov^ards the close of life, 
 and a fragment of the last sermon he preached in the chapel, 
 January 31st, 1747, on 2 Cor. v. I7, is orthodox. He left 
 some land to the chapel which lets for 40/. fer annum. 
 Beside this, there are other endowments to a considerable 
 amount. His successors were Messrs. Richard Godwin 
 and Edwards. The present minister is Mr. Shepherd, who 
 publicly advocated Mr. Brougham's education bill. His 
 congregation is very small, about twenty. 
 
 Gorton, near Manchester. Mr. William Leigh, an in- 
 timate acquaintance and friend of his neighbours Angier 
 and Newcome, was ejected from the old chapel at Gorton. 
 He was a man of good abilities, and very laborious in the 
 work of the ministry. He died in 1664, about lifty years 
 of age. The persons who built the original dissenting 
 chapel at Gorton, were those who acknowledged and loved 
 the evangelical truths contained in the Doctrinal Articles ol 
 the Church of England and the Assembly's Catechism. 
 The endowments are about 200/, a year, and the person 
 who left the principal estate is known to have been of ortho- 
 dox sentiments. Mr. Atchison was minister here about 
 forty years, when he removed to Leicester. Mr. W. D. 
 Cooper removed from Stand to Gorton in the year I788, and 
 died at this place in 1801 . He was succeeded by Mr. Rams- 
 bottom, who died a short time after he came to Gorton. 
 Mr. Jeffreys is the present Minister. 
 
 HiNDLEY, near Wigan. Mr. James Bradshaw, born in 
 the parish of Bolton, was ejected from Hindley Episcopal 
 Chapel in 1662. Afterwards he removed to Rainford, and 
 died in 1702, in the 67tli year of his age. In the latter 
 part of his life he was one of the Lecturers at Bolton, and 
 probably preached to the survivors' of his old flock at 
 Hindley. The chapel, now occupied by the Unitarians hfere, 
 was built by Mr. Crook, of Abram, in the year I7OO. He 
 
141 
 left two fields to it, which, with (»thev endowments, amount 
 to about 100/. per annum. He is said to h^-re heen of or- 
 thodox sentiments. This is one of the places Mr. Matthew 
 Henry usually preached at in his visits to Lancashire. Mr. 
 Thomas Whalley was minister at this place, and died here 
 in I7O6. Mr. James Brownlow occupied this pulpit in 
 1715. Later ministers at this place, some of whom were 
 Unitarians, are Messrs. Bourn, Davenport, Hodgkinson, 
 who preached here upwards of thiiiy years, Manley, Kay, 
 and Ragland, the present minister. 
 
 Knowsley, near Prescot. This chapel is not far from 
 Knowsley Park, the residence of the Earl of Derby, and 
 as the Countess of Derby, who presented the vicarage of 
 Ormskirk to Mr. Nathaniel Heywood, held him in high 
 esteem, it is highly probable that this place of worship was 
 built by some of that noble family who had been benefited 
 by his ministry. Certain it is, that the chapel is of or- 
 thodox origin, as the trust deed states, that the minister 
 officiating there shall pi-each according to the doctrinal 
 Articles of the Church of England, and shall teach the 
 Asse7nbly^s Catechism. It is endowed with an estate in 
 Cheshire. The chapel here has undergone various changes 
 of late years. No minister being settled here, the Rev. 
 .John Yates, of Liverpool, who 1ms the management of the 
 place, permitted the Wesleyan Methodists to occupy the 
 pulpit; but at present two laymen, members of the Esta- 
 blished Church, go from Liverpool on the Lord's day, one to 
 read prayers, and the other to read a sermon. Hence it 
 appears, that though Knowsley Chapel may be under the 
 control of Unitarians, it is not literally occupied by them. 
 
 Lancaster. Doctor William Marshall was ejected from 
 this vicarage in 1662. The present chapel in Nicholas- 
 street, was built for Mr. Day who is su])posed to have been 
 an Arian and settled here in 1740. The former chapel was 
 built by persons of orthodox sentiments. An orthodox 
 minister, of the name of Grimshaw, was once sdtled 
 here. The descendants of some of those who Ici'f the 
 place when Unitarianism was introihiced, are yet living 
 in Lancaster. Tlu> person? now liolding possession c>f the 
 
142 
 chapel say, that the trust deed cannot be found. The en- 
 dowment is about 100/. per annum arising from two estates 
 in the neighbourhood, and part, if not the whole, was given 
 when the people were orthodox. The congregation seldom 
 amounts to twenty persons. Mr. W. Lamport is the mi- 
 nister here. 
 
 Liverpool, Renshaw-Street. The dissenting interest at 
 Liverpool, was commenced by a number of persons who 
 had been accustomed to attend at Toxteth Park Chapel, in 
 an adjoining township. Mr. Christopher Richardson ejected 
 from Kirk-Heaton, Yorkshire, a man eminent for his ac- 
 quaintance with the scriptures and his ministerial useful- 
 ness, preached alternately at Toxteth Park and Liverpool. 
 In 1688, the persons attending his ministry, who resided in 
 the town, built a chapel in Castle Hey, now called Harring- 
 ton-street. Mr. Richardson continued his pious labours in 
 this place till his death, 1698, when about eighty years of 
 age. Owing to the increase of the town of Liverpool, and 
 the consequent enlargement of the congregation, the people 
 built a much larger place of worship in Benn's Gardens, to 
 which they removed in 1727- This chapel was sold to the 
 Welch Wesleyan Methodists a few years since, though it is 
 said the trustees acknowledged they could not give the pur- 
 chaser a legal title, but gave him a bond of indemnity that 
 he should not be disturbed in his possession. With the sum 
 of 2000/., for which tlie old chapel was sold, and other means, 
 the congregation formerly assembling in Benn's Gardens 
 built the present Unitarian Chapel in Renshaw-street, in 
 1811. The endowments left to the chapel in Benn's Gar- 
 dens are understood to have been taken with the congrega- 
 tion to their new place of worship. The following is a list 
 of most of the ministers of this congregation. First a Mr. 
 Angier. Then Dr. Winder. After him was a Mr. Ander- 
 son who conformed and preached at St. Paul's in this town. 
 He was a popular preacher. Dr. Enfield ])reached to this 
 people some years, and was succeeded by Dr. Clayton, 
 who left Benn's Gardens, and took with him a large part of 
 the congregation, who built for him a jilace called the 0«ta- 
 oon. He was assisted by Mr. Kiijtatnck, Init the ronsrre 
 
143 
 
 gation dwindled to nothing and tlio chapel has been pulled 
 down. Mr. Lewin came to Benn's Gardens after the re- 
 moval of Dr. Cla5i;on. He was minister at the time the 
 people removed to Renshaw-street. Mr. Hanis now of 
 Bolton was minister here a few years. 
 
 Liverpool, Paradise street. This elegant chapel was 
 erected in 1791, partly, if not principally, by the proceeds 
 of a former place of worship built by Trinitarians. The con- 
 gregation had its origin about the year 1707, and worshipped 
 in a chapel in Key-street till their removal to this })lace, 
 Mr. Basnett was one of the first ministers at Key-street 
 chapel and was of evangelical sentiments.* Mr. Breckell 
 appears to have succeeded him. He published a volume of 
 sermons addressed to seamen. A Mr. Taylor was minister 
 here, who removed to Dublin. Mr. Yates was the pastor 
 of the people when they removed to Paradise-street, and is 
 now succeeded by Mr. Grundy from Manchester. 
 
 Manchester. — Cross street Chapel. — The original 
 place of worship built on this spot was erected in 1 693 for 
 the congregation of Dissenters collected by Mr. Henry 
 Newcome, who was ejected from the Collegiate church of 
 this town. This chapel was nearly destroyed by a mob in 
 1714, and parliament gave 1500/. to repair it. In 1/37 i^ 
 was enlarged and rebuilt; and in 1788 during the popular 
 ministry of Dr. Barnes it was again enlarged. Mr. New- 
 come, who was a man of very superior abilities, came to 
 Manchester in 1656, and preached with much success in 
 the parish church till his ejectment. When prevented from 
 exercising his ministry in public he embraced every oppor- 
 tunity of promoting the personal edification of his flock 
 by his private labours. He was accounted by his people 
 and brethren in the ministry as a star of the first mag- 
 nitude, and was justly called " a prince of preachers." His 
 various publications prove that his religious sentiments cor- 
 responded with those still professed by evangelical dissen- 
 
 • The writer has manuscript notes of a Sermon pre.u lied by Mr Hiisnett, 
 in 1725, on Psn. xxiv. 7. whirh are decided!^ orlhodox. 
 
144 
 ters. He died deeply lamented by the church of Christ, 
 Sept. 17, 1695.* Mr. Tong when noticing his death in the 
 life of Matthew Henry says : " Before that year was finished 
 Lancashire lost one of the greatest blessings that ever the 
 providence of God favoured it with in the last age. When 
 I say this, every body will conclude I mean that reverend, 
 holy, and evangelical minister, Mr. Henry Newcome."t 
 In the latter part of his life he was assisted in his work 
 both as a pastor and an instructor of youth by 
 
 Mr. John Chorlton. He was a fit coadjutor and suc- 
 cessor of such a man as Mr. Newcome. He died, when 
 just entering the prime of life and when engaged in a sphere 
 of very extensive usefulness, May 19, 1705. Mr. Mat- 
 thew Henry speaks of his death with more than common 
 concern, and says of him, " He was eminent for solid 
 judgment, great thought, an extraordinary quickness and 
 readiness of expression, a casuist one of a thousand, a won- 
 derful clear head, and one that did ' dmninariin concionibus, 
 and of great sincerity and serious piety. He was in the 
 fortieth year of his age, and was my beloved friend and 
 correspondent about sixteen years. O Lord, wilt thou make 
 a full end !" Mr. Chorlton's sermons, some of which are 
 preserved in manuscript, are like his worthy predecessor's 
 truly evangelical. The following are a few extracts from 
 one of them preached only a few months before his death 
 on Rev. i. 17- " Fear not; I am tlie first and the last." 
 " These words set forth the unchangeableness of Jesus 
 Christ. In him there is no change ; he is the same yes- 
 terday, to-day, and for ever. His merit and righteousness, 
 his Spirit and grace are the same. Whatever he was, that 
 he is, and ever will be both to the church and every true 
 believer. Tiiese words inform us that Jesus Christ is the 
 supreme God, and therefore worthy of all love and fear and 
 service. Isa. xliv. 6. " Thus saith the Lord, the King of 
 Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of Hosts ; I am the 
 
 ♦ Mr. Newcome was buried at Cross-street chapel, biil the stone which re- 
 corded his death, itc. has been removed. 
 
 f See aUo iNtemoir of Mr. Newcome in Select Nonron. Remains. 
 
145 
 
 ■first, and I am the last ; and beside me there is no God." 
 The great Jehovah distinguisheth himself from all pretended 
 deities ; and so it is clear that he is the true and supreme 
 God. Here also is comfort against the fear of death. Jesus 
 Christ was dead and is alive again, and lives for evermore ; 
 and if he be tlie first and the last, then those that are his 
 have no reason to be afraid of dying, for he will take care 
 of the time, and manner, and circumstances, of their change, 
 and of their inward frame. He by dying has taken the 
 sting out of death for all that are his. These words shew, 
 what addresses and applications are made to Jesus Christ. 
 Those with whom he is first and last will come to him and 
 plead with him. Many a prayer will they put up to him, 
 and many a meditation will they have of him. They will go 
 to him with their wants and necessities, for strength against 
 sin, and for wisdom how to carry themselves in all condi- 
 tions. Christ's throne of grace is not unfrequented but by 
 those who are strangers to the riches that are in him." 
 These are the scriptural doctrines this man of God preached 
 to his people, and which were the comfort of his soul in the 
 approach of death. What a contrast do they form to those 
 that have been since promulgated from the same pulpit ! 
 
 Mr. James Coningham was educated in the University of 
 Edinburgh. He was first settled at Penrith in Cumber- 
 land, where he was very useful in the conversion of souls 
 and the establishment of a seminary for training up young 
 men in academical studies. Sometime after the death of 
 Mr. Newcorae he was invited to become co-pastor and 
 assistant in the work of tuition with Mr. Chorlton, which 
 invitation he accepted in I7OO. During Mr. Chorlton's 
 life he was very happy in his station, but afterwards meet- 
 ing with many difficulties he removed to London, in I712, 
 and became pastor of the church assembling at Haber- 
 dasher's Hall, where he continued till his death in 1716, in 
 the forty-seventh year of his age. 
 
 Mr. Joseph Mottershead was educated at Attercliffe near 
 Sheffield, under the pious instruction of Timothy Jollie. He 
 was ordained when only twentv v(mvs of ;ige. and settled at 
 
 L 
 
146 
 Nantwich in Cheshire. It was in his meeting-place Mr. 
 Matthew Henry preached his last sermon, and from his 
 house the day after his holy soul took its flight to the world 
 of spirits, June 22, 1714. When Mr. Mottershead came 
 to Manchester about the year 1717, 't is acknowledged that 
 he found the congregation at Cross-street " rigid Calvin- 
 ists," and was supposed to be decidedly orthodox himself. 
 In the latter part of his ministry it is probable he imbibed 
 Arian principles. He is said to have been a convert for 
 a time to the Socinian arguments of his son-in-law, Mr. 
 Seddon, but that " afterwards he reverted to his former 
 opinions." He died Nov. 4, 177^5 ^^ the advanced age of 
 eighty-three, having been minister at Cross-street Chapel 
 about fifty-four years. He is buried in the middle aisle of 
 the chapel just before the pulpit. Mr. John Seddon be- 
 came assistant to Mr. Mottershead in the year 1739, whose 
 daughter he afterwards married. He was born in Little 
 Lever about the year 1717 ^"^ received the first part of 
 his education at Stand school. Afterwards he was admit- 
 ted a pupil of Dr. Rotheram's at Kendal, and then removed 
 to the University of Glasgow, where he took the degree 
 of M. A. He was one of the first who preached Socinian 
 doctrines in the pulpits of Lancashire. In one of his 
 published sermons he says : " thoroughly persuaded I am, 
 and therefore I think myself in duty bound openly and 
 publicly to declare my own conviction, that the New Tes- 
 tament, rightly understood, does not afford any real founda- 
 tion for either an Athanasian, Arian, or any notion of a 
 Trinity at all." However we may admire the intrepidity 
 of Mr. Seddon, for the public avow^al of what he believed 
 to be truth, we cannot applaud his integrity, for continuing 
 to preach in a chapel and partaking of emoluments de- 
 signed for the support of those very doctiines he impugned. 
 Thus by the Arian preaching of Mr. Motthershead and the 
 Socinian declamations of Mr. Seddon, the friends of evan- 
 gelical truth to the amount of about 200 were driven to 
 other places, and the effects produced on the souls of 
 those who remained and their descendants is a subject eter- 
 
147 
 nity alone can fully disclose. Mr. Seddon died Nov. 22, 
 1/69, when about fifty-four years of age. He lies buried 
 in the vestry of the chapel. Mr. Gore appears to have been 
 chosen as the successor of Mr. Seddon, though his senti- 
 ments concerning the person of Christ w^ere not exactly the 
 same, he being an Arian. He died in 1779, and vv^as 
 buried in the chapel. Mr. R. Harrison became minister at 
 Cross-street in the room ot Mr. Mottershead. His re- 
 ligious opinions accorded with Mr. Seddon's rather than 
 Mr. Mottershead's. He edited a small volume of Mr. Sed- 
 don's Sermons on the " Person of Christ, &c." with a Me- 
 moir of the author, in which he speaks of him in terms of 
 high commendation. Mr. Harrison died Nov. 24, 1810, 
 having been a preacher at this place thirty-eight years. 
 
 Dr. Thomas Barnes was chosen to succeed Mr. Gore. 
 He was born at Warrington, Feb. 1,1747. After he had 
 finished his academical education he settled at Cockey 
 Moor Chaj)el, near Bolton ; but receiving an invitation to 
 Cross-street, after the death of Mr. Gore, he accepted it, and 
 entered on his labours at Manchester, in 1780. His popu- 
 lar manners gratified a numerous congregation that attended 
 his ministry. He took an active part in many of the chari- 
 table and literary institutions of the town ; and when on the 
 dissolution of the Academy at Warrington, one on a similar 
 plan was commenced at Manchester, he undertook the office 
 of Divinity Tutor. But " he was disappointed, grieved, 
 and humbled ; and after about twelve years of unremitting 
 and generous industry he resigned his office." What were 
 his sentiments concerning the distinguishing doctrines of the 
 gospel is not easily ascertained, but probably they were 
 Arian. The author of his funeral sermon says : " A fear 
 of hurting the feelings, by counteracting the religious pre- 
 judices of part of his congregation, induced him cautiously 
 to avoid the discussion and illustration of some of the un- 
 popular doctrines of the gospel." If Dr. Barnes was pre- 
 vented by the fear of man from declaring the whole coun- 
 sel of God, he ill-discharged the awfully responsible? duties 
 
148 
 of his office as a minister of the gospel. He died June, 
 27, 1810, having preached at this place thirty years. 
 
 Mr. John Grundy became the successor of Dr. Barnes. 
 Soon after his settlement at Cross-street he delivered a 
 course of Lectures in which he stated " the peculiar doc- 
 trines of Unitarian belief." These lectures excited great 
 attention at Manchester and the neighbourhood at the time 
 of delivery, and were afterwards published. Mr. Grundy 
 removed from Manchester to Liverpool in August last, on 
 which occasion a dinner was given by some of the Cross- 
 street congregation for the purpose of publicly presenting 
 to him a " handsome silver tea service, as a testimony of 
 their high regard for the zeal he has evinced in the cause 
 of Unitarian Christianity." The speeches delivered after 
 tliis dinner, which were published in the Manchester Gazette, 
 gave rise to the controversy detailed in this publication. 
 Mr. J. G. Robberds who had been educated at York College, 
 and is a Unitarian, was appointed Mr. Grundy's coadjutor 
 at Cross-street on the death of Mr. Harrison, and continues 
 to occupy the pulpit. Mr. 1. H. Worthington, a student of 
 Manchester College, York, has been elected amidst consi- 
 derable dissatisfaction, to succeed Mr. Grundy, but has not 
 entered on his stated ministerial duties, not having com- 
 pleted his studies. Lady Hewley's Trustees have partly 
 supplied him with a Socinian education. 
 
 Mosley-sTReet, Manchester. — This is one of the few places 
 occupied by the Unitarians built for the purpose of maintain- 
 ing what is denominated Unitarian worship. A Liturgy ac- 
 commodated to the doctrines of Unitarianism is used in 
 this place in the forenoon, Mr. Hawkes who died a few 
 years since was the first minister of this chapel. He is 
 succeeded by Mr. Taylor from York Academy. 
 
 MoNTON, near Eccles. — Onginalli/ Orthodox. — Mr. Ed- 
 mund Jones was ejected from Eccles, whose father had been 
 many years Vicar of that parish. After his ejectment he 
 preached about twelve years in private or public, as the ruling 
 powers permitted, till his death in 1674. Sometime after his 
 decease, Mr. Roger Baldwin, ejected from Rainford in this 
 
149 
 County, remuvedin to this neighbourhood and preached with 
 much accejjtance and usefulness, and collected a numerous 
 and respectable congregation. " He was a solid, scriptural, 
 judicious preacher." Some notes of his sermons preached at 
 the Bolton lecture are still preserved, and contain such an 
 exhibition of gospel truth as would be acceptable in the or- 
 thodox pulpits of the present day. He died June 9, 1695, 
 aged seventy. It is probable that the old chapel at Monton was 
 built in the latter part of Mr. Baldwin's ministry : the present 
 place of worship is built on the site of the old one. After Mr. 
 Baldwin's death, Mr. Thomas Crompton ejected from 
 Toxteth Park Cliapel, near Liverpool, removed to this place. 
 He died Septembers, 1699, aged sixty-four. He was suc- 
 ceeded by Mr. Jeremiah Aldred, whose memory is still re- 
 vered by some of the old families in the neighbourhood. 
 He was a faithful pastor and scriptural preacher, and during 
 his ministry the chapel was often crowded with attentive 
 hearers many of whom came from a considerable distance. 
 Mr. Aldred was an intimate friend of Matthew Henry, and 
 was earnestly invited by the people at Chester to become 
 their minister when his friend removed to Hackney ; in this 
 request Mr. Henry united, but after much serious delibera- 
 tion and prayer the application was negatived. He died in 
 1729. After his death Mr. Chorley became minister at 
 Monton. He is supposed to have imbibed the Arian 
 scheme. Mr. Fenner followed Mr. Chorley, and afterwards 
 removed from this place about the year 1779. Mr. R. 
 Smithurst is the present minister. The endowments are 
 about SOL per annum^ and the congregation is small. 
 
 Oldham. — The Unitarian chapel in this place was built a 
 few years since, by the subscriptions of those who approve 
 of the system of doctrines denominated Unitarianism. It 
 is one of the few places of worship to which they have a 
 legitimate claim. No minister has been settled here, but 
 occasional supplies come to preach to a very small number 
 of people. The preacher and the whole of his congregation 
 have been scon conducting their worship all in one pew. 
 
 Ormskirk. — Originally Orthodox.— The eminently pious 
 
150 , 
 
 and laborious Mr. Nathaniel Heywood, was ejected from the 
 Vicarage* of this parish in 1662. He continued preaching in 
 the church sometime after the passing of the Act of Uniformity, 
 till a successor was appointed. His labours in the parish were 
 very successful to the good of souls. In 1672 he licensed 
 two preaching-places, one at Bickerstaff about two miles 
 south-east of Ormskirk, and another at Scarisbrick, about four 
 miles north-west of Ormskirk, and preached at them alter- 
 nately. He was taken away in the midst of his usefulness 
 and in the prime of his life, December 6, 1677? in the forty- 
 fourth year of his age. His Sermons entiled " Christ the 
 Best Gift and Best Master," published after his death, show 
 the exalted opinion he entertained of the person and benefits 
 of Christ. His death was universally lamented even by some 
 who had formerly been his opponents and persecutors. His 
 brother Oliver Heywood deeply bewailed his death in 
 the following language extracted from one of his MSS. 
 " This is a great loss to the church and nation, to that 
 parish, to his family, and to me in particular. O lamentable 
 loss ! What shall I say ? How are the mighty fallen ! How 
 is the beauty of Israel slain upon the high places ! Alas ! 
 alas ! those pleasant gardens of Eden which have been 
 watered with the rivers of God are likely to be as the moun- 
 tains of Gilboa^ upon which no more wholesome doctrines 
 will drop and distil as the dew. O my dear and lovely 
 brother ! what words shall I take to lament thee with ? 
 Alas my brother ! the honour of our family is gone ! He 
 was a christian and a minister of great parts, an ornament 
 to his generation, eminent for zeal, piety, humility, and all 
 ministerial endowments, &c." It is believed Mr. O. Hey- 
 wood wrote the interesting account of Nathaniel Heywood's 
 Life, published in 1695, with a dedication by Sir Henry 
 Ashurst to Lord Willoughby. (This Memoir will be re- 
 published with the Life and Works of O. Heywood now 
 
 ♦ The original presentation of Mr. Heywood to the Vicarage of Ormskirk 
 in 165T, signed by the Countess of Derby, is still in the possession of one of 
 his Uejcendants. He is the ancestor of the respectable families of Heywoods 
 in Manchester, Liverpool, Wakefield and London. 
 
151 
 
 in the Press.) The people to whom Mr. Nathaniel lley- 
 wood had broken the bread of life, embraced the earliest op- 
 portunity of erecting a place of worship in the town of Orms- 
 kirk, and gave his son Nathaniel Hey wood jun., who had 
 been a pupil of Mr. Frankland's, an invitation to be their 
 minister which he accepted, and laboured amongst them till 
 his death, October 26, 1704. He was much subject to low- 
 ness of spirits, but when thus afflicted would often preach in 
 a lively manner without the use of notes. He was succeeded 
 at Ormskirk by Mr. Hugh Worthington, who received his 
 education partly from Mr. Timothy Jollie, and partly from 
 the celebrated Mr. Matthew Henr3^ In 1707 ht; removed 
 to Dean Row, in Cheshire, and died there about 1737. Mr. 
 Alexander Wright was minister here in 1715. The chapel is 
 endowed, and, it is said, there are now about a dozen hearers. 
 
 Padiham, near Burnley. A chapel has been. built here 
 for the use of a congregation raised by the preaching of the 
 Unitarian Methodists. It was opened for public worship 
 in Whitsun-week 1823. 
 
 Park-lane, near Wigan. This place was built by the 
 friends of Orthodoxy. Mr. Thomas Blinstone,* a man of 
 evangelical sentiments and one of Mr. Frankland's students, 
 was here at the commencement of the last century. Mr. 
 John Brownlow afterwards preached here near fifty-yc^ars, 
 and is reputed to have l)een an orthodox preacher. Mr. 
 Thomas Smith, who had been preacher amongst the 
 Wesleyan Metliodists, removed from Stand to this place 
 about the year 1811. The endowments on this chapel are 
 about 100/. a year. One of the tenants refuses to })ay his rent, 
 assigning as his reason that the estate was not left for the 
 benefit of Unitarian but Trinitarian Dissenters. Mr. Kirk- 
 patrick was minister here above forty years since, and was 
 succeeded by Mr. Broadbent who died here. Both these 
 were of Unitarian sentiments. 
 
 Platt, near Manchester. The present chapel is built on 
 the site of an old one which was erected about the year 1/00 
 
 • He was the maternal grandfather of the late Dr. Barnes of Manchester. 
 
102 
 for Mr. Finch, an eminent orthodox divine, who had been 
 ejected from Walton, and was afterwards turned out of 
 Birch, a domestic chapel near this place. Mr. Finch died 
 November 13, 1704. The old trust deed says, that the 
 doctrines preached here shall be according to the Assembly's 
 Catechism^ and the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of 
 England. Mr. John Whitaker succeeded Mr. Finch in 
 the ministry at this chapel. Like his predecessor, he is 
 known to have been of evangelical principles, and preached 
 according to the doctrinal articles of the church of England. 
 During the pious labours of these christian teachers the con- 
 gregation was numerous, at present it often does not exceed 
 twenty persons. The ministers who have preached here 
 since Mr. Whitaker's death are Messrs. Haughton, Mean- 
 ley, Checkley, and Whitelegg the present minister, most or 
 all of whom have professed Unitarianism. 
 
 Prescot. — This chapel is not of so early a date as some 
 in this county but is of orthodox origin. Part of the endow- 
 ment at this place is connected with that of Knowsley. The 
 present minister is Mr. W. T. Proctor. Mr. Nathaniel 
 Heywood frequently preached in a private house at Prescot 
 after his ejectment. 
 
 Preston. — The present chapel was built about the year 
 I7I8, but it is probable there was a preaching place in this 
 town prior to the chapel now standing. Mr. John Turner 
 was minister at Walton and Preston in 1714. He was 
 succeeded by Mr. Pilkington who continued to preach at 
 both chapels. The endowment is about 60/. per annum, 
 and arises partly from the rents of Walton chapel which is 
 now converted into dwelling houses. Mr. W. M. Walker 
 •was for a short time minister at the chapel in Preston, but 
 on account of his preaching Trinitarian doctrines was re- 
 quired to resign his office. This he did, and his friends who 
 constituted the majority of his former hearers, built for him 
 the Independent Chapel in Grimshaw Street. The Unita- 
 rian minister at Preston is partly supported by the bounty of 
 Lady Hewley's Trustees, partly by the rents of Walton 
 chapel let as cottages, and partly by a congregation of about 
 forty persons. 
 
153 
 
 Rawtonstall, in Rossendale — The Trust Deed of this 
 chapel bears date May 17, 1/60. It states that the Meet- 
 ing-house erected there is put in trust for the use of " Pro- 
 testant Dissenters, distinguished by the name of Indepen- 
 dents, so long as there are and shall be a minister to preach 
 in it, and a congregation to meet in it that can and shall 
 subscribe unto a book of Articles made, owned, confessed 
 and subscribed unto by the present congregation and mem- 
 bers of this church, intitled " An Answer to every one that 
 asketh a reason of the hope that is in us." The first minister 
 of this chapel was a Mr. Richard Whittaker, who preached 
 here about twenty years. The minister now occupying the 
 place is Mr. John Ingham, who has been here above forty 
 years. When he came hither he professed to be of orthodox 
 sentiments, but about seven years since he acknowledged 
 himself to be what is known by the term Unitarian. He 
 has in his possession the book of Articles mentioned in the 
 trust deed and required to be signed by the minister and 
 members of the church, and confesses he does not believe the 
 doctrinal sentiments therein contained, though he continues 
 to hold possession of the pulpit. Since he has embraced 
 and preached Unitarian doctrines he has received support 
 from Lady Hewley's Funds. 
 
 RiSLEY, near Warrington.— This chapel was built for Mr. 
 Thomas Risley, who was born in this neighbourhood, August 
 27, 1630. When ejected from the University of Oxford by 
 the Act of Uniformity, he retired to his family estate and 
 preached to his neighbours in private. After the revolution, 
 they were formed into a regular society, to which he publicly 
 administered the ordinances of the gospel. His religious 
 sentiments were evidently orthodox. He published a trea- 
 tise on the " Evil of Neglecting Family Prayer," to which 
 Mr. John Howe wrote a preface. He died in 1715, in the 
 eighty-sixth year of his age. His son John Risley was 
 assistant and successor to his father. In the year 1717, a 
 sum of money was given towards the support of a gospel 
 ministry in this place. A person, who was at that time ap- 
 pointed one of the Tmstees. notices the circumstance in his 
 
154 
 diary and adds, " Lord I would act therein as one that hath 
 found mercy of the Lord to be faithful." If this scriptural 
 spirit had influenced every succession of Trustees of ortho- 
 dox endowments, there would be no cause to complain of 
 the present gross perversion of trust property amongst 
 dissenters. The Endowment is 70/. per annum. 
 
 RiviNGTON. — Mr. Samuel Newton was the person ejected 
 from the episcopal chapel here ; but consenting to read 
 some of the prayers, was permitted to preach after Bartholo- 
 mew day. Mr. Walker ejected from Newton Heath Chapel, 
 succeeded him in ministering the gospel to this people. He 
 is supposed to have been the first minister of the dissenting 
 chapel at Rivington. He was one of the lecturers at Bolton, 
 and some of his sermons preached at this lecture prove his 
 orthodoxy. When the Conventicle Act was in force, the 
 good people at Rivington frequently assembled to worship 
 God according to the dictates of their consciences in the open 
 air, at a place called Winter-hill. Seats were cut out of the 
 side of the hill, still visible, so as to form an ampitheatre, 
 in the centre of which was a stone pulpit. Between eighty 
 and ninety years ago, when Arian sentiments were intro- 
 duced into this place, two of the pious people were so dis- 
 tressed that they agreed to call a child of theirs, born at this 
 time, Ichabod, because they considered the glory was de- 
 parted. The endowments belonging to Rivington chapel 
 arise chiefly from the rents of cottages built several years 
 since, with money that had been out at interest, the whole 
 or part of which was left at the time Trinitarian doctrines 
 were preached in the place. It is understood that the ori- 
 ginal Trust Deed requires that the Assembly s Catechism 
 shall be taught here. Some persons now living, knew others 
 who in their youth had been publicly taught it in the chapel. 
 
 Rochdale. — Blackwater Street Chapel. Mr. Robert 
 Bath, Vicar of this parish, united with the second classis of 
 ministers who met at Bury, for the purpose of ordaining 
 preachers and managing the ecclesiastical affairs of this dis- 
 trict. He was very diligent in his work as a servant of 
 Christ, and was much beloved by his people. When ejected 
 
155 
 
 from the church he continued to preach in a private house 
 to crowded audiences of his old hearers till 1674. After his 
 death the people were occasionally visited by Mr. Pendlebury 
 and various nonconformist ministers. Mr. Oliver Heywood 
 often preached in this town on his way to and from Yorkshire 
 and Lancashire. Mr. Joseph Dawson was minister here in 
 1 706, and died minister of this people in 1 739. The present 
 chapel was built during his ministry, so that there must have 
 been a place of worship prior to this building. The Trust 
 Deed is dated 1716. The founders of this edifice were many 
 of them persons in humble life and contributed manually as 
 well as with their money towards the present building. It 
 is a very plain structure, and was originally more so than at 
 this time, for about thirty years since it underwent a 
 thorough repair at a considerable expence. Mr. Richard 
 Scholfield was minister here a short time. He died in 1740. 
 Mr. Owen was his successor, who was a man possessing 
 the talent of wit and sarcasm to a very great degree, by 
 which he defended himself and his fellow dissenters from 
 the attacks of the high church party of those days. His 
 religious sentiments corresponded with the doctrines of 
 Arius. — Hopkins, M. D. was probably the immediate 
 successor of Mr. Owen, as his death is recorded in the chapel 
 as having taken place in 1754. Mr. Hassall was minister 
 at this place a few years and v/as followed in 1779 by Mr. 
 Thomas Threlkeld, who was distinguished for the strength 
 of his memory and his acquaintance with the learned lan- 
 guages. He died here in 1806. Mr. Marshall, and Mr. 
 Richard Astley now at Halifax, were here a few years. 
 The present minister Mr. G. W. Elliott came to Rochdale 
 in 1815. Soon after the erection of this chapel several 
 cottages were left by certain pious individuals, the rents 
 of which were directed to be applied to the preaching of 
 certain lectures at stated periods, but the attendance on these 
 lectures having fallen off very much, the funds are appro- 
 priated to the support. of the regular minister of the place. 
 The proceeds of these cottages are about 43/. ;;er amium. 
 The other endowments belonging to the chapel amount to 
 
156 
 55/. a year. The //oor minister of this chapel is still fur- 
 ther relieved by the trustees of Lady Hewley's property to 
 the amount of 10/. or 12/. annually. About fifty years 
 since if a family coming to reside at Rochdale wished to 
 attend at Blackwater Street Chapel, they often had to wait 
 a considerable time before they could obtain a pew ; but 
 now the congregation in winter is frequently under twenty 
 individuals. 
 
 Rochdale, — Unitarian Methodist Chapel. This place 
 was built in 1818, and is supplied chiefly by local preachers. 
 One of them of the name of Taylor who resides in Roch- 
 dale receives a part of Lady Hewley's funds towards his 
 support. If it be a bye law amongst the Trustees of this 
 property, as has often been asserted, that no minister shall 
 receive aid from this Fund who has not been educated for 
 the ministry, then it appears, that in this case at least, their 
 zeal for the propagation of Unitarianism by the misapplica- 
 tion of her bequests, has caused them to violate their own 
 rules. 
 
 Salford. — A Unitarian place of worship was opened 
 here Dec. 26, 1824. The congregation has been raised 
 chiefly by the services of local preachers. Mr. Beard from 
 Manchester College, York, has become the minister at this 
 chapel. 
 
 Stand, near Manchester. — Originally Orthodox. — The 
 founders of the Dissenting cause at this place were mostly, 
 it is supposed, the old hearers of Mr. Pyke, who was ejected 
 in 1662 from Radcliffe Church in this neighbourhood. Many 
 of the non-conformist ministers, who resorted to Manchester 
 as a place of refuge, it not being a corporation town, supplied 
 the neighbouring villages as they had opportunity, and Stand 
 enjoyed that privilege among the rest. Tradition affirms that 
 the first preaching-place here was a barn in Higher Lane. The 
 congregation thus collected chose Mr. Robert Eaton for 
 their first minister, and built a more convenient place of 
 worship in 1695.* He was born in Cheshire, and finished 
 
 • Tbe chapel was re-built on the site of the old oue in 1818. 
 
157 
 
 his education at Cambridge. His first settlement was in 
 Essex, and afterwards at Walton near Preston, whence he 
 was ejected. He became chaplain to Lord Delamere. Mr. 
 Eaton " was a solid divine, a good scholar, and a judicious 
 Christian." Some sermons of his in MS. on Phil. iii. 8. 0. 
 are truly excellent, and contain much evangelical sentiment 
 admirably expressed. His death took place at Manchester 
 in August 1701. His funeral sermon was preached by Mr. 
 Finch who had been his fellow labourer at Walton. His 
 successor wsls Mr. Saimiel Eaton who died Sept. S, 1710. 
 Mr. Matthew Henry thus notices his death : " In him the 
 church of God has lost a person of great learning and in- 
 tegrity. He was much superior to most of his brethren 
 both for learning and estate, but the most humble, conde- 
 scending and affectionate friend that I have ever known. 
 He had buried, not long before he died, two sons and his 
 good son-in-law Mr. Cheyney of Warrington. He was 
 about fifty-four years of age. His memory is and will be 
 precious." Mr. Joseph Heywood followed him who was at 
 Stand in 1715. There are notes of sermons preached by 
 him in 1727, which are truly Orthodox, but at what time he 
 died cannot be exactly ascertained. Mr. William Harrison 
 came to Stand in 1730 and removed to Buxton in 1737. 
 Mr. William Bond appears to have been the next minister, 
 and preached here about forty years. Mr. W. D. Cooper 
 became minister at this place early in the year 1781, and 
 removed to Gorton in 1788. Mr. Atchrey succeeded him, 
 who, preaching Socinian doctrines, caused many of the peo- 
 ple to withdraw and build the Independent Chapel in Stand 
 Lane in 1792. He removed to Gloucester in 1795. He 
 was succeeded by Mr, Thomas S/m'lh who removed to Park 
 Lane in the year 181 1. The j)resent minister is Mr. Arthur 
 Dean from Manchester College, York. The chapel is en- 
 dowed, but part of the endowments are not of Orthodox 
 origin. The ministers at this chapel have for many years 
 past received aid from Lady Ilewley's property. There is 
 also an endowed school in tlie chapel yard of which Mr. 
 Dean is the master. 
 
158 
 
 ToDMORDEN. — A chapel was opened here in Whitsun- 
 week 1824, in connexion with the Unitarian Methodists, 
 and is principally supplied by the same lay preachers as 
 Rochdale. 
 
 ToxTETH Park, near Liverpo()l. — This place may boast 
 of as great antiquity for dissent from Episcopacy as any in 
 Lancashire, Some of the early provincial meetings of the 
 Presbyterians are said to have been held here. Mr. Thomas 
 Cromj)ton M. A. of the University of Oxford was ejected 
 from this chapel. He together with Mr. Briscoe, ejected 
 from Walmsley chapel, continued preaching in the Episco- 
 pal chapel some time after the Act of Uniformity. They 
 wepe both considered Orthodox and excellent preachers. 
 About I672, Mr. Richardson formerly of Kirk-Heaton 
 preached at Toxteth Park and Liverpool alternately. The 
 first Dissenting congregation at Liverpool was a branch 
 from this place. The ministers preceding Mr. Anderson, 
 who now occupies the pulpit of the Dissenting chapel here, 
 and who has been nearly fifty years at this place, have all 
 been reputed as Orthodox. When he came it was on the 
 supposition that he was of the same evangelical sentiments 
 as his predecessors. Soon after Mr. Anderson's settlement 
 at Toxteth Park a gi;eat part of the congregation withdrew, 
 and assisted in building the Independent chapel in Renshaw 
 Street, Liverpool in 1777- ^he chapel at Toxteth Park has 
 endowments belonging to it, some of which are expressly 
 directed to be paid to a minister " holding and teaching 
 sentiments conformable to the Doctrinal Articles of the 
 Chrirch of England J'^ A correspondent says: "The con- 
 gregation is literally gone to nothing, consisting often en- 
 tirely of official persons, viz. the door-keeper, the grave- 
 digger, the singers and the preacher. I have been there 
 when there were only a dozen persons present." When 
 Mr. Gellibrand was minister here, about a century since, the 
 place was crowded to excess, and it was accounted a ])rivi- 
 lege to obtain standing room. FTe was succeeded by Mr. 
 Kenyon, and afterwards by Mr. Harding. 
 
 TuNLEY. — See Wigan. 
 
159 
 WALMSLEY,near Bolton. — Mr. Michael Briscoe of Trinity 
 College, Dublin, was ejected from the chapel here under the 
 establishment. The people who founded the Dissenting 
 chapel at this place were congregational in their views of 
 church government. Mr. Briscoe removed to Toxteth Park 
 and died Sept. 1685, aged 96. He was succeeded at 
 Walmsley by Mr. Thomas Key as appears from a certifi- 
 cate of his ordination in the possession of the writer, of 
 which the following is a copy. 
 
 " 10th day of the 7th month I67I." 
 " We do certify whom it may concern, that our dear 
 brother Mr. Thomas Key in our judgment is competently 
 qualified for the ministry, as hath also been certified accord- 
 ing to the judgment of diverse reverend ministers of several 
 persuasions. We do also certify, that ho is unanimously 
 chosen by the brethren of Walmsley to be their Teacher, 
 and also he hath humbly accepted of that call. We do 
 lastly certify, that he is ordained to that office in the name 
 of Christ, and therfjfore he should be so received." 
 " THOMAS JOLLIE, 
 (Pastor of the Church which formerly met at Altham in 
 Lancashire.) 
 RICHARD PRIESTLEY, 
 (Pastor of the Church of Christ in and about Kingston upon 
 
 Hull.") 
 When a Socinian minister was introduced into the Dissent- 
 ing chapel at Walmsley, and he had made a confession of 
 his faith, it is said, that the neighbouring ministers who had 
 assembled to assist at his ordination were so much grieved 
 that they withdrew and refused to take any part in the ser- 
 vice. The endowment belonging to this chapel is about 
 30/. per annum besides a house for the minister. 
 
 Walton, near Preston. — Origmalh/ Orthodox. — It is 
 now converted into Cottages, and tlie rents are paid to the 
 minister at Preston. — See Preston. 
 
 Warrington. — Mr. Robert Yates, an able Orthodox di- 
 vine was ejected from the parish church of this town. In 
 I672, he took out a license and preached publicly to many 
 
160 
 
 of his former hearers. He died in Nov. 1678, aged sixty- 
 six and was succeeded by his son Mr. Samuel Yates. Mr. 
 Matthew Henry, when minister at Chester, frequently 
 visited and preached at Warrington. Mr. C. Owen was 
 probably the immediate successor of Mr. Yates, jun. He 
 was followed by Mr. Felkin. Both these are said to have 
 been sound in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ according 
 to the usual interpretation of Trinitarians. About sixty 
 years ago a Mr. Seddon was minister here who is reputed 
 to have been an Arian. He was followed by Dr. Enfield, 
 whose Socinian doctrines caused most of the pious people 
 to leave and build the Independent place of worship called 
 Stepney Chapel. After Dr. Enfield, Mr. Bealey of Cockey 
 Moor preached here about two years, and was succeeded by 
 Mr. Broadbent who was minister of the place upwards of 
 twenty years. Since his death Mr. Hutton was here a 
 short time. Mr. Dimmock is the present minister. The 
 latter ministers have all preached what are denominated 
 Unitarian doctrines. The old place of worship was consi- 
 derably smaller than the present chapel. The endowment 
 is about 35/. per annum the greater part, if not the whole, is 
 of Orthodox origin. 
 
 WiGAN. — This place and Tunley have been supplied 
 alternately for near thirty years past by Mr. Dinwiddle a 
 native of Scotland. Both places were built by the Ortho- 
 dox and are endowed. The congregations are exceedingly 
 small. 
 
 The Unitarian Methodists had their origin amongst the 
 followers of Mr. Cooke formerly a minister amongst the 
 Wesleyan Methodists, but who was expelled from that con- 
 nexion in the year 1806. His friends built for him an 
 excellent chapel at Rochdale which has since been sold to 
 the Independents. After Mr. Cooke's death many of his 
 hearers having embraced Unitarian sentiments formed 
 themselves into a distinct society, retaining part of the 
 plans common to the Wesleyans, but differing very far from 
 them in doctrines. A yearly meeting of the brethren is 
 held at some appointed place, in imitation of the Methodist 
 
161 
 conference, at which a {)lan is drawn up appointing the 
 preachers to their different stations for the ensuing year. 
 They have several licensed rooms in Lancashire, mostly in 
 the neighbourhood of Rochdale and Manchester, beside the 
 chapels noticed in the above list, in which they have Sunday 
 Schools and preaching. These lay preachers, besides the 
 assistance they receive from Lady Hewley's Trustees, are 
 encouraged in a more legitimate manner by the voluntary 
 subscriptions of some of their wealthy friends in the 
 County. 
 
 Many of the Unitarian ministers officiating in the chapels 
 enumerated in the foregoing list share in (he plunder of 
 Lady Hewley's property, designed for the relief, of ^^ Poor 
 and Godly Preachers of CkiiaCs Holy Gospel,'' beside those 
 instances in which the fact is mentioned. 
 
 LEICESTERSHIRE. 
 
 Hinckley. — Originally Orthodox. — The number of the 
 congregation is almost reduced to nothing. 
 
 Leicester. — Originally Orthodox. 
 Loughborough and Mount Sorrell. — Both originally 
 orthodox, but now united under one minister. 
 
 LINCOLNSHIRE. 
 
 Boston. — Built by the Unitarians. 
 
 KiRKSTEAD. — Originally Orthodox. — At present neither 
 minister nor congregation. The property has been for 
 some years under litigation. The endowment large. 
 
 M 
 
162 
 Lincoln. — Originally Or/Aofifoa;. —Endowment 601. per 
 
 annum. 
 
 MIDDLESEX. 
 
 Brentford. — Originally Orthodox. 
 Hackney. — Built by the Unitarians. 
 Hampstead. — Originally Orthodox. — Endowed. 
 Newington Green. Do. 
 
 LONDON. 
 
 Essex-street, Strand. — Built for the late Rev. T. 
 Lindsey. 
 
 Jewin-street. — This place was built about twenty years 
 ago. The congregation removed from an old meeting-house 
 in the Old Jewry : it was originally Orthodox. 
 
 Monk well-street. — Originally Orthodox. — The first 
 minister the Rev. T. Doolittle, ejected in 1662. 
 
 SoMERS Town. — Built by the Unitarians. 
 
 South Place, Finsbury Square. — Do. 
 
 Stamford-street, Blackfriars Road. — Recently built by 
 two congregations who before met in chapels erected for the 
 orthodox. The proceeds of those chapels were applied 
 towards the expense of the new building. 
 
 Worship Street. — Built about 1780 by four general 
 baptist congregations. 
 
 York Street. — Lately taken by Unitarians. 
 
 NORFOLK. 
 
 Diss. — Built by the Unitarians. 
 FiLBY. — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 Hapton. — Do. Endowment very 
 
 large. Congregation almost extinct. 
 Lynn.— 5m7^ by the Unitarians. ' 
 
163 
 
 Norwich. -— OAi^wrt% Orthodox. — Rebuilt 1/56, for 
 Dr. Taylor and his congregation, 
 Yarmouth . — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 NORTHUMBERLAND. 
 
 North shields. — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 Newcastle, Hano^^er Square, — originally orthodox. — 
 Dr. Richard Gilpin, (See Non. Con. Mem. Vol. I. p. 386.) 
 was one of the founders and first pastors of this place, and 
 died here in 1700. The assistant minister then and for 
 sometime subsequent to the Doctor's death was Mr. Tho- 
 mas Bradbury, the well-known champion of Orthodoxy, 
 who dedicated some most orthodox sermons to this con- 
 gregation. Mr. Benjamin Bennet, author of " The Chris- 
 tian Oratory," succeeded Dr. Gilpin as pastor, and died 
 here Sept. 1, 1726; the present chapel was built for Mr. 
 Bennet, and the day previous to his decease had been fixed 
 upon for the opening. To him succeeded Dr. Samuel 
 Lawrence, son of the excellent Mr. Lawrence, of Nant- 
 wich, the friend of Matthew Heniy, who preached his fu- 
 neral sermon. In 1 733, Dr. Lawrence removed to Monk- 
 well-street, London, to succeed the truly evangelical Daniel 
 Wilcox, and was followed at Newcastle by Mr. Rogerson, 
 who it is probable opened the door for Arianism in this hi- 
 therto orthodox society, he died in 1769. 
 
 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. 
 
 Mansfield. — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 Nottingham. Do. Endowment re- 
 
 spectable. The change of sentiment took place about eighty 
 years ago, when about thirty families withdrew and united 
 with the Independents. 
 
164 
 
 OXFORDSHIRE. 
 Banbury. — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 SHROPSHIRE. 
 
 Oldbury. — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 Shrewsbury. Do. One of their first 
 
 ministers the Rev. Mr. Tallents, ejected 1662. 
 
 Whitchurch. — Originally Orthodox. — Endowment 
 large. 
 
 SOMERSETSHIRE. 
 
 Bath — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 Bridgewater. Do. 
 
 Crewkerne. Do. 
 
 Oakhill. Do. 
 
 Shepton Mallet. — Do. The Unitarian mi- 
 
 nister of Oakhill preaches here occasionally. The endow- 
 ment considerable. 
 
 Taunton. — Originally Orthodox. — The endowments 
 considerable, but chiefly by persons who were not or- 
 thodox. 
 
 Yeovil. — Originally Orthodox. — But rebuilt. The last 
 orthodox minister was an M.D. named Lobb. Endowment 
 251. to 301. per annum. 
 
165 
 STAFFORDSHIRE. 
 
 CosELEY. — Originally Orthodox. — Well endowed. For 
 nearly twenty years the Rev. William Edwards who was 
 Orthodox was their pastor. He declined the ministry on ac- 
 count of ill-health about the year 1773- Mr. Small is the 
 present minister. 
 
 Stone. — Originally Orthodox. — Was connected with 
 Stafford. The endowment, if any, must be very small. 
 
 Newcastle-under-line. The old meeting-house was 
 originally Orthodox ; but a new place of worship has been 
 built in that neighbourhood by the Unitarians. 
 
 Tamworth — Is now connected with Atherstone, and 
 being an old place was no doubt originally Orthodox. 
 
 Stafford. — Originally Orthodox. — Vacant and going to 
 ruins. The trustees possess the endowment, but the deeds 
 of the chapel provide that if the worship should be discon- 
 tinued, the funds should be paid to the nearest congregation 
 of the same denomination. 
 
 Walsall. — Originally Orthodox. — Endowment small. A 
 Mr. Warner an Orthodox minister was their pastor for some 
 years. A Mr. Jones who was also Orthodox succeeded him ; 
 during his ministry a gentleman of considerable influence 
 borrowed the title-deeds and retained them in his possession, 
 who with his friends procured the election of a second Mr. 
 Jones whose religious principles were not esteemed correct 
 by the church and pious part of the congregation on which 
 account they were compelled to leave the old meeting-house. 
 Mr. Bowen is the present minister. 
 
 Wolverhampton. — Originally Orthodox. — Built I70I. 
 Endowments about 7OI. per annum. First minister Joshua 
 Reynolds ; the second minister in whose time the meeting 
 house was built, the Rev. J. Stubbs; he was truly Orthodox; 
 he died in 1740. Mr. Holland was elected 1748 and left 
 in 1754. Mr. Cole was settled 1759, and was pastor of 
 the church twenty-one years. I'he Rev. Mr. Jameson was 
 invited to be his successor and accepted the invitation ; but 
 
166 
 when he arrived at Wolverhampton was prevented entering 
 upon his ministry by a minority of the congregation which 
 had as their leader an individual deeply tinctured with Socinian 
 sentiments under whose influence the Rev. S. Griffiths an 
 Arian was elected. The Rev. J. Small was the first Unita- 
 rian minister who officiated in the old meeting-house for any 
 length of time — he was followed by the Rev. J. Steward, 
 who in 1816 abandoned Socianism. At a meeting held on 
 the first of September, Mr. Joseph Pearson and about 
 twelve other persons signed a string of resolutions in which 
 they declared themselves to be Unitarians. Mr. Pearson 
 had long held the trust-deeds contrary to the wishes of his 
 colleagues. Proceedings were instituted against Mr. Stew- 
 ard and the trustee who protected him which were stopped 
 by the Lord Chancellor, and Mr. S. remains in possession 
 by his Lordship's order. 
 
 SUFFOLK. 
 
 Bury St. Edmonds. — Originally Orthodox. — And con- 
 tinued so till 1800. Endowment 701. per annum. 
 
 Framlingham. — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 Ipswich — Do. 
 
 LowESTOFFE. Do. Said to be now In- 
 
 dependent, 
 
 Palgrave. Do. 
 
 SURRY. 
 GoDALMiNG. — G. B. modern. 
 
167 
 
 SUSSEX. . 
 
 Battle. — Built about thirty years ago by the Orthodox. 
 Brighton. — Built by Unitarians. 
 BiLLiNGHURST. — G. B. — Originally Orthodox. 
 Chichester. Bo. 
 
 cuckfield. g. b. 
 
 DiTCHLING. G. B. 
 
 Horsham. G. B. Bo. 
 
 Lewes. Bo. 
 
 WARWICKSHIRE. 
 
 Alcester. — Originally Orthodox. — Built about the year 
 1710. 
 
 Atherstone. Bo. 
 
 Birmingham, Old Meeting, and New Meeting. — Both 
 Originally Orthodox. — Rebuilt by the Arians after the 
 riots. 
 
 Coventry. — Originally Orthodox. — Mr. Tong, the bio- 
 grapher of Matthew Henry, was once the minister of tliis 
 chapel. 
 
 Kenilworth. — Originally Orthodox. — This place is now 
 in Chancery at the instance of the Orthodox trustees, for 
 the purpose of recovering it to the party upon which it 
 was originally settled. 
 
 KiNGSWOOD. — Not ascertained, but as our correspondent 
 thinks it was probably built by the Arians or Socinians it 
 may rank amongst the few which have been originated in 
 that way. 
 
 Warwick. — Originally Orthodox. — Mr. Carpenter, one 
 of the former mmisters, used to catechise the children pub- 
 licly, by teaching and explaining the Assembly's Catechism. 
 
163 
 
 WESTMORELAND. 
 
 Kendal. — Originally Orthodox. — Dr. Rotherham who 
 educated young men for the ministry was Minister of this 
 congregation for many years. He became an Arian, and the 
 congregation is now Socinian. The chapel is liberally en- 
 dowed, and the value of the property is improved by re- 
 building, &c, by the congregation. Our correspondent 
 says he believes this is the only chapel belonging to the 
 Unitarians in this county. 
 
 WILTSHIRE. 
 
 Bradford. — Originally Orthodox. — Endowed. 
 Salisbury. Do. Endowed. No^ 
 
 Hs a school-room by Wesleyan Methodists. 
 
 Trowbridge. — Originally OrMoafex.— Endowed. 
 Warminster. Do. 
 
 WORCESTERSHIRE. 
 
 Bromsgrove. — This place being upwards of a century 
 old, there can be no doubt that it was originally orthodox. 
 It is now occupied by the Methodists by permission of 
 the Socinians, who, in order to retain possession of the 
 chapel and funds, have a sermon there once a fortnight. 
 
 Our Correspondent laconically adds to the above state- 
 ment, " scarcely any body attends." 
 
 Cradley. — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 Dudley. Do. 
 
 Evesham. Do. 
 
169 
 
 Kidderminster. — Built by the Unitarians. 
 Stourbridge. — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 YORKSHIRE. 
 West Riding. 
 
 Bradford. — Originally Orthodox. — The Endowment is 
 considerable. The Chapel here was built about 1717. 
 Before that period the people assembled for worship at Little 
 Horton, the residence of the family of the Sharps, who were 
 eminent for Scriptural piety, and at a place near Wibsey. 
 In 1732 Mr. Hardcastle was minister here, whose father, 
 Mr. Thomas Hardcastle, was ejected from Bramham, in 
 Yorkshire, and was often the victim of persecution. One of 
 his successors was John Smith, the son of Matthew Smith, 
 who was minister at Mixenden and Warley, and published 
 a small octavo volume on " Justification by the imputed 
 Righteousness of Christ." John Smith's sentiments appear 
 in a volume of sermons he published in 1737, containing five 
 of his fathers' and three of his own, with an account of his 
 father's life. He died in 1768: and probably was, what 
 Dr. Doddridge has called " a Baxterian Calvinist." 
 
 DoNC aster. — Originally Orthodox. — Endowed. 
 
 Elland Chapel and School. — An endowment, which 
 is now ui)wards of 80/. per annum, was bequeathed previous 
 to 1701. Of this bequest 15/. belongs to the chapel only 
 and the rest relates as much to the School as to the Chapel, 
 and the trustees are empowered either to unite them in one 
 person, or to divide them. The proof which will be 
 adduced of the early orthodoxy of Lidget Chapel is equally 
 applicable to that of Elland, because they were formerly 
 conjoined ; and the same minister officiated at both places. 
 The low state of the congregation may be inferred from the 
 following fact. After the last minister removed, the trustees 
 
170 
 suspended public worship several months, and applied the 
 endowment to defray some expences of repairs. 
 Halifax — Originally Orthodox — The Endowment about 
 45/. per annum. Mr. O. Heywood was the founder of the 
 dissenting interest at this place. Many families were ac- 
 customed to attend his ministry at Northowram, who, when 
 King James issued his declaration for liberty of conscience, 
 commenced building the Chapel here. For some time Mr. 
 Heywood preached alternately at Halifax and Northowram. 
 Early in the last century, Mr. Dawson was minister at this 
 place. His father, Joseph Dawson, was ejected from 
 Thornton Chapel, in Yorkshire, and was also the intimate 
 and confidential friend of Mr. Oliver Heywood. Besides 
 the blessing of having such a father, he was educated in 
 Richard Frankland's academy. From these facts, we are 
 warranted to infer that he imbibed the spirit, and adhered to 
 the faith of the ancient nonconformists. 
 
 LiDGET. — Originally Orthodox. — The endowment up- 
 wards of 60/. per annum. This Chapel was built in 1695 ; 
 and rebuilt in 1768 ; but the first chapel, erected on the same 
 ground, was of an earlier date. No account can be obtained 
 of the ministers, farther back than 1820; but something 
 may be known from an old folio volume, which one of them 
 bequeathed to the congregation and which yet remains on the 
 Communion Table. It has been formerly much used ; the 
 title page is gone, the leaves are loose, mis-placed and 
 some of them wanting ; but the running titles are Original 
 Sin — Repentance — Faith — Knowledge of Christ— Justifica- 
 tion — New creature — Christ's gracious invitations — Christ 
 dying for sinners — Christ's intercession, &c., &c. It is 
 called a volume of Baxter's Works, but, in fact, it is David 
 Clarkson's Sermons and Discourses. The venerable book 
 shows what principles once animated the zeal of the prea- 
 chers, and attracted the attendance, and warmed the hearts 
 of the listening throng. It also forms a striking contrast to 
 the enlightened and liberal notions which have since been 
 read from the pulpit to the empty pews. 
 Leeds. — Call-lane. — Originally Orthodox. — Endowed. 
 
171 
 
 The congregation was originally gathered by Mr- Christo- 
 pher Nesse, one of the ejected ministers, in IC72 ; and 
 on his removal to London in 167a, Mr. Whitaker was 
 called to succeed him ; but the present chapel was not built 
 till 1691 — Thomas Whitaker took the pastoral charge of 
 this place in 1675, and was minister there thirty-four years. 
 He is celebrated for extensiv^e learning, and powerful abili- 
 ties, for fervent piety, and exemplary excellence of character. 
 His labours were great, and they were honoured with great 
 success. What his doctrinal sentiments were, may be 
 known from his works, and from the testimony of the cele- 
 brated Thomas Bradbury, who knew him well, and revered 
 him highly, having liv^ed some time in his family. He 
 informs us, that Mr. Whitaker's " way of understanding 
 the great doctrines of election, redemption, justification, 
 conversion, and perseverance, was agreeable to the churches 
 of England, Scotland, Holland, and Geneva." Preface to 
 Thomas Whitaker's Sermons, 8vo. 1712. Mr. Whitaker 
 was a member of the church at Althome, under the pastoral 
 care of Mr. Thomas Jollie ; and when he formed the church 
 at Leeds, he conducted it on congregational principles. 
 He was an intimate friend of Mr. Heywood ; and fellow- 
 prisoner with him in York Castle many months. This 
 place had a very honourable commencement, and of the 
 present generation of hearers it may be said, that their 
 creed is not quite so scanty, nor are their negations so nume- 
 rous, as those of modern Socinians ot the newest fashion. 
 
 Leeds. — Mill Hill. — Originally Ch-thodox. — Endowed, 
 built in 1672. Mr. Richard Stretton and Mr. Cornelius 
 Todd were the first ministers, in conjunction with two 
 others. Mr. Stretton was a friend of Dr. Manton, and 
 his funeral sermon was preached by Matthew Henry. Mr. 
 Todd is said to have drawn up the Confession of Faith, 
 sometimes bound up with the Assembly's Catechism. Mr. 
 Sharp, Mr. Pendlebury, and others, who have followed as 
 ministers of this chapel, were also Orthodox. It was 
 during the ministry of Mr. Joseph Cappe, that the departure 
 from Orthodox doctrine took place. Dr. Priestley became 
 
172 
 minister of this Chapel in the year 1767, and was followed, 
 in 1773, by Mr. William Wood, the father of Mr. G. W. 
 Wood, who has been a writer in the present controversy. 
 Mr. W. Wood died in 1808. 
 
 RoTHERHAM. — Originally Orthodox. — Endowed. — The 
 first minister was John Heywood, who entered on his stated 
 ministry here, in March 1693 ; he had the honour and happi- 
 ness to be a son of Oliver Heywood, and a student in the 
 academy of Richard Frankland. His father has left an in- 
 teresting record of the solemn and impressive manner in 
 which his ordination was conducted. Mr. Heywood re- 
 moved from this place to Pontefract in 1695, and continued 
 the Minister there till his death, September 2, 1704. His 
 doctrinal sentiments were orthodox. 
 
 Selby. — Originally Orthodox. — Endowed. — The present 
 state of this place appears, from the account of Richard 
 Wright, the Socinian itinerant, who says, " the present 
 minister has very few hearers." 
 
 Sheffield. — Originally Orthodor. — Endowed. — This 
 Chapel was built in 1678, for Robert Durant, the ejected 
 minister from Crowle, in Lincolnshire ; and was re-built on 
 a larger scale, and in handsome style, for his successor, 
 Timothy Jollie, the Son of Thomas JoUie, the ejected mi- 
 nister of Althome, in Lancashire. Blessed is that congre- 
 gation which enjoys the services of such a man as Timothy 
 Jollie; for he inherited the principles and virtues of his 
 father ; and was a very superior man, both for learning and 
 goodness. He was the tutor of a flourishing Academy at 
 Attercliffe ; and the pastor of a numerous and respectable 
 congregation at Sheffield, until his death, in 1714. Oliver 
 Heywood, Richard Frankland, Thomas Whitaker, and 
 Timothy Jollie, were the founders of Dissenting chapels, 
 and the glory of Dissenting congregations in Yorkshire, 
 and would have been an honour to any denomination. On 
 Mr. JoUie's death, a majority of the Church members would 
 have invited Mr. De la Rose, who had been Mr. Jollie's 
 last assistant, but there was a majority of the congregation, 
 together with the Trustees, in favour of Mr. John Wads- 
 
173 
 worth ; tlie latter prevailed, and Mr. De la Rose uiul his 
 friends were under the necessity of withdrawing, and they 
 built the Nether Chapel. At that period, however, both 
 these ministers and their societies were Orthodox, and the 
 division was not owing to any difference of opinion on those 
 points which are of vital importance in the Christian scheme, 
 and which they held in common, but which Unitarians un- 
 equivocally reject and deny. Mr. Wadsworth was minister 
 of the upper chapel till Christmas 1744 — part of this time 
 he was assisted by Mr. T. Jollie, jun. the son of his prede- 
 cessor and of kindred sentiments. From the year 1740, he 
 was assisted by his own son, Mr. Field Sylvester Wads- 
 woiih, who had been a student at Dr. Doddridge's Academy, 
 but withdrew at the particular request of his tutor, on account 
 of his having embraced the Arian hypothesis ; and from 
 that time downwards, the society has been sinking lower 
 and lower till it has settled in Socinianism. Dr. Priestley 
 then an Arian, (he became a Socinian while minister of 
 Mill-hill Chapel, Leeds,) was a candidate to succeed the 
 younger Mr. Wadsworth, who died at Sheffield, Dec. 3rd, 
 1758; — but he was unsuccessful, not on account of hetero- 
 doxy, for under the ministry of Mr. Haynes and the younger 
 Mr. Wadsworth, the congregation had then most probably 
 imbibed similar opinions, but on account of his imperfect 
 delivery. 
 
 The ministers here have been — Messrs. Durant, Jollie, 
 Jeremiah Gill, De la Rose, Wadsworth, Jollie, jun., Wads- 
 worth, jun., Haynes, Evans, Dickinson, Naylor, Dr. Phillips. 
 The last named gentleman has been minister here about 20 
 years. In connexion with this chapel, is Hollis's charity, 
 which comfortably provides for 16 widows, each of whom 
 receives a guinea every three weeks. The Orator who 
 reads prayers, and teaches 40 or 50 children, receives 15 
 guineas per quarter, and has a good house in the Hospital- 
 yard — and from the same fund, the minister of the upper 
 chapel derives 301. per annum. 
 
 Stannington. — Originally Orthodox. — It appears that 
 there was formerly an Episcopalian Chapel here, from which 
 
174 
 
 Mr. Daiwent was ejected in 1662. The church sei-vice was 
 performed here until about the year 1740, when T. Marriott, 
 an Orthodox dissenter, purchased a plot of land, near the old 
 building, and erected a new Chapel, which he endowed. 
 The first minister of the new chapel was Mr. Smith, who 
 preached there about twenty years ; he was succeeded by 
 Mr. Hall, who professed orthodox sentiments, but became 
 an Arian, and after preaching there nineteen years, departed 
 to Rotterdam. An attempt was then made by the Trustees 
 to introduce an Unitarian minister, but the Inhabitants 
 were so opposed to it, that they consented to the appoint- 
 ment, in the year 17S0, of Mr. Rhodes, a calvinistic divine, 
 who officiated to a numerous congregation until 1785, when 
 he removed to Sutton. The Trustees thereupon, contrary 
 to the wishes and remonstrances of the Inhabitants, ap- 
 pointed Mr. Gibson, an Unitarian minister ; in consequence 
 of which, most of the hearers left the Chapel, some went to 
 the nearest church, and others became members of the Inde- 
 pendent Church, in Queen Street Chapel, Sheffield, (about 
 five miles from Stannington) then under the care of the 
 Rev. Jehoiada Brewer. Mr. Meanley succeeded to Mr. 
 Gibson ; and the present Minister is the Rev. Peter Wright, 
 an Unitarian Minister. The congregation consists of about 
 thirty or forty persons, though the chapel will contain 400 
 or 500, and the gentleman who claims the right of presen- 
 tation to this chapel is Samuel Shore, Esq., of Meersbrook, 
 one of the Trustees of Lady Hewley's Estates. The 
 original chapel was amply endowed by the Will of Mr. 
 Richard Spoone in the year 1652, for the maintenance of 
 a minister, who was to be approved of by three of the next 
 neighbouring ministry or the Feoffees or the greater part of 
 them, for " honesty of life, soundness in doctrine, and 
 diligence in preaching." What the Testator meant by 
 '* soundness in doctrine" is obvious from the following 
 words in the preamble to his Will, " I desire, in the name 
 of Jesus Christ, to bequeath my soul into the hands of 
 God that gave it, hoping assuredly to be saved by the 
 
 DEATH AND PRECIOUS BLOOD-SHEDDING OF JESUS CHRIST 
 
175 
 
 MY REDEEMER, AND BY NO OTHER MERITS." Both the 
 Churdi and Chapel endowments are now enjoyed by Peter 
 Wright, the present Unitarian minister, who lives in 
 Sheffield, and keeps a school, and therefore his diligence 
 in preaching" is as questionable as his " soundness in 
 doctrine." 
 
 Thorne and Stainforth. — The chapel at Thorne 
 was built in 1816, and that at Stainforth in 1817. They 
 are three miles distant from each other, and are supplied by 
 the same minister. Richard Wright glories much in the erec- 
 tion of these places, and with some appearance of reason, 
 for they are the only chapels which his party have originated 
 in the country of Yovk. 
 
 Wakefield. — Originally Orthodox. — Endowed. — The 
 original Chapel stood where the burying ground now is. 
 Joshua Sager was the first minister of whom we have any 
 account, and he died in 1710. Thomas Whitaker, in his 
 funeral sermon, described him as an able and faithful, a 
 diligent and useful Minister of the Gospel, and bewails the 
 heavy loss the people sustained by his death. That loss 
 appears heavy, indeed, when we compare him with some of 
 his successors. His character is thus delineated by Thomas 
 Bradbury, " Mr. Joshua Sager was a good scholar, an 
 hearty friend, a substantial, useful preacher, and of so 
 blameless a conversation, as to have a good report of all 
 men, and of the truth itself." In such men as these, Ortho- 
 doxy was justified of her Children. The present Chapel 
 was built in 1752. Mr. Thomas Walker A. M. of Millhill 
 Chapel, Leeds, preached at the opening November 1, 1752 ; 
 his sermon was afterwards printed. The Reverend Jeremiah 
 Aldred (the son of Reverend J. Aldred of Monton, and 
 orthodox on his first coming to Wakefield and during a con- 
 siderable portion of his services there if not to the last) was 
 then minister of this congregation, and was succeeded by 
 the late Mr. Turner in 1761. 
 
176 
 
 North and East Ridmgs. 
 
 Hull, Bowl Alley Lane Chapel. — Originally Orthodox.-^ 
 The first minister from 1662 to 1693 was Mr. Samuel Charles : 
 his successor Mr. Billingsley, was a friend of Matthew 
 Henry, he removed to London, and published many ser- 
 mons which clearly shew his orthodoxy, &c. Mr. John 
 Witter was the next minister, who was succeeded by Mr. 
 Titus Cordingley who was probably an Arian. 
 
 There is also an Unitarian Baptist chapel in New-Dock- 
 street, which the congregation built or purchased. 
 
 Malton. — Originally Orthodox. — Mr. Bartlett the pre- 
 sent minister was educated at Mr. Scott's Academy, at 
 Heckmondwike, and received a call to this chapel, and for 
 several years preached with acceptance to an Orthodox 
 congregation, when at length it was suspected that his views 
 had changed, and the suspicion was confirmed by his intro- 
 ducing Mr. C. Wellbeloved, of York, into his pulpit. Much 
 uneasiness resulted from this discovery, and the people 
 (singularly enough) appealed to Lady Hewley's Trustees. 
 These gentlemen took a different view of the case, and 
 rewarded the public avowal by Mr. Bartlett of his new sen- 
 timents by giving him 20/. per annum instead of 10/. as 
 theretofore. Some years ago, an attempt was made to in- 
 duce Mr. Bartlett to resign his charge, and an annuity of 
 501. per annum for his life was offered to him, with good 
 security ; he requested a month's time to consider, and 
 after consulting with his Unitarian friends, he gave his an- 
 swer, " I can have as much from another quarter, and I 
 will not resign my charge." It is supposed, that Mr. 
 Wellbeloved was actively engaged in procuring this deter- 
 mination ; and his students now preach at the chapel, every 
 alternate Sabbath on Unitarian tenets, printed notices of 
 which are posted in the streets. An Independent Chapel 
 has been erected a few years ago, in consequence of these 
 occurrences. It is reported that some agreement has been 
 
177 
 made with Mr. Bartlett, who holds the title deeds, to secure 
 the delivering ap of the chapel on his death or removal, to 
 the Unitarians. 
 
 Whitby. — Originally Orthodox. — Erected in \']\^ by- 
 Mr. Leonard Wilde, a sail maker, who, at his death in 
 1732, left an estate to the chapel, which nearly fifty years 
 ago, let for 241. per annum. 
 
 York. — Originally Orthodox. — Liberally endowed. This 
 chapel was ejected in 1692, chiefly at the expense of Sarah 
 Lady Hewley; and Dr. Thomas Colton, her chaplain, and 
 afterwards her executor, was the first minister. In this Lady's 
 character were combined extensive benevolence to men, and 
 a humble reliance on the atonement of the Saviour for accept- 
 ance with God. In the Memoirs of O. Hey wood we are told, 
 that she was very kind to him while he was a prisoner in 
 York castle : and in his diary, he mentions his visits to the 
 excellent Lady Hewley, and her favours to him. When Mr. 
 HeyWood visited Lady Hewley, he usually preached m the 
 chapel at York. During her life she was a liberal benefac- 
 ti'ess to the poor and especially to poor persecuted mi- 
 nisters of the Gospel ; and sometime previous to her death 
 she devoted, by deeds of trust, the whole of what was origi- 
 nally ker own property, to charitable and pious uses, the 
 annual produce of which is said to amount to 40001., and 
 is now chiefly applied to Unitarian purposes. 
 
 Dr. Colton was minister here till his death Nov. 16, 
 1731. Mr. John Hotham, a pupil of Mr. Jollie's, of Atter- 
 cliffe was the Doctor's assistant and successor. He died 
 Jan. 5, 17^6, in his eighty-second year. Newcome Cappe, 
 son of Mr. Cappe of Leeds was chosen to assist Mr. Ho- 
 tham, on the death of Mr. Root, in June, 1755, and from 
 that time, the departure from sound doctrine, if it did not 
 actually commence then, was in all probability, more dis- 
 tinct and marked than before. The present average con- 
 gregation in this place is ^aid to be not more than forty or 
 fifty. 
 
 There is also in this city a chapel held by the Unitarian 
 Baptists which they purchased. 
 
 N 
 
17f 
 
 WALES. 
 
 CAERMARTHENSHIRE. 
 
 Caerm ARTHEN. — Originally O rthodox. 
 Castle Howell. — Do. — Now a mixture of Arminians 
 and Arians. 
 
 Llwyn-y-groes. — Built by Unitarians. 
 
 CARDIGANSHIRE. 
 
 Capel-y-groes. 1 
 
 ^ Built by Unitarians. 
 Y-STRAD.J 
 
 Pant-y-defaid. Do. 
 
 Rhyd- Y-PARK. — Originally Orthodor, 
 
 GLAMORGANSHIRE. 
 
 Aberdore. — OriginaUy Orthodox. 
 
 Blaen-y-gwrach. Do. 
 
 Bridgend.— i?o. — Raised by the labours of the Rev. Sa- 
 muel Jones, A. M. ejected 1662. The ministers were inva- 
 riably orthodox until 1806, when the majority of the church 
 and congregation were expelled by the forcible introduction 
 of Socinianism by the trustees. Endowment about 40k 
 per annum. 
 
 GelLIONEN. — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 Merthyr lYnvih.— -Built by Unitariaus. 
 
 Neath, Do. 
 
179 
 
 Swansea. — Originally Orthodox. — The chapel was built 
 in 1698 for Mr. Stephen Hughes, an Independent minister 
 and a decided Trinitarian ; after his death Mr. Palmer, an 
 Orthodox minister, succeeded him. Mr. Solomon Harris 
 succeeded Mr. Palmer, and preached at this chapel thirty- 
 five years, and kept an academy for young ministers, and 
 was decidedly Orthodox, as several persons now living can 
 testify. Mr. William Howels succeeded and was supposed 
 to have a leaning towards Arminianism, if not to Arianism, 
 but after preaching many years he delivered up his charge, 
 and Mr. Aubrey was invited to the place, who is a decided 
 Unitarian, afid the first minister of that denomination who 
 has preached here. Mr. Howels disapproved of Mr. Au- 
 brey's sentiments, and left his ministry, and the chapel alto- 
 gether, and joined the Independents. The endowment is 
 from 701. to 1001. per annum. 
 
 PEMBROKESHIRE. 
 
 Templeton. — Originally Orthodox. 
 
 
18P 
 
 SCOTLAND. 
 
 Dundee. — The few Unitarians in this town rentecf part 
 of a house about seven years ago, which • they fitted up at 
 their own expense, and continue still to occupy. Before 
 that tinae, they held their meetings in a masonic lodge. 
 
 Edinburgh. — There is a chapel in the metropolis, which 
 was finished and taken possession of about twelve months 
 ago. It was built by the Unitarians themselves, and will 
 accommodate from 300 to 400 sitters. There is, it is be- 
 lieved, no endowment. The number of members is stated 
 at sixty, or from that to one hundred. The reader may take 
 the largest of these two extremes ; bearing in mind, that 
 Edinburgh is the metropolis of Scotland, and contains at 
 least 130,000 inhabitants. A good many people attended 
 Mr. Fox's (of London) Lectures on the tenets of the 
 party, when the chapel was opened : — but since that time 
 the attendance has been a mere handful : there are few oc- 
 casional hearers, and even these few consist, chiefly, it is 
 thought, of commercial gentlemen from the south, of Uni- 
 tarian principles. 
 
 Glasgow. — The chapel in this city was built by the Uni- 
 tarians. It is capable of accommodating 600 hearers, and 
 was opened for public worship in 1812. The present aver- 
 age number of hearers may be reckoned at from fifty to one 
 hundred, but generally nearer the former number than the 
 latter, and sometimes below it : and this out of a popula- 
 tion of upwards of 150,000. 
 
 Port-Glasgow. — Here is a chapel capable of accommo- 
 dating 300 sitters. It is the upper part of a house, -which 
 
181 
 was built for the pupose in 1821 ; the under part being di- 
 vided into two small dwelling-houses. The cost of the 
 building was about 4001. — of which 2201. was raised by 
 collections in England ; the remainder being obtained 
 partly by subscriptions in the place and neighbourhood, 
 and partly by loan, on interest, from a member of the small 
 society. The average attendance on sabbaths is said to be 
 about twelve ; and the heads of families avowedly of Uni- 
 tarian principles, six or seven. They had a minister offici- 
 ating for about half a year ; but have had none, with the 
 exception of an occasional visit from one or other of their 
 preachers for some time past. 
 
 Paisley. — About ten years ago the Unitarians of this 
 place formed themselves into a " building society," into 
 which any who chose Were admitted, whether they pro- 
 fessed Unitarian principles or not. Each subscriber, when 
 his subscription amounted to one pound, was entitled to 
 five per cent interest per annum ; and the shares were fixed 
 at 201. each. With the money thus collected, in the course 
 of several years, the society built a house, '* a part of 
 which" is occupied as a Unitarian place of worship : the house 
 consisting of two stories ; the ground story being possessed 
 as a dwelling house and the chapel : the church paying 
 to the above society, for the use of the latter, ten pounds 
 a year of rent. There is no endowment of any kind. 
 The place will contain about 150 hearerg; and the average 
 number in attendance is between seventy and eighty, out 
 of a population of 50,000. 
 
 The extent of chapel accommodation belonging to the 
 Unitarians in all Scotland, does not exceed 1500 sitters ; 
 and to fill up that accommodation, there are not more 
 than 300 persons, if indeed even this number does not in- 
 clude a considerable surplus I 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 No. 11. 
 
 ^^HK — 
 
 MANCHESTER COLLEGE, YORK. 
 
 The Manchester College which was removed to York, 
 Sept. 1, 1803, is the only public seminary which the Uni- 
 tarians possess for training up young men for the ministry. 
 The principal tutor is the Rev. Charles Wellbeloved, who 
 occupies the chapel which was built and endowed by the 
 Orthodox Lady Hewley, and which according to Mrs. 
 Cappe (see p. 253. of her life) produced to the Rev. New- 
 come Cappe, Mr. W.'s predecessor 180/. per annum. It 
 appears from the published accounts, that this college is 
 maintained, partly by voluntary contributions and partly by 
 exhibitions from charitable funds. The Report of the Man- 
 chester College, York, for 1821 (the latest to which the 
 Editors have access) records the following exhibitions, viz. 
 
 Chamberlaine's Fund, Hull. From the 9th Vol. of 
 the Report of Charitable Funds presented to Parliament, it 
 appears, that Chamberlaine was a Draper, in Hull, and his 
 will is dated Aug. 19, I7I6. The bequests are " to the 
 Poor and the Minister of a chapel in Hull, in which Mr. 
 Witter now preaches." This is the chapel in Bowl-alley 
 
188 
 lanf , which is at piesant occupied by Units^rians. By a re- 
 ference to the list of chapels, it will be seen that the first 
 minister of this chapel was Mr, Charles, who was ejected in 
 1662. He was imprisoned in 1682 and died in 1693. Mr. 
 Witter was chosen in 1 705 and continued to be the minister 
 for fifty 3'ears when he declined, owing to age and infirmity. 
 Until 1757 the ministry was decidedly orthodox, when Mr. 
 Beverley who entered upon the office that year began to preach 
 ambiguously, and it was not until after his death that the 
 preaching became avowedly Unitarian, Chamberlaine also 
 bequeathed 10/. a year to support one scholar of godliness 
 atid pieli/, under a Judicious, godly, &.Xi(\. faitkfulixxioT . There 
 can be no doubt that by the term '-'■ faithjur Chamberlaine 
 intended " of orthodox scniimenis ;'' and the orthodoxy of 
 Chamberlaine himself is equally unquestionable. Yet this, 
 exhibition is annually made to the Manchester College, 
 York. 
 
 Butterworth's fund, Manchester. — While the reader 
 will generally be disposed to lament the mitjappropria- 
 tion of Orthodox funds to Socinian purposes, he cannot but 
 admire the ingenuity with which a charity speciiically and 
 expressly designed for the apprenticing of poor boys to 
 trades, is made applicable to the educating of yoimg gentle- 
 men- for the ministry. I'he following is extracted from 
 Aston's Picture of Manchester : — " Ann Butterworth (by 
 deed 4th of April, 1735) gave 5001. the interest of which 
 is to be applied to the putting out and binding apprentice 
 children of poor Protestant Dissenters (not excepting other 
 Protestants who have not had relief from any town or 
 parish) and for assisting such children at (he expiration of 
 their respective apprenticeships." By an indescribable de- 
 vice, the Manchester College, York, obtains from this source . 
 1^1. pfif annum. 
 
 Mrs. Cwugh's fund, Liverpool, — Mrs. Clough's Will 
 is dated the 14th of .lune, 1760, in which she " First, com- 
 mits her soul to God through the mediation of Jcsut Christ." 
 
184 ^ 
 She bequeaths two seats or pews, her property in the Dis- 
 senting Chapel, Kaye-street, Liverpool, then decidedly 
 orthodox : and to the poor of that chapel, and of another 
 in Park-lane, within Ashton, she leaves 101. respectively. 
 There is also a bequest of 1001. to the trustees of a Fund in 
 London for the relief of Dissenting Ministers' Widows. 
 T]]e Funds of this Orthodox widow, settled by deeds exe- 
 cuted in her life time and confirmed in her will, furnished 
 to the Socinian College, at York, in 1818, 451., in 1821, 301. 
 
 Lady Hewley's Fund. — This is the richest source of 
 revenue to Unitarianism in general, and to the Manchester 
 College, York, in particular. No less than one hundred 
 AND TWENTY POUNDS are annually appropriated to the 
 education of young men for the very purpose of denying, 
 and endeavouring to extinguish, the belief of those doc- 
 trines of the deity and atonement of Christ, in the faith 
 of which Lady Hewley lived, from which alone she had 
 consolation in the prospect of death, and to the dissemina- 
 tion of which, she designed that her property should be 
 devoted when she was no more. Could she have foreseen 
 that one farthing of that property would have been withdrawn 
 from the purposes nearest her heart, the deeds, expressive 
 as they are of her sentiments and designs, would not have 
 received her signature. The reader is referred for a more 
 particular account of this lady and her charities, to the ar- 
 ticle in the Appendix under that head. 
 
 The Report of.the Manchester College, York, for 1818, 
 contains exhibitions which do not appear in the Report for 
 1821 : viz. 
 
 The Trustees of the dissenting chapel, Shrewsbury, 
 (which was originally orthodox) the interest of a legacy — 
 and The Trustees of Crook's-lane Chapel, Chester. 
 This is the chapel where the illustrious Matthew Henry 
 once preached ; and it is heart-rending to think of the ex- 
 tinction of the light which once shone there, and of the 
 
185 
 
 purposes to which the funds connected with it are now 
 applied. 
 
 There appear from the list given in 1821, to have been 
 FORTY ministers educated at this college during the eighteen 
 years preceding ; and of these, One is dead — Nine are 
 unemployed — Two have gone to Scotland ; and of the re- 
 maining Twenty-eight, more than Twenty occupy places 
 of worship which were originally orthodox. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 No. III. 
 
 - — ^♦^»-^ -— 
 
 DR. WILLIAMS'S CHARITIES. 
 
 (Appointed by the Will which is dated June 26, ITIL) 
 
 Rev. William Lorimer 
 William Tong 
 Matthew Henry 
 Benjamin Robinson 
 Joseph Boyse 
 Dr. Oldlield 
 E. Calamy 
 Zachary Merrel 
 John Evans 
 William Harris 
 Thomas Reynolds 
 Isaac Bates 
 Jeremy Smith 
 
 Read, and 
 
 Messrs. John Morton 
 
 Edmund Far rington, junior 
 William A dee 
 Jonathan Colly er 
 Benjamin Sheppard 
 Francis Barkstead 
 
 Archer 
 
 Richard Watts 
 Isaac Honywood 
 George Smith 
 
187 
 
 Rev. Abraham Rees, D. D. F. R. S. 
 
 Thomas Tayler 
 
 Thomas Belsham 
 
 John Barrett 
 
 Thomas Rees, L. L. D. 
 
 Eliezer Cogan 
 
 Robert Aspland 
 
 A. Crombie, D. C. L. 
 
 Archibald Barclay, D. D. 
 and 
 
 Geary 
 
 John Wansey 
 
 John Towgood 
 
 William Esdaile 
 
 Isaac Solly 
 
 John Bentley 
 
 John Holt 
 
 R. Solly 
 
 James Gibson 
 
 James Esdaile 
 
 Samuel Nicholson 
 
 David Martineaii, Esquires- 
 
 3Lfib«rattan. 
 
 Rev. John Coates 
 
 ^Hvetav^ anH ^oltcitor. 
 
 J. Wainwright, Esquire. 
 R, Webb Jupp, Esquire. 
 
188 
 
 DANIEL WILLIAMS, D.D., was born at Wrexham, in- 
 Denbighshire, about 1644, " and was amongst the very first 
 young men who had the courage to identify themselves with 
 those venerable confessors who had been ejected from their 
 respective charges by the Act of Uniformity." He became 
 first, Chaplain to the Countess of Meath, in Ireland, then 
 Pastor of the Presbyterian Congregation, Wood-street, 
 Dublin, and finally settled with a numerous congregation 
 in Hand-alley, Bishopsgate-street, London. His death 
 took place on Jan. 26, 1715 — 16. when he was about 73 
 years of age. 
 
 Dr. Williams was a man of great abilities, high respecta- 
 bility, and of tried and established Orthodoxy ; for having 
 published some Tracts against the Antinoraians, he was 
 accused of Sodnianism,, but was completely and most ho- 
 nourably vindicated from the charge. His intimate com- 
 panions and friends were, the famous Richard Baxter, Dr. 
 Bates, Mr. Howe and Mr. Alsop. Although a man of large 
 estate he observed great frugality in his expenses, that he 
 might devote the principal part of his fortune to pious and 
 benevolent purposes ; and at his death he bequeathed his pro- 
 perty (estimated at 50,000/.) to trustees for the following 
 objects: viz. 
 
 1. Missions to the Heathen and to Ireland, which are no 
 longer under the control of the Trustees. 
 
 2. Exhibitions for Students at the University of Glasgow. 
 Eight students now receive 40/. each per annum while un- 
 dergraduates, and 45/. per annum when graduates. 
 
 3. A public Library for Dissenters.* The sum allowed 
 by the Court of Chancery out of the Doctor's estates, not 
 
 * So great a change has taken place in the management of this Library, 
 that Orthodox ministers are now obliged to solicit the permission of a Unita- 
 rian Trustee, before they can enter its precincts ; and complaints have been made 
 repeatedly and without contradiction, that the MSS. which are freely conceded 
 to the inspection of Unitarians, are prohibited to the Orthodox. 
 
 See Investigator, No. XVI. Ivimey's History of the English Baptist*, Vol. 
 III. p. 12. 
 
189 
 being enough to finish the building in Red Crogs-street, 
 London, it was completod by the joint contributions of In- 
 dependents, Baptists, and Presbyterians. 
 
 4. The establishment of Schools in Wales. 
 
 b. ^ A Fund to he applied to Miscellaneous Uses, — One 
 fifth of which is expressly destined to such '* Preachers of 
 the word of Christ, as are poor, Orthodox and moderate." 
 
 6. Jn Endowment to the Prcsbi/terian Meeting-houses, at 
 Wrexhayn and Bu7'nham, Essex. 
 
 That Dr. Williams died as he lived, firmly and warmly 
 orthodox, is evident from the following expressions in his 
 Will (which is dated June 26, 1 71 1 ,) " I commit my soul to 
 my FAITHFUL REDEEMER, who I hope firmly has united me 
 to himself, and will present me spotless to his Father and ray 
 Father, in the virtue of his all sufficient merits." 
 The choice which he made of Trustees is also clear and 
 decisive on this point ; for six of them wrote expressly in 
 favour of Trinitarian sentiments. 
 
 Dr. Joshua Oldfield published "A brief, practical, 
 and pacific Discourse of God : and of the Father, Son, and 
 Spirit, and of our concern with them." 1721. 
 
 Dr. Edmund Calamy, who was a zealous advocate for 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, delivered a course of Sermons 
 upon the subject, which he afterwards published, entitled, 
 
 * The appropriation of fliis fund as intended by Dr. Williams, may he ex- 
 plained by the loUowing calculation bow £500 are to be divided, which was 
 confirmed by the Master's report of June 30, 1737, and Order of Court 
 thereon dated Nov. 30, 1737, viz, 
 
 1— 8th Bibles, Catechisms, (fee. 
 1 — loth Minister's Widows 
 1 — 5th Ministers 
 I — 8th To put boys apprentice 
 l---8th TostudcHts 
 
 Ministers in North Wale* 
 
 Minister* in South Wales 
 
 je. 
 
 *. 
 
 d. 
 
 62 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 62 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 62 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 108 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 54 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 £500 
 
 
 
 
 
190 
 " Thirteen Sermons concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity 
 preached at Merchants' Lecture, Salter's Hall, together 
 with a vindication of that celebrated text, 1 John v. 7. from 
 being spurious, and an explanation of it upon the supposi- 
 tion of its being genuine, in four Sermons preached at the 
 same lecture, 1719, 1720. 
 
 The Rev. Messrs. W. Tong, B. Robinson, T. Reynolds, 
 and I. Smith, united to publish " The Doctrine of the ever 
 blessed Trinity stated and defended by four London Minis- 
 ters." 
 
 The Trinitarian sentiments of the Rev. Messrs. Mat- 
 thew Henry, Lorimer, Merrel, Evans, Harris, Bates, 
 Read, all of whom were ministers of the gospel, are evi- 
 dent throughout their works ; and that the Lay Trustees 
 were like minded, it is impossible to doubt. 
 
 It may be added that the Rev. J. BOYSE, of Dublin, whom 
 Dr. W. appointed to be one of the four trustees to manage 
 his bequest for Ireland, wrote " A vindication of the true 
 divinity of our blessed Saviour, &c." 
 
 He gave his estate at Cetworth, Huntingdonshire, to the 
 Society for propagating Christian Knowledge in Scotland, 
 " so long as it should send and maintain a competent num- 
 ber of well qualified ministers, in infidel foreign countries, 
 to endeavour their conversion to God in Christ." 
 
 That Dr. Williams, versed, as a man of his observation 
 must have^^been, in the obliquities of human nature, was not 
 without some forebodings of the perversion which has ac- 
 tually taken place in the administration of his benefactions, 
 by subsequent trustees, is apparent in the following almost 
 prophetic language of his Will. Investing his trustees 
 with the usual powers, he adds, " But to employ to the 
 uses and purposes as in conscience they will be obliged to 
 do if they accept this trust." He requires his trustees 
 to nominate such persons in the room of those deceased 
 " as they shall judge faithful and suitable^' and the per- 
 sons elected from time to time " shall solemnly en- 
 sage TO BE faithful IN THR MANAGEMENT of what 
 they undertake." 
 
191 
 
 But in the impressive language ot a judicious writer in 
 the Congregational Magazine, for Feb. 1825. — 
 
 " Hia valuable property is now in other hands ; — in the 
 hands of gentlemen who flatter themselves " that had he 
 lived till now, amidst increasing light, there is reason to be- 
 lieve that he would have imbibed what they think more ra- 
 tional and enlarged views of Christian doctrine." But as 
 he never did imbibe those views, but opposed and loathed 
 them, how can they honestly employ it for the propagation 
 of those sentiments which he abhorred ? 
 
 " Let them ask the public, aye, and their own consciences 
 too, what Dr. Williams meant, when he declared ' that the 
 profits were to be employed for the glory of God, and the 
 promotion of pure unmixed Christianity ?' Was it not that 
 Clu'istianity which the Assembly's Catechism teaches, and 
 which his own writings exhibit ? 
 
 " The perusal of the following close to the last solemn 
 testament of tlie Doctor, will convince every candid reader 
 that these gentlemen have contracted a fearful responsi- 
 bility. " I beseech the blessed God for Christ Jesus' sake, 
 the head of his church, whose I am, and whom I desire to 
 serve, that this my will may, by his blessing and power, 
 reach its end and be faithfully executed. Obtesting in the 
 name of this great and righteous God, all that are, or shall 
 be concerned, that what I design for his glory to the good 
 of mankind, maybe honestly, prudently, and diligently em- 
 ployed to those ends : as I have to the best of my judgment 
 directed." 
 
 This touching appeal is treated by the Unitarians in their 
 Monthly Repository for February,, 1825, (published in 
 March) with a mingled levity and bitterness, which is but 
 too characteristic of the tendency of Soclnianism to destroy 
 the delicacy of moral feeling, and to deaden the sense of 
 shame. It is in the following terms, that they set public 
 opinion at defiance, and render it doubtful whether they be- 
 lieve in the existence of conscience or not— (at least they 
 treat with ridicule the supposition that there is any con- 
 science among the present trustees of Dr. Williams's Cha- 
 
192 
 titles ;) viz.—" In their last Monthly Gazette (the Congre* 
 gational Magazine) they give an account of the late T>t. 
 Williams's Charities ; and having published a list of the 
 trustees they put it to t/iose ge/itlemen's consciences with 
 edifying simplicity ^ hoV7 they can keep these charities in 
 their own hands^ and not rather hasten to transfer them to 
 sound believers in the Assembly's Catechism." ! By not 
 doing so remark the Congregationalists (hard name for 
 siu:h siirvple Christians^ " These gentlemen have con- 
 tracted a fearful responsibility" at least in the judgment, 
 as they put it, of the candid !" 
 
 The reader cannot fail to obseiTe the point of all this. The 
 Congregational Magazine gives those trustees credit for 
 honesty and conscience : but this is disowned with scorn by 
 the public organ of those very trustees. The Congregation- 
 alists are said to display an " edifying simplicity," and 
 to be " simple Christians" for being. so weak and ignorant 
 as to appeal to " those gentlemen's consciences" ! Be it 
 so: — ^but, let it be remembered, that this is not the ac- 
 cusation of the Orthodox; it is the boastful avowal of 
 the Unitarians. They virtually acknowledge (which is 
 indeed undeniable) that the Assembly's Catechism em- 
 bodies the principles of Dr. Williams's faith, and that 
 all the purposes for which he bequeathed his ample for- 
 tune coincide with the doctrines therein contained ; — they 
 own that on the other hand the present trustees disbe- 
 lieve those doctrines, and employ the Doctor's own money 
 in the endeavour to extinguish them ; and yet they treat 
 with ridicule an appeal on that very ground " to those 
 gentlemen's consciences." ! The Orthodox congrega- 
 tionalists have no wish to exchange the " simplicity" of 
 the gospel for the *' cunning craftiness" of Socinianism : 
 but until this scornful prohibition is withdrawn, tliey will 
 not s^enture to repeat the imputation of honesty and con- 
 science to Unitarian Trustees. The Unitarians may for 
 a season continue thus to chuckle over the f edifying 
 simplicity" of those who could be " such simple Chris- 
 tians" as to appeal " to those gentlemen's consciences:" 
 
193 
 
 but the Orthodox are not so credulous as to expect a 
 voluntary restitution of perverted funds to their original 
 and legitimate purposes. They were aware that a lead- 
 ing Trustee of these very charities, had asserted " That 
 Trustees ARE not bound by the will of the tes- 
 tator : but must be left to act according to (heir own 
 discretion in the application of Trust Funds ;" but they 
 were hardly prepared to see a principle so subversive 
 of the rights of individuals and of public justice, sanc- 
 tioned and avowed in the official publication of the English 
 Unitarians, 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 LADY HEWLEYS CHARITY 
 
 Richard Stretton, Senior, Gentleman 
 
 Nathaniel Gould, Esq. 
 
 Thomas Marriott, Esq. 1^ London. 
 
 John Bridges, Merchant 
 
 Thomas Nisbett, Merchant 
 
 Thomas Colton, Gentleman — York 
 
 And 
 James Windlow, Gentleman — Yarum. 
 
 John Pemberton Heywood, Esquire 
 Benjamin Heywood, Esquire 
 Samuel Shore, Senior, Esquire 
 Samuel Shore, Junior, Esquire 
 Thomas Lee, "Esquire 
 Thomas Walker, Esquire 
 Daniel Gaskell, Esquire. 
 
 " Trustees cannot be charged with dishonest malversation, 
 unless they apply funds destined for a pubhc object to 
 their own private emolument." — Monthly Repository, 
 
 20 Vol. 158. 
 
195 
 
 LADY SARAH HE WLEY, the only child and heiress 
 of Robert Woolrich, Esq. Bencher, Gray's Inn, was born in 
 1627, and died 23rd August, 1710, aged 83. 
 
 Sir John Hewley, knight, her husband, represented the 
 City of York in Parliament, in the years 1676, 1677, and 1678. 
 
 Lady Hewley left no child, brother, sister, nephew, or 
 niece. 
 
 Her Ladyship's sentiments relating to religious doctrine 
 were decidedly Orthodox, and of this there is the most 
 abundant and satisfactory evidence. She witnessed all the 
 great struggles which took place in England for civil and 
 religious liberty, and was upwards of 60 years of age when 
 the memorable Revolution of 1688 took place. Her 
 residence, which was partly in York, and partly at Bell 
 Hall, four miles from that city, gave her opportunities 
 of visiting those eminent men, Oliver Heywood, and 
 others, during their confinement in York Castle for non- 
 conformity. The Orthodox sentiments of these persons 
 are known to every one ; and her Ladyship relieved their 
 necessities out of her ample fortune, and " was not ashamed 
 of their chains." She attended the Dissenting Chapel in 
 St. Saviour's-gate, York, which had been erected and en- 
 dowed chiefly by herself, and which is now occupied by 
 the Rev. Charles Wellbeloved, an Unitarian minister, and 
 the Theological Tutor of the Unitarian Academy, York. 
 
 Her Ladyship was interred in St. Saviour's-gate Church, 
 and on her monument was inscribed the following scriptural 
 passage, viz. 
 
 " Amoiig the dead in Christ that shall risefirst.''^ 
 
 In the introductory words of her last will (to which she 
 added a codicil only two days before her death) she dis- 
 tinctly expresses her faith and hope in the doctrine of the 
 atonement, to the following effect, viz. " Having first com- 
 mitted my immortal soul into the hands of my dear Re- 
 deemer, to be washed in his blood and made meet to be 
 partaker of the inheritance of the Saints ; and leaving my 
 vile body to be disposed of by my executors with as little 
 * 1 Thess. iv. 16. 
 
196 
 cost and ceremony as may be." These were not mere 
 formal words, introduced into a will without any meaning, 
 but they express her ladyship's Christian humility, as well 
 as her belief in the great doctrine of the atonement, to the 
 subversion of which, her ladyship's trustees now principally 
 devote her property. The funeral sermon preached on the 
 occasion of her ladyship's death by Dr. Colton, minister of 
 St. Saviour's-gate Chapel, and one of the executors of her 
 will, is replete with Orthodox sentiments. He says, " mul- 
 titudes will feel the loss of her ; if her private charities were 
 all known they would amaze you ; her silver streams ran 
 along the vallies to water the adjacent parts. Many that 
 knew not the spring head, when they find the stream dried 
 up will know the reason when they hear that Lady Hewley 
 is dead." " Her sinful infirmities she bitterly bemoaned." 
 " What could keep up her relish of her religious exercises 
 when they were so fatiguing and spending to the body but 
 some prelibation of God's love in them, and an unquench- 
 able thirst after the everlasting enjoyment of him." " When 
 any person told her of some good work she had done, she 
 would sometimes answer with divine Mr. Herbert, ' yes, ij" 
 it were sprinkled with the blood of Christ. ^^ '^ She thought 
 none had more need of the merits of a Saviour to justify and 
 save her.'' 
 
 Dr. Colton referring to the settlement of her estates for 
 charitable purposes, adds, " some of her works went before 
 her as a memorial before God : others follow, to perpetuate 
 and perfume her name in the churches, to continue her ser- 
 viceableness upon earth," &c. This undoubtedly was her 
 intention, and she little imagined, when she was executing 
 the deed of settlement, that her charity would, by being 
 thus perverted, become the means of inflicting the deadliest 
 blow upon the principles which she meant to promulgate 
 and support in the northern counties. 
 
 Lady Hewley also directed the Assembly's Catechism to 
 be taught to the poor widows residing at the Alms-houses, 
 which she founded in Tanner-row, York, and it is perhaps 
 unnecessaiT to state that tliis direction has been long since 
 
197 
 
 diregardcd, and the poor old women are now tciught Unita- 
 rian Catechisms. 
 
 Lady Hewley's charities were founded by two deeds of 
 settlement, jnepared by counsel, and dated in the years 
 1701 and 1707 ; and the following are the purposes to which 
 her estates were to l)e applied, viz. 
 
 1st. Nine poor widows, or unmarried women of the age of 
 50 years or upwards ; and a sober discreet and pious poor 
 man who might be fit to pray with them twice a day. The 
 yearly sum of 60/. was to be distributed amongst them, and 
 an allowance of money for catechisms ; and the alms-houses 
 in Tanner-row were to be occupied by them. 
 
 2nd. The relief of poor godly preachers of Christ's holy 
 gospel. 
 
 3rd. The relief of poor widows of poor and godly preacher* 
 of the gospel. 
 
 4th. For encouraging the p) reaching of the gospelin poor 
 places. 
 
 oth. Exhibitions/or educating young men for the ministry 
 or preaching of the gospel, not exceeding five such young 
 men. 
 
 6th. In relieving godly persons in distress. 
 
 There is a provision made in each deed for having a j)ri- 
 mary regard in the distribution of the charities to such ob- 
 jects thereof as should be in York, Yorkshire, and other 
 northern counties in England. 
 
 The estates which were conveyed to Trustees for the 
 purposes before stated, are the following, viz. 
 
 Annual Rental. 
 *Haya Park Estate, near Knaresboroug-h . . 1200/. 
 
 West Ayton, near Scarborough 1500/. 
 
 Skelton, near York •\ 'W^ rental of this Property 
 Eston, near Whitby, > is not ascertained. 
 
 York ) 
 
 No doubt whatever can exist of Lady Hewley's intention 
 to encourage and suj)port Orthodox sentiments. 
 
 ♦ Tlio total is said to exceed 4000/. per anmini. 
 
im 
 
 The law on this subject is quite as clear as was the 
 mtention of the Foundress ; because Unitarianism, as it is 
 called, was not only excluded from the Toleration Act, but 
 by an Act passed in 1698, (only six years before the date of 
 the first settlement,) it was declared to be an offence, and on 
 a second conviction the offender was subjected to three 
 years imprisonment. Unitarian ministers, therefore, even 
 if there had been any, could not legally be the objects of 
 the settlement ; and in this case the law fully establishes 
 the undoubted intention of Lady Hewley. A denial of this 
 would be an impeachment of the validity of the deeds. Mr. 
 J. P. Heywood, one of the present Trustees, is an eminent 
 barrister in Yorkshire, and therefore is well acquainted with 
 the law, and must be aware that the present mode of apply- 
 ing this charity to Unitarian preachers, cannot be justified. 
 It is indeed lamentable to find the venerated name of 
 " Heywood," and a descendant of Mr. Nathaniel Heywood, 
 " the honour of the family" (as his brother, Oliver Hey- 
 wood, styled him,) and the ejected minister of Ormskirk, 
 in Lancashire (see Ormskirk Cha})el in the Appendix) in 
 the present list of the distributors of Lady Hewley's chari- 
 ties amongst the Socinians ; and it is the more remarkable 
 that this gentleman is a magistrate, and therefore by law 
 he is required to be a member of the Church of England, 
 and a communicant at the Sacramental table, and thus in 
 the most solemn manner he has declared his belief in Or- 
 thodox doctrines, as a qualification for the high office which 
 he sustains.* 
 
 * The absurdity of this test is most clear, A gentleman whose 7iame the 
 writer of this article would be proud to give, who is a person of fortune, honour, 
 and attainments, in whom the country would gladly confide, ivho holds the doc- 
 trinal sentimenti of the Church of E/ighmd, and yet has declined, though fre- 
 quently requested, to be put into the Commission of the Peace, because he is a 
 Dissenter, and refuses to conform to the Church. Unitarian magistrates, how- 
 ever, who might also be vmned, who, although they totally reject the doctrinal 
 sentiments of the Church of England, have no scruples in submitting to the test ; 
 of course, we are not to be understood as referring to Mr. Heywood/, nor to Lord 
 GiflTord, who is also a Churchman. — His Lordship's rapid and brillianit career 
 has, indeed, astonished the nation I A Solicitor's Clerk, Barrister, Whig, Tory, 
 
199 
 
 It is therefore obvious, Ist. That Lady Hewley did not 
 intend this charity for the Unitarian preachers : 2nd. That 
 there were during her life no recognised Unitarian ministers 
 in England : and 3rd. Tf there had been any such, and if 
 Lady Hewley had intended to favour them, the law would 
 not have sanctioned it. 
 
 A very valuable collection of papers relating to the private 
 history of this charity is still preserved. Amongst others, 
 is a narrative of the manner in which the property passed 
 into the hands of Unitarian Trustees and Managers, in the 
 hand writing of Mr. Robert Moody, of Walmgate in York, 
 and afterwards of Hands worth near Sheffield, who was a 
 Trustee of the charity for about thirty years (viz. from 1740 
 to 1770 as we collect from the papers) and received his 
 appomtment from the original Trustees, nominated by 
 Lady Hev^ley herself, or the survivors of them. 
 
 This gentleman was aj^pointed by his colleagues to value 
 the Haya Park Estate, which he did on the 29th April 1755, 
 and the following is a coyy of his report, viz. 
 
 " Haya Park is a very compact Estate well watered and well 
 fenced with white thorn hedges which grow straight and talh an 
 evident proof the land is naturally good but very bare of timber. 
 The Estate is on a plain considerably lower than the lands near 
 the town of Knaresborough, but not so flat but (he lowest part is 
 capable of carrying off the winter rains provided pro2)er drains 
 was made which that part of the lands wants very much. The 
 soil I have observed is naturally good, being a loomy earth a 
 mixture of clay and sand. That wliich abounds the most vvitii clay 
 not too strong for Barley, and that which abounds the most with 
 sand not too liglit for wheat. / look upon the lands if in good 
 order suitable for grass or corn and capable of being advanced 
 
 Dissenter, Church 111. -Ill, Vniluruiii, Tiitiitariaii, Recorder of Bristol, Solicitor 
 General, Attorney (ieneral, Menibei ot the H^jiise ol' Commons, Cliief .Justice 
 of iihe Common Pleas, Master of tlie RoUs, aiul a Brilisli Peer; all iJiese my 
 Lord Gififord is, or has been within a very few years. Still ItrijLchter inospecls 
 altendhim as the presumptive, Lord Iliajh Chancellor of Great Britain, Keeper 
 of the Kings Conscience, and thf> disiribuior of (he imni<'!i.st: pafronogr r,f ihr 
 ( roivtt in the Church af England. 
 
200 
 to double the rent, and the tenants still to have good penny- 
 worths. But I do not mean that there is the least prospect of 
 improvements by the present tenants but the contrary ivhich are 
 a set of poor idle drunken ignorant fellows, ignorant I mean in 
 the rules of good husbandry except Lay cock and his management 
 is not to be commended. As to the others, the little time I was 
 at Knaresborough I could learn that Wednesday the Market- 
 day and the Sabbath is commonly spent at the ale-house, nights 
 and days, and the truth of this report is confirmed by the state 
 of their farms the land is miserably run and fill of weeds their 
 home steads has all the marks of poverty and idleness, nor 
 could I see one amongst the ivhole that had a proper stock of 
 cattle to his farm. What would make this Estate valuable to a 
 set of good tenants is of little service to the present, which is good 
 roads, winter and summer, to market, and for bringing tillage 
 to the land, the most remote farm not exceeding 3 miles, measured 
 the nearest at one mile where corn sells, as I am informed, as 
 well as in any market in Yorkshire. To sum up the whole the 
 tenants are poor and so is the land ; so that the land cannot help 
 the tenants, nor the tenants the land, that the longer they are 
 continued in this condition, the greater evils must arise both to 
 landlords and tenants. I cannot account for the above evils, 
 other ways than by letting the tenants have their farms so much 
 under value, suffering them to have too much land in each farm 
 more than they can manage, and the neglect of the Trustees in 
 not putting a stop to these evils long ago." 
 
 At the time this report w^as made (viz. 17-55) the estate 
 let for only 408/. per annum, although in the year 1642 it 
 bad let for 600/. on a *lease for twenty years I ! ! The seve- 
 ral estates let altogether for 1051/. but Mr. Moody thought 
 they might have let for 2000/. 
 
 We give Mr. Moody's narrative in his ow^n words, viz. 
 
 " Lady Hewley was a Protestant Dissenter and in her life 
 gave large charities to the ministers of that denomination. Before 
 her death she settled sundry estates to seven trustees, all which 
 were dissenters, and such as have been chosen since the death of 
 
 • The lease here referred to was granted to Richard Bayiies and Richard 
 Taylor hoth of the city of York. 
 
201 
 
 the original trustees the same. A copy of the first settlement is 
 annexed, tlic other dated April 2(5, 1707, exactly the same cove- 
 nants, the same trustees, and same uses, except what relates to an 
 hospital which she erected herself at York, in which deed of 
 trust she refers to a book of rules and orders for the manage- 
 ment of the poor agreeable to her oivn sentiments in religion. 
 And in case the trustees was disturbed in the execution of these 
 orders by civil or ecclesiastical power, that the 60/. per aniium 
 appointed for the maintenance of the poor of the Almshouse to be 
 disposed of according to the direction of this annexed deed of 
 trust, so long as the interruption continued. The rental of all 
 the estates about four years ago did not exceed 105U. per an- 
 num, but capable of very great improvement, as will appear by 
 the following narrative. 
 
 " The first of my seeing the estate at Haya Park was in April, 
 1755. I knew the estate contained 1432 acres, and that the 
 rental was 408/. 9s. I was surprized to find the quality of 
 the land so much better than I expected. At a meeting of the 
 trustees September following, I told the trustees that I had 
 viewed every farm in the estate, and that it was capable of 
 being advanced to double the rents without oppressing the te- 
 nants — that the present tenants had neglected the drains which 
 in many places was grown up and also the fence ditches to the 
 great prejudice of themselves and the estate. The same meeting 
 an order was made that I should have power to advance the 
 estate. None of the tenants would accept the terms ottered them, 
 accordingly such as would not give security to quit their farms 
 Lady-day, 1757, was ordered to be ejected. The meeting fol- 
 lowino- April 14, 1756, one of the trustees proposed to the trust 
 to make an allowance out of the charity to a ^minister of 60/. 
 per annum which I opposed, believing it contrary to the deed 
 of trust especially as the person had about 100/. or 120/. per 
 annum, exclusive of any allowance from this charity and also 
 contrary to an order made and signed the year before by the 
 trustees then present, viz. that no minister should be a partaker 
 of any distribution from the charity tvho has an annual income, 
 exclusive of such distribution of GO/, in a market town, or 40/. 
 
 » The Rev. Newcome ("appe, of York. 
 
202 
 in a village ; tliis put a stop to the proposal for that meeting. 
 It is necessary here to observe one of the trustees was against 
 the estate being- advanced, alleging it was reflecting dislionour 
 upon two ti-ustees lately dead that had the management of this 
 estate. / am informed that after the meeting, the gentleman 
 that ivatited 601. for his friend proposed to the trustee that was 
 against the estate being advanced, that if he would nsc his in- 
 terest to procure his friend 601. he tvould use his, if the estate 
 might be adanced as little as possible but as he had pleaded 
 for an adance, it would be too notorious to insist of its being 
 continued at the presetit rents. At the next meeting, Sept. 8, 
 1756, this proposal of allowing the minister 60/. per annum, 
 was renewed only in a different shape, alleging his present neces- 
 sities, that when he came to the place he was in debt and he m as 
 under a necessity of keeping house, and that it was only asked lor 
 the present distribution 30/. to help to purchase household goods. 
 As it was only asked for that one time I consented and signed, 
 hoping it might reconcile all differences although I disliked the 
 thing ; but the next meeting they shewed their design more 
 openly by proposing the continuance of it. Then *I protested 
 against it, refused signing the yearly accomits and distributions 
 ever since, as it appears a partial and unequal distribution to me, 
 the most indigent haAang not above 10/. per annum and many of 
 them not above 61., and many cases neglected for want of money 
 as wall appear by the books. The same meeting 8th of Sept. 
 1756, 1 informed the Trustees that I would undertake to let 
 the estate at 895/. per annum, if they approved of the same, 
 and desired they would appoint a meeting at Knaresborough the 
 next month, in which parish the estate is, and I would appoint the 
 farmers that had proposed taking the greatest number of farms 
 to meet us, that no tenant might be admitted, but such as was 
 agreeable to all the Trustees ; the value of each farm I gave in 
 was at the foot. The Trustees severally protested that they could 
 not attend ; at last, it was resolved that Mr. Dawson a manager in 
 the IVust should meet me in the beginning of October in order 
 to let the estate as above. A few days after the meeting I was 
 informed that after the business of the trust ivas Jinished and 
 before the rest of the trustees parted, they privately determined 
 * A Copy of thif- Protest is with the Papers. 
 
203 
 that the estate should not be let as agreed upon in the meeting. 
 To be satisfied whether nay iiitbrmation was true^ I wrote to one 
 of the Trustees that I tiiought was more influenced by a majority 
 than judgment. A copy of his answer is as follows. "Sir, The 
 Trustees at our late meeting were much moved at the great 
 distress the old tenants at Hay a Park laboured under, and were 
 Aery inclinable to hear what other proposals upon further thoughts 
 might be made by them at that and Mr. Dawson's meeting at 
 Knaresborough, as well as to hear what proposals were made by 
 the new people who were to enter into terras about the estate, 
 but you will hear from Mr. Dawson the Trustees statements (who 
 are absent) more at large. I am, your most obedient senant, H. 
 Rich, Bulhouse, 2nd of Oct. 1756." 
 
 " It will be proper here to observe that the old tenants had 
 been treated with several times, and would not comply to the 
 terms offered, and afterwards was permitted to make their own 
 proposals, (he most they would give, which was refused by the 
 trust before any stranger was treated with. When this letter 
 came to hand I did not think it proper to summon the farmers to 
 meet us till I see Mr. Dawson and hear the Trustees sentiments 
 more fully. Mr. Dawson told me the Trustees had determined 
 not to have the estate let till after another meeting. I asked when 
 and where ; he answered he did not know, but so soon as it was 
 resolved upon he would let me know, added that he was directed 
 to look over the estate himself and also hear what proposals the 
 old tenants would further make. Accordingly he ^dew ed the estate. 
 I desired he would shew me his valuation ; he pretended he had 
 not drawn it up intelligibly ; when he got home he would send 
 it me, the letter I received from him was as follows. ' Sii- ; I ha\e 
 but ju&t time to save the post and acquaint you, that Saturday 
 afternoon Mr. Lee received a letter from Mr. Shore, wherein he 
 and Mr. Rich fixed Thursday next for our meeting at the Stafford 
 Arms in Wakefield, at one o'clock. Since 1 cai^e home 1 have 
 been tyed closed to business that J could iioit send you the 
 remarks I made of Haya Park, I am. Sir, your humble servant, 
 I. Dawson. Morley, 25th Oct. 1756." 
 
 " At tliis meeting iNIr. Dawson produced his \ aluation, which 1 
 give opposite to my own that both may appeiu" in one view ; and 
 it was proposed to m.e to let the estate on these terms, Mr. J^awson 
 
204 
 
 alleging it was the full value. In answer I told them I could not 
 comply to have any hand in letting the estate so much under value ; 
 that I was not surprized at Mr. Shore approving such terms, because 
 at a former meeting he had declared he did not care how low it was 
 let ; but for Mr. Lee, which had promoted the advancing the estate 
 and had declared at the meeting 8th Sept. 1756, that two different 
 gentlemen had empowered him to offer the trustees 6001. per an- 
 num with a view to let it to under tenants. And further I added 
 that Mr. Collins of Knaresborough told him that no lands about 
 'em was let under 10s. per acre, and if free of tythe 2s. Gd. more, 
 which this is to the tenants, and will be equal to my valuation. I 
 likewise reminded them of a lease in the trustees possession dated 
 Nov. 17 Car. I. where the very estate was let for twenty years 
 for 6001. per annum clear rent, and submitted it to their judgment 
 whether lands all over the kingdom was not advanced since that 
 time more than the difference betwixt 6001. and 8951. ; in short the 
 meeting closed thus, that if I would not let the estate as above, they 
 would, let it themselves ; accordingly they Imve let it as they thought 
 proper ; granted leases for twenty -one years signed by three trustees 
 and one manager. The order stands yet in the book for my letting 
 the estate uncancelled. 
 
 " Remarks on my valuation compared with Mr. Dawson's. 
 My valuation of Lacock's farm 1771. Mr. Dawson's 1201. 
 This farm they have let to different people to the amount 
 of 189Z. 6s. 6d. part of which lands was by them let to Lacock 
 the old tenant for 631. He makes an agreement with Benson 
 to resign to him on condition of Benson giving Lacock a 
 bond to pay him 71. per annum during the lease, and the trustees 
 have agreed to grant the lease to Benson knowing of this contract ; 
 a proof I have not overvalued that farm. They have let lands on 
 both sides of Benson's at 20s. per acre, why not Benson's six- 
 teen acres for the same? Petty 's farm, Malleson, to whom they have 
 let this farm, offered me 10s. per acre for it which I refused. It 
 contains 155a. 2r. Op. at 10s. is 771. l5s. which they have let to him 
 for 7 1' 15s. less than he o^ered me. As to Wardman farm they 
 have let it under what he had agreed with the trustees to pay for 
 it when the rental loas only 408^. as will appear by the agreement 
 subsisting in the trustees hands. To sum up the whole, and to 
 prove that 1 guarded to the best of my judgment on the one 
 
205 
 liand against oppressing the tenants by oven'^aluing ; on the 
 other hand, by injuring the poor by undervaluing; I observe 
 further tlie most material dilTcrence in Mr. Dawson's and my valu- 
 ation lies the following farms. Lacock's, which is let by them for 
 more than I valued it. Gowland's, the difference is 7Sl. 2s. Pen- 
 nington's the difference 491 13s. 6d. Hare and Holgnie's farms they 
 have joined together the difference in both 391. 2s. Let the trustees 
 choose out of these or any others which they think is overvalued, 
 and I will take it myself and let it to an under tenant, they allow- 
 ing me lOl. per cent, off from my valuation for expences in collect- 
 ing rents and insurance of loss by tenants, calculated thus, 'il. per 
 cent, for collecting rents and 51. per cent, for losses by failure of 
 tenants or non-payment of rent in time. But if 1 take to any 
 farm I shall insist in the common drains being cleansed and deep- 
 ened properly to carry oft' the water, as their is more than suffi- 
 cient level for that purpose, as they the trustees know. I pro- 
 posed for the tenants, and also for the benefit of the estate to 
 be done at the trust expense, and the tenants to be under cove- 
 nants to keep the same in good order during the leases. Since 
 my refusing to sign the distributions and yearly accounts in this 
 last year, they brought into the accounts 3901. And the year 
 before that, a considerable sum under the denomination of the 
 repairs for the estate at Haya Park ; which papers neither shews 
 what the repairs was, nor for which farms, nor was there any 
 proposal made at any public meeting since these gentlemen 
 came into the trust if any farms wanted repairs, there has been in 
 this estate upwards of 1000^. laid out in repairs which was not 
 finished above five or six years ago. I only desired a copy of the 
 list of distributions last year and it was refused me ; when the es- 
 tate had 10001. laid out in repairs what wood could be found in 
 the estate fit for use, as not proper to cut, was marked and 
 numbered ; and what was wanted more than could be found on 
 the estate, purchased, rather than fall trees unfit for use, young 
 growing trees, in order to preserve for posterity. These gentle- 
 men have cut down all before them without asking leave at a 
 public meeting, and I am told has sold some. / had not known 
 of wood being cut but by persons living near the estate and by 
 talking since with the steward, he acknowledged all tvas cut.''^ 
 
206 
 'llie particulars of eticli farm. 
 As valued by Robert Moody. The same by Mr. Dawson. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ t. 
 
 d. 
 
 241 
 
 Lacock's farm, 
 
 177 
 
 
 
 
 
 120 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 Benson's 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 Petty's 
 
 9 10 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 155 2 
 
 Petty's 
 
 97 5 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 70 
 
 
 
 52 
 
 Hare's 
 
 32 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 308 1 
 
 Gowland's 
 
 163 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 90 
 
 
 
 12 2 
 
 Bramley's 
 
 6 6 10 
 
 OmitteJ 
 
 bp 
 
 Mr. 
 
 Dnwson. 
 
 6 6 
 
 10 
 
 66 2 
 
 Wardman'.s 
 
 26 12. 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 10 
 
 
 
 81 
 
 Johnson's 
 
 48 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 152 
 
 Holgate's 
 
 102 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 70 
 
 
 
 198 2 
 
 Pennington's 
 
 129 13 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 78 1 
 
 Becroft's 
 
 48 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 56 
 
 Bruce's 
 
 35 10 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 
 A Croft a Coningstrop 1 J 
 East College 10 OS 
 
 Omitted by Mr. 
 
 , Dawson. 
 
 1 10 
 
 
 
 1433 ^ £895 £594 17 4 
 
 In the year 1824, this valuable estate let for 1200/. per 
 annum, being below 1 7s. per acre. This certainly appears 
 to be a very low sum, considering the situation of land so 
 near to Knaresborough, and to Leeds also ; and also tliat 
 it let for 600/. in the year 1642, being 182 years ago. An 
 opinion prevails in Yorkshire, that the estate is not let for 
 its full value. 
 
 In reference to the Alms Houses Mr. Moody says, it 
 was designed 
 
 " For nine poor widows of the age of fifty-five or upwards, 
 and a poor man qualified to pray morning and evening with the 
 widows, and to teach them the Assembly's Catechism. I have 
 already observed that Mr. Cappe was chose* sole mini.ster ot 
 York, contrary to the inclination of the serious part of the con- 
 gregation, many of lohich left the place at they could not profit 
 undo' his ministry. Some attend the preaching of the Metho- 
 dists ; others a serious pi-actical preacher in the established 
 
 * Mr. Moody informs us in another Paper that until Mr. Cappe settled at 
 York, there had always been two Ministers at the rhapel in St. Saviour's Cate. 
 
•207 
 Church, the 'IVustees knowing this separatioiV and tbund many 
 that had voted tor Mr. Cappe declining', in order to keep np his 
 party, they have assigned over themanuyementofthe Hospital, to 
 this Mr. Cappe and four more of his party to strengthen their 
 hands. So that the rvles of the Hospital is totally neglected, 
 and the character of the people pnt in, different to the design 
 of the Lady. Either the last person, or the last but one that 
 7vas put in, these persons agreed with a Gentleman that had a 
 poor relation, to take her into the Hospital for the sake of 201. : 
 when 1 complained of this abuse, the Trustees made light of it. 
 I am persuaded that the reason they go such extravagant lengths 
 is, that as the trust Estates are made a freehold to the Trustees, 
 they think no persons has a poiver to call 'em to account, espe- 
 cially if four or more are concurring in the same measures. / 
 might begin with the first covenant in the deed of Trust, and 
 proceed to the end and shoiv how they have broke every one ; but 
 it would be too tedious for a letter. I am fully persuaded that if 
 this case was to come before a Court of Equity, the Trustees would 
 not only be turned out of the Trust, but obliged to make good 
 the losses the Trust has sustained by their practices. 
 
 Speaking of the Leases, which he considered to be so out- 
 rageously below the proper rental, he says, 
 
 '^ I see plainly that this was done to force my compliance, to 
 allow this young man, Mr. Cappe of York;, 60/. per annum, out of the 
 Charity. 1 begun to reflect whether it would not be moi-e for the 
 interest of the trust, to submit to allow this 60/. per annum, and 
 be harmonious in advancing this Estate, for in the first case the 
 Charity would lo.se 60/., in the second about 300/. ; and as all the 
 other Estates was alike underlet, the loss of the Charity would 
 be very great ; but when I considered on the other hand that all 
 the Trustees had favourites to recommend, and might plead this 
 President, there was no knowing where it might end ; but even- 
 tually as it was a notorious breach of trust to comply, I deter- 
 mined to oppose it and leave the event to providence. I there- 
 fore told them, 1 did not so much make a point of having the 
 credit, of being the instrument in advancing the estate as having 
 the work done, that as I found they was desirous of taking 
 the management of the estate out of my hands, I would give 
 
208 
 them no opposition, but would readily resign to any person that 
 would let the estate properly, but if they was determined to let 
 the Estate at an undervalue, 1 should be under the necessity to 
 oppose such measures ; they told me that the Estate was a free- 
 hold to the Trustees, and tliat a majority had power to dispose of 
 it at discretion. According-ly they voted Mr. Cappe 60/. per annum, 
 and agreed to let the Estate as above. I have ever since refused 
 signing- the distributions and also the agreements with the tenants. 
 I have been in this trust about 20 years, and within about 5 years 
 we have had four new trustees, and no ministers are favourites with 
 these Gentlemem but such as are advocates for the Arian scheme ; 
 however we have kept within bounds till the last year, and in 
 April last, when we met to make up the accounts for the preceding 
 year, the estate was upwards of 300^ in debt, and in that year 
 the poor widows list was reduced to half, under a pretence as they 
 called it of keeping out of debt.'''' 
 
 " / shall be ready to come into any method that is likely to 
 answer the intention of the Donor ; if not, I am determined to 
 give up the trust ; I am wearied with rowing against the stream. 
 Inclosed you have a copy of the Deeds of Settlement, and if the 
 Gentlemen desire it, I'll send them up a copy of the list of dis- 
 tribution, that they may see if they know the character of the 
 ministers in the north in what \vay the Charity -is disposed of; 
 they will find very few such as they or the Ladj' who left the 
 Estate would have encouraged. I have often thought, especially 
 of late years, that this Charity doth far more hurt in propa- 
 gating errors, than the small part that's given the contrary way 
 can do good." 
 
 The papers «hew an ardent desire on the part of Mr. 
 Moody to redress these serious grievances, and he several 
 times submitted the case to Mr. Attorney General Pratt, 
 (afterwards Lord Chancellor Camden,) under vi^hose advice 
 he intended to institute a suit in Chancery, from which he 
 was deterred, entirely by the heavy expence of such a mea- 
 sure. The following is an extract from a letter to a friend 
 in London on that subject, viz : 
 
 " I am very sensible this suit, if commenced, will be a consider- 
 ble charge, and therefore I have tried all other means to redress 
 
209 
 
 the grievances betore 1 thoaght of applying to tlie Couvt. At 
 tii-st 1 tliought pr jtestiiig against these measures, and refusing 
 .signing the distributions, would bring tliem to reflect and alter, 
 but I find it had a contrary effect, only enraged them and madi' 
 them run greater lengths than perhaps f hey would have done if 
 not opposed at all; when I reasoned with thein in attempting to 
 let the estate at an under rent, and shewed them that by my va- 
 luation, I had not set the lands so high as the Gentlemen that have 
 properties on every side of the estate, that are esteemed good 
 Landlords let their lands, and as a farther proof, desired theju to 
 read the old Lease of this estate, granted 17 Car. L, for the clear 
 rent of 600/. per annuin, to a Gentleman of the City of York, and 
 added it must be presumed those persons would not keep it in their 
 own hands, and live near 25 miles distant from it ; but that it 
 was more probable they would let it to under tenants to an ad- 
 vantage ! that the valuation I had made wa.s 895/., and I sub- 
 mitted it to them if the value of lands was not encreased in all 
 parts of the kingdom double to what they was upwards of a 
 100 years ago. Instead of having any rational reply one 
 
 OF THEM THREATENED TO BREAK EVERY BONE IN MY SKIN. I USe 
 
 his own words, what I've related to you is but a small part to the 
 grievances in the trust, two of the trustees are superanuated so 
 that they are not capa])le of acting, one of them is the person by 
 whom all the deeds, books, writings, and cash of the trust has been 
 kept almost from the beginning," One of the trustees in a 
 private conversation told me two years ago that the estate was 
 a freehold ; that a majority had a power to dispose of it at dis- 
 cretion. I informed him that I admit the freehold was in the 
 Trustees, but the declaration of trust limited their power. While 
 this notion subsists, no wonder to see them act arbitrarily ; till of 
 late years all resolutions of the Trustees of matters of moment at 
 the meetings, was entered into a Book appointed for that use, but 
 now all that is turned aside, and for what you can easily judge. 
 I can assure you I am not fond of law, I suppose the best 1 am 
 at a certainty of having a great deal of trouble, that if it was not 
 for the sake of the poor ministers and widows I could not easily 
 be prevailed upon to undertake it. If the court would not take 
 notice of this, in no case can it be proper to apply for redress ; 
 then farewell charity ! It is these estates the Lady has left tiiat 
 supports the dissenting interests in the northern counties, and 
 
 P 
 
210 
 whoever lives a few years to see it in the hands of the present 
 Trustees, will find the bulk of it given to favourites that are no 
 objects within the limits of the settlement, even this year they 
 have reduced the widows list to one half that they might have 
 room to gratify their humours." 
 
 When I objected to Mi\ Cappe not being- an object of charity, 
 and also laid before 'em the state of the last year's account, that 
 by g-iving- him 60/., we had distributed 58/. more than the income 
 of the estate, and that if we continued makinor that allowance 
 this year, we should be double that sum in debt ; this put a 
 stop for a little time, hut they considered amongst themselves 
 privately and resolved at lost to take ofl from all the ministers' 
 widows half their allotvance in order to make room for that gen- 
 tleman, I refused signing the distribution, and told ' em I could 
 not consent to rob so many necessitous families in order to gratify 
 an aspiring boy to keep a footman at the expense of charity.'' 
 
 A list of these poor widows is with the papers ; and by 
 means like these, the Rev. Newcome Cappe introduced 
 Unitarian isra into York, and was supplied with a footman, 
 " at the expense of Lady Hewley's Charity," designed for 
 " poor widows of poor and godly ministers ! ! !" We do 
 not profess to comment on deeds like these ; — it is an un- 
 pleasant subject, let us pass on ! 
 
 The doctrine of Lady Hewley's former Trustees, that the 
 Trust property was their own freehold ; and that a majority 
 of their own body need not regard the direction of a Trust 
 deed, but had a right to dispose of the property as they 
 pleased, and of which Mr. Moody has spoken so indignantly, 
 and so justly, is avowedly the sentiment of the Unitarian 
 body at the present day. 
 
 It is easy to conceive that the unequal struggle between 
 Mr. Moody and the other Trustees, could not continue very 
 long. The Unitarian Trustees soon obtained the complete 
 control of the funds, and for the last fifty or sixty years, 
 these estates and the endowments upon the chapels founded 
 for Orthodox principles by Orthodox men, have been the 
 chief support of the Unitarian cause, in the North of Eng- 
 land. 
 
 No account whatever has been given by the Trustees to 
 
211 
 
 tlie j)ublic of their receipts and payments ; they account only 
 to eacli other ; and whenever those disclosures are ntade, 
 which cannot long he kept back, a system will be exhibited 
 to the public eye, which will interest all classes. 
 
 Three generations of one family have served the office of 
 Trustees to this charity, viz. The late Mr. Samu(>l Shore ; 
 his son, Mr. Samuel Shore, senior ; and his grandson, Mr. 
 Samuel Shore, junior. Cotemporary with Mr. Moody, 
 there was a Mr. Thomas Lee in the Trust, there is a gen- 
 tleman of the same name at present, and how many there 
 have been between these two, we do not know. There are 
 now two gentlemen of the name of Heywood in the list of 
 Trustees ; but we are not informed how long they and their 
 colleagues, Mr. Walker and Mr. Gaskell, and their ances- 
 tors, have presided over the distribution of Lady Hewley's 
 Charity. 
 
 The following is Mr. Moody's account of the mode 
 which was adopted in electing the first Unitarian Trustees, 
 viz. 
 
 " Two * Trustees are dead and thereupon the Trust then de- 
 volved upon the then surviving 4 Trustees and one JManager — 
 And at a Meeting- of the Trustees the 10th and 11th Sept. last 
 it was proposed to chuse IManagers in the places of the 2 deceased 
 Trustees, upon which Mr. Moody reminded them of the clause in 
 the settlement, which requires reasonable notice of all Meetings 
 for transacting business of any weight or moment to be given to 
 all the Trustees and Managers. — They replied tiiat this clause 
 meant no more tlian to bring all the Trustees together, and added 
 tliat a Manager had equal power with tlie Trustees for chusing a 
 Manager, and that the choice was to be determined by a majority. 
 To which Mr. Moody rejoined that in the Deed of iSettlement the 
 Trustees are only mentioned, and to say the Managers are implied, 
 is to say. That it is implied that the Managers are directed to 
 convey the Estate, because the same clause that directs the former 
 directs the latter, and a majority is not mentioned, hut that the 
 Trustees shall elect such a person as they hi their judgments and 
 consciences shall think lit and approve of. And he desired they 
 • These two were original Trustees appointed by Lndr Hewley. 
 
'2V2 
 would show how this article or clause could be fulfilled otherwise 
 than by all the Trustees agreeing in the same persons. 
 
 " Nevertheless they proceeded to an election and the 3 Trustees 
 and a Manager chose the Brothers of two of them, and ordered 
 their Clerk to enter such choice in a Book appointed by the Deed 
 for such uses and which was accordingly entered and signed by 
 those 3 Trustees and a Manager. 
 
 " As Mr. Moody disapproved of the two persons so chosen he 
 mentioned* two other gentlemen living in London generally 
 known to the Dissenters as persons of property^ integrity and 
 judgment and such as he has no intimacy with. That he might 
 if necessary declare on oath he had no other inducement but 
 the good of the Trust and desired the persons so mentioned by 
 him might he also entered in the Book as his choice, which was 
 refused.''^ 
 
 It is probable the present Trustees would not disavow 
 the preference which they give to Unitarian ministers, but 
 a few illustrations of their conduct are necessary ; we there- 
 fore submit the following. 
 
 1st. The Alms-houses. There are nine old women ad- 
 mitted into this charity, and an old man, who reads what a 
 correspondent ironically calls " Mr. Wellbeloved's prayers" 
 to them. The women are understood to be old house- 
 keepers, cooks, &c. of the Trustees and their friends and 
 relations. , 
 
 •2nd. Poor widows of poor godly ministers. 
 
 3rd. To encourage preaching in poor places. 
 
 4th. Poor godly persons in distress. 
 
 .0th. Exhibitions to young ministers. 
 
 The allowances for the four last mentioned objects are, 
 as far as we have been able to ascertain, wholly enjoyed by 
 the Unitarian body ; and we cannot learn that one farthing 
 has been given of late years to persons of Orthodox sen- 
 timents, but it is possible that a few widows of deceasc'd 
 orthodox ministers may have received some ai 1, although 
 we have not ascertained the fact to be so. 
 
 A person now living applied many years ago for an ex- 
 
 • The Rev. Dr. Jennings and the Rev. Samuel Hitchin. 
 
213 
 
 liihition, as a student, but after a series of questions relating 
 
 t(j the, doctrine of the Trinity, to which ho replied that his 
 sentiments were the same as Lady Hewley in her life time 
 entertained, he was refused ; another person, who was 
 studying for the ministry, and had a large family, applied 
 more recently, and was refused unless he w'ould procure th(; 
 recommendation of an Vnitarian minister. The committee 
 of the Rotherham Academy, for the education of , young 
 ministers of Lady Hewley 's sentiments, which is situate 
 only three miles from the building at Attercliffe, which once 
 served for an Academy for the same purposes, and was 
 conducted by Mr. Timothy Jollie, who was contemporary 
 with Lady Hew^ley, an intimate friend of her lad^^shij), and 
 to whose " School for the Pro[)hets" it is obvious from her 
 *deed of settlement that she made special reference (there 
 being no other academy in Yorkshire at that time) applied 
 for an exhibition to her present Trustees, "and the answer 
 was, in elTect, " the exhibitions are all filled — wo have 
 nothing for you ;" Socinianism wanted all, and it has got 
 all ! Such was the danger that Lady Hewley's doctrinal sen- 
 timents would generally prevail, that her Trustees would 
 not suffer a shilling of her charity to be applied to the edu- 
 cation of a minister favourable to her ladyship's sentiments 
 and opposed to those entertained by themselves. 
 
 The following gentlemen of the Manchester College, 
 York, have received exhibitions from this fund, viz. 
 
 1818. 1821. 
 
 Mr. William Worsley Mr. Samuel Heinek;n (before named.) 
 
 — Charles Thompson — William Wilson Do. 
 
 — William Wilson — Richard Smith 
 
 ■ — Samuel Heinekin — .Tohn Owch Do. 
 
 — Richard Shawcross — Edmund Kell 
 
 — John Owen — J. Hu^h \A'orthinffton. 
 
 • Her Ladyship's Book, Collection or System of Rules, Orders, Directions, 
 and InstritctloKs, subscribed with her own proper hand, and repeatedly re- 
 ferred to in the Trust Deed, must be in the possession of her Trnstees, for they 
 are expressly required to keep and conform to the same, and if they have not 
 so done they are answefable for the violation of them. 
 
214 
 
 The last objects of Lady Hewley's charity are " poor 
 ministers of Christ's holy gospel." — Part of this fund is 
 certainly received by ministers of Orthodox sentiments ; 
 the amount applied in this way is, however, very small and 
 unimportant. An intelligent Dissenting minister in York- 
 shire, says " I imagine they give 100/. or 200/. per annum 
 to Orthodoxy, by way of a blind, bid latterly I have heard of 
 their giving us little but refusals." The allowance in this 
 way may possibly exceed 2001. ; but the general opinion is, 
 that it does not, and, as our correspondent observes *' the 
 Trustees keep their secrets close," so that it is impossible 
 to state accurately what is the amount applied in the way 
 which Lady Hewley designed it should be. 
 
 The Trustees pay little regard to the directions of the 
 Foundress, that her bounty should be applied to the relief 
 of " poor" ministers. LTnitarian ministers, whose once 
 Orthodox chapels are amply endowed, obtain assistance 
 from this fund. One instance could be given of a Unitarian 
 minister who receives from this fund, and yet has an endow- 
 ment of three times the yearly amount of the entire salary 
 received by another minister, whose application for relief to 
 the Trustees was rejected, and no person can doubt that 
 the reason was because lie held the opinions of Lady 
 Hewiey. 
 
 In three instances well authenticated, the Trustees allowed 
 yearly sums to Unitarian ministers who once occupied 
 chapels which had been built for Orthodox doctrines, and 
 when two of those chapels became deserted by the Unita- 
 rians and the minister of the third became Orthodox, and all 
 three were again occupied by Orthodox congregations, for 
 whom they had been erected, Lady Hewley's allowance 
 was instantly withdrawn. 
 
 To the minister of Rawtonstale Chapel, in Lancashire, 
 (see Appendix) which was built by the Independents, 
 for Orthodox principles, no allowance was made by these 
 Trastees, until he became an Unitarian, and occupied 
 the chapel in violation of the Trust deed, and then Lady 
 Hewley's Trustees promptly granted him a yearly exhibi- 
 
215 
 
 tion ; fuid at Malton in Yorksiiire, the minister wos allowed 
 101. per annum, but when he avowed Unilarianism, the 
 Trustees advanced him to 201. 
 
 Fulwood Chapel, in Yorkshire, was built for Orthodox doc- 
 trines, but was once occupied by the Unitarians, when it had 
 an allowance from Lady Hewley's Trustees. There was an 
 endowmentof 4001. which the Trustees,who were Unitarians, 
 placed in the hands of a mercantile house, who failed, and 
 the money was lost, for which, bylaw, they were personally re- 
 sponsible. There being only two or three Unitarian families in 
 Fulwood, P. Gell, esq. in whom the Founder had vested the 
 right of appointing a minister, at the request of a very great 
 majority of the inhabitants, delivered it to Mr. Macdonald, 
 a Trinitarian minister. In this case Lady Hewley's Trus- 
 tees availed themselves of the poverty of the place, and 
 ivithheld Lady Hewley's allowance until Mr. Macdonald 
 engaged that the chapel should be delivered agairi to the 
 Unitarians on his death or removal. 
 
 It would be endless to repeat all the vexatious occurrences 
 of this sort. The complaints are all founded on one principle, 
 viz, that Lady Hewley's Charity is applied in direct opposition 
 to her sentiments, and in violation of the Trust Deeds, and 
 the law of the land. Let any person read the funeral Ser- 
 mon preached by Dr. Colton for Lady Hewley and the 
 language of her will and trust deeds — let him consider what 
 her intentions were when she executed the trust deeds — and 
 then let him be informed that the Trustees apply her pro- 
 perty to the support of men who placard in the public streets 
 * lists of lectures on subjc'cts like these, viz, 
 
 " Reasons for not believing in the doctrine of original Sin. 
 
 in the Trinity, 
 
 in the Divinity of Christ. 
 
 the doctrine of the Atonement. 
 
 the personality of tlie Holy Spirit. 
 
 the Eternity of future punishments.'" 
 and then let him give a honest Judgment on such conduct. 
 
 • Placard of Unitarian lectures preached by Mr. Probert of Walmsly 
 Cliapel, Lancashire, (see Appendix) ul Blackburn. The preach«3r receives 
 15/. per annum from this fund. 
 
 Ditto 
 
 ditto 
 
 Ditto 
 
 ditto 
 
 Ditto 
 
 ditto 
 
 Ditto 
 
 ditto 
 
 Ditto 
 
 ditto 
 
2iG 
 
 This charity is now become, by the present mod© of mis- 
 applying it, a bounty or premium for Socinianism ; and re- 
 gardless of the directions of the Trust deed, that " primary 
 " regard should be shewn to poor dissenting ministers in the 
 northern counties," the application of great numbers of 
 worthy and excellent men in those counties are rejected 
 merely because they entertain the doctrinal sentiments of 
 the foundress, whilst Unitarian ministers in remote parts of 
 the kingdom are eagerly rewarded for their opposition to 
 those sentiments. We know that these funds are sent into 
 the Midland Counties ; and probably Devonshire itself is 
 deemed by the Trustees to be a " Northern" county, as a 
 reward for its early apostacy from Christian truth ; and even 
 for the few scanty pittances granted by the Trustees to poor 
 ministers of orthodox sentiments, they have enforced upon 
 some of the applicants the humiliating condition that they 
 should previously obtain the recommendation of a Socinian 
 preacher. No one can doubt that the corrupting tendency 
 of these measures has been one great means of procuring 
 the present perversion of so many of the Chapels in those 
 counties where its influence has been chiefly employed. 
 
 And let any impartial person review the present circum- 
 stances of most of the northern Counties. In Cumberland 
 there is not one Unitarian Chapel ; in Westmoreland there 
 is but one, and that was once orthodox ; in Yorkshire there 
 is only one Society (at 1'horne and Stainland) which has 
 been originated by the Unitarians, and that was effected by a 
 " Missionary," Mr. Richard. Wright, whose spirit was pro- 
 bably moved within him to see " *the darkness, the gross 
 darkness of reputed Orthodoxy" so prevalent hi that county; 
 in Lancashire, their strong hold, they have originated only 
 eight ; and in Cheshire two ; and even in the erection of 
 some of those chapels, if report be true. Lady Hewley's 
 trustees have assisted. 
 
 The Unitarians have, however, brought over to their 
 
 * Rev. G. Harrises prefatory remarks published with his list of Unitarian 
 Chapels. 
 
217 ' 
 purposes sixteen chappls in Yorkshire; tliirty-ono in Lan- 
 cashire ; and twelve in Chesliire ; and upon these perverted 
 chapels Lady Hevvley's wealth is ap{)lied in rich and copious 
 streams. 
 
 Most of the Chapels, thus preverted, are anipl}' endowed ; 
 and those endowments and Lady Hewley's funds are ob- 
 viously the cause of their present misappropriation. In the 
 judgment of persons who have given some consideration 
 to the subject, a great majority of the chapels, which are 
 ihus subsidized by Lady Hewley's Trustees, do not by 
 any means average fifty stated heare^-s ;* though within 
 memory, some of them contained large and flourishing 
 congregations, when orthodox sentiments were preached in 
 them. 
 
 To the support of such a mischievous system as this, the 
 property of Lady Hewley is now chiefly appropriated ; and 
 thie reader will judge whether, independent of all other 
 considerations, the application of those funds to the main- 
 tenance of Unitarianism is not a public injury. 
 
 We conclude this article by calling the attention of 
 our readers to the sentiments of a Mr. Edward Taylor, 
 an Unitarian in Norwich, which he has published in the 
 Monthly Repository. This person informs us of a Lady of 
 Dr. Taylor's congregation, who left a sum of money in the 
 hands of Trustees, members of that congregation, to be 
 by them every year distributed in such way and to such 
 dissenting Ministers as they and their Successors might 
 think fit, with this restriction only^ that they should be resi- 
 dent in Norfolk or Suffolk." A little more information 
 about the trust deed, would certainly have been proper, but 
 this he had his own reasons for keeping back ; his object 
 is to laud the Trustees for applying the money " where it 
 was most wanted,'' which was plainly what was intended by 
 the Donor ; and for performing this act of duty, and for not 
 
 * Mr. Harris in his Sermon admits that " there are more than n dozen 
 Unitarian congregations (in Lancashire) that do not raise 60/. a year, each 
 for irehgious purposes of any description." Probably they lia not raise .'i/. 
 earli per aumini. 
 
218 
 
 appropriating it contrary to the trust deed, these Unitarian 
 Trustees obtain Mr. Edward Taylor's public praise ! ! ! 
 
 With singular boldness Mr. Taylor asserts that the pre- 
 sent controversy, " must inevitably have the effect of depriving 
 them (the Calvinists) of the advantages which they derive 
 by their occasional union and connexion with ?/«" (the Unita- 
 rians) ! ! ! What those advantages are, experience has in- 
 formed us. Scores of Chapels built and endowed with 
 immense labour and expence for the propagation of Cal- 
 vinistic Sentiments, and thousands of pounds per annum 
 set apart by Calvinists for the education and maintenance 
 of their ministers, are by Unitarian Trustees perverted 
 to objects and principles in direct hostility to those for 
 which these costly sacrifices were made. These are the ad- 
 vantages, which have been derived from what Mr. Edward 
 Taylor calls " occasional union and connexion" with the 
 Unitarians ! Cajolery like this must have provoked his own 
 laughter ; and his misgivings are obvious. It is evident he 
 has nothing to offer in the way oi seduction , and he therefore 
 tries the effect of intimidation^ and the haughty Socinian 
 threatens hundreds of thousands ofhisfellow-srdfjects, if they 
 dare to assert their legal rights, in the following terms ; 
 *' Have they," he says, " reckoned up all the consequences 
 which must result from the step they propose-to adopt? Let 
 THEM TAKE CARE. They have as yet only proceeded to 
 words, but the moment the sword is drawn, adieu to all the 
 ties which now bind us to them as brother Nonconformists. 
 I say nothing of the unkind feeling which must be engen- 
 dered where friendship and good will now exist ; / speak 
 merely of the gross-folly of their intentions ; and I would ad- 
 vise them from mere motives of prudence to desist. The zea- 
 lots who urged on this pillaging scheme, have very little 
 notion of the extent to which their friends throughout the 
 kingdom will instantly suffer. There is yet time for the re- 
 flecting portion of the Calvinists to interfere and put a stop 
 to it. If they neglect to do so, be the consequences 
 UPON their own heads" ! I ! The reader will easily under- 
 stand this Gentleman's meaning. He does not mean to 
 
219 
 refer us to the *=225/. which he tells us was given in five years, 
 but above twenty years ago, by Unitarians to aged dissenting 
 ministers in Norfolk; he does not mean the loss which the 
 " Calvinists" will sustain of anything which was ever given 
 l)y Unitarians for any purpose whatever; he means to de- 
 prive them of what is their oicn. His wrathful eye is directed 
 to Ladi/ Hewlejfs estates, to Dr. Williams's estates, and to 
 other- funds, the greatest part of wliich by an unaccountable 
 apathy of the dissenting body, in a nation where law and 
 justice are respected, have been permitted to be peiTerted to 
 objects which the founders of those charities loathed, and 
 never regarded without horror. He predicts further inno- 
 vations on these funds, and threatens that they shall hence- 
 forth be totally perverted. We, however, retort the Gen- 
 tleman's own words, " Let the trustees take care." 
 The days of the triumph of injustice may fje shorter than 
 he supposes; and the friends of Orthodoxy are already con- 
 templating a proper course of investigation into this great 
 Yorkshire Charity. 
 
 * Mr. Taylor says tliat no Unitarian Minister ha> chiimed on this Fund, nnd 
 we conclude that when lie wrote his letter, he did not know that thr family of 
 onr Unitarian Minister has received niore than the stini which he 11iu< holds \i\t 
 to public admiration. 
 
 MILNE AND BANFIF.LD, PRINTF.US, 76, 1-LF.F.T-STRi: K T. 
 
PROPOSALS 
 
 ARE ISSUED FOH 
 
 PUBLISHING BY SUBSCRIPTION, IN FIVE VOLUMES 8vO. 
 
 Price, lOs. Gel. each ; 
 
 HANDSOMELY PRINTED ON FINE DEMY PAPER, 
 
 THE WHOLE 
 
 WORKS 
 
 OF 
 
 THE REV. OLIVER HEYW^OOD, B.A.; 
 
 WITH A 
 
 THE WORKS 
 
 Consist of Heart Treasure — Sure Mercies of David — Life in God'!* 
 Favour — Israel's Lamentation — Life of the Rev. Johw Angier — Baptis- 
 mal Bonds — Meetness for Heaven — Family Altar — The Best Entail — New 
 Creature — Job's Appeal — Heavenly Converse — General Assembly— Closed 
 Prayer— Christ's Intercession—The Two Worlds; together with a Selection 
 of unpublished articles from his Manuscripts. These will be edited by the Rev. 
 fV. J'int, Tutor of Idle Academy, Yorkshire. 
 
 THE LIFE 
 
 Is written by the Rev. R. Slate, Stand, near Manchester, who has 
 been favoured by Mr. Heywood's descendants and others, with upwards ol 
 Twenty folumes of his Private Manuscripts, containing the History of the 
 Hey wood Family as far back as Mr H. could trace it. A Narrative of the 
 first forty years of his Life— Soliloquies on various events during the first thirty 
 years of his Ministry—'A Private Record of the first Members and Covenants 
 of the Church at Northowram---Numerous Personal Covenants- --Remarkable 
 Returns of Prayer between the 5ears 16'72 and 1702— -Various portions of his 
 Diary from its commencement in 1668 till within five days of his death, &c. 
 
 It is calculated that each Volume will contain, on an average, above 500 
 pages. The First Volume, though it may be published last, will contain The 
 Life of the Author-— The Life of the Rev. John Angier of Denton— and The 
 Life of the Rov. Nathaniel Heywood of Ormskirk. A Protrait will be given 
 of the Author, with a Fac-simile of his hand-writing, and a List of Subscribers' 
 Names. The Second Volume is now ready for delivery. 
 
 Siubscvibcvs' Names Keceifae^ bp 
 The Rev. TV. Vint, Idle, near Bradford, Yorkshire ; The Rev. R. Slate, 
 Stand, near Manchester, Lancashire ; or at No. 10, Mabledon Place, Burton 
 Crescent, Russell Square, London. 
 
 Subscribers sending direct to either of the above will be allowed Twenty per 
 cent.) and receive their volumes carriage free. About 50 Copies will be printed 
 on superfine Royal Paper, in extra boards, price 15*. each Volume.