•BAF 
 

 .^W^^^i 
 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 ■'"S, 
 
 Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Ag:2nu Coll. on Baptism, No. J^ZJ^ J^ 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/baptistchapelstmOOnort 
 
BAPTIST CHAPEL, ST. MARY'S, NORWICH. 
 
 5e tjiE laalb Cnurt: 
 
 ITS OKIGIN, THE PROCEEDINGS, PLEADINGS, AND JUDGMENT. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 WILLIAM'NORTON, 
 
 ONE OF THE TRUSTEES. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED BY J. BRISCOE, BANNER STREET, FINSBURY ; 
 AND PUBLISHED BY 
 
 HOULSTON AND WRIGHT, 65, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 1860. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Part T. — Introduction : Importance of the Suit : the Question 
 FOR Decision. 
 
 Part II. — Antecedents and Causes of the Suit. 
 
 Part III. — The Information and Bile, Answers, Affidavits, 
 AND Depositions of some of the Plaintiffs' Witnesses on 
 Cross-examination and Re-examination. 
 
 Part IV. — The Hearing: — Speeches of Mr. Roundell Palmer 
 AND Sir Hugh Cairns. 
 
 Part V. — The Judgment: Delivered May 28th, 18G0. 
 
 Part VI. — Remarks upon the Judgment, ry the Editor. 
 
BAPTIST CHAPEL, ST. MARY'S, NORWICH. 
 
 THE SUIT— ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. GOULD AND OTHERS, 
 
 ITS ORIGIN, THE PROCEEDINGS, PLEADINGS, AND JUDGMENT. 
 
 EDITED BY WILLTAM NORTON, ONE OF THE TRUSTEES. 
 
 PART I.— INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The friends of the plaintiffs in this cause, wish the events out of wliich it 
 arose, and the substance of the pleadings, to be placed on record. TJie facts 
 are admitted, on both sides, to be of great importance. They affect the very 
 existence of many Baptist churches, and the tenure of almost all Baptist chapels 
 which are not of very recent origin. 
 
 This appeal to a Court of Chancery was rendered necessary in order to 
 prevent, if possible, the alienation of this chapel from those who hold the 
 very sentiments, and adhere to the very practice of the founders of the trust, 
 as to a rule which they deemed unalterable. It arose out of a breach of the 
 Strict Baptist Constitution of the Church, by the adoption, in part, of the 
 practice of fru communion. 
 
 The principle of strict communion is that, in addition to proof of faith in 
 Christ, conformity also to divine ordinances, such as Baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper, has been mmle by Christ fundamental and essential to church corh- 
 m,union ; that is, to tlie equal and common enjoyment of all imvilegcs belonging 
 exclusively to a Christian church, of which the Lord's Su2ri}er is one. Also that 
 baptism is prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, and all other privileges of church 
 communion. 
 
 The principle of open, mixed, or free communion, is that conformity to divine 
 ordinances, such as Baptism and tJie Lord's Supper, is not fundamental and 
 essential to church communion ; that the only thing fundamental to it is a 
 st ite of heart and life which justifies the opinion that a person is a triie 
 
 A 2 
 
believer ; and that a church is hound to receive all applicants who, whatever 
 may be their nonconformity to the wiU of Clirist, are nevertheless deemed by 
 it true believers. Most of those who have advocated this principle, have held, 
 in common with the advocates of strict communion, that the Lord's Supper 
 belongs exclusively to the visible church of Christ, and have differed from 
 them chiefly as to who ought to be esteemed members of that visible church, 
 and received as such to the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Neither of these two systems, can consistently be adopted' in part of its 
 requirements only ; nor can they consistently be both of thevi practised by the 
 same church, at the same time. Each is advocated by its friends as of divine 
 authority, and as therefore in every part of its requirements binding and 
 inviolable ; and each requires that the other should be abandoned, as a 
 violation of God's will. Both sides agree with Mr. Robert Hall, when he 
 said : — " He who alters the terms of communion, changes the fundamiental 
 laws of Christ's kingdom. He assumes a legislative power, and ought, in order 
 to justify that conduct, to exhibit his credentials, with a force and splendour 
 of evidence, equal at least to those which attested the divtiie legation of 
 Moses and the prophets." — Reply to Kinghm-n, 1818, p. 255. 
 
 But it wdl be seen that the proceedings of the free communion members of 
 this church have not been in accordance with these rules. They have adopted 
 both systems at once ; the one, said to be binding, and the other, said to be 
 " schism." They resolved to admit to the Lord's Supper on the first Sunday, 
 and at any times during the month except one, all believers ; but, once a 
 mouth, the free communion members proposed to exclude aU but Baptists, 
 and thus to do even what they condemn as contrary to God's wiU, if the 
 strict members would consent to come. Those members declined, and then, 
 though not denied to be true believers, their refusal was made ground for 
 proceeding to exclude them from the church ; yet free commimion is the 
 rule that all believers ought to be received, and when received, retamed. Tliis 
 proposal was, as to the free communion members, &n inconsistency; and, as to the 
 strict members, inequality of pri\nlege, and almost certain extinction. For no 
 new converts could join the church thenceforth without joining in a free com- 
 munion ser\ace at the time of their admission to membership. 
 
 The circumstances of this case do not stand alone. What has occurred at 
 Norwich has occurred in many places ; and the general likeness of the 
 measures taken impUes that these means are approved, and accepted, as 
 among the best for changing the constitution of Strict Baptist churches. 
 
 The affidavits made in this suit by many of the leading advocates of fi'ee 
 communion, and the countenance and co-operation given by others of them, 
 either to the suit or to the proceedings out of which it arose, alike prove 
 the extent of this approbation. Among those who have made affidavits on 
 the part of the defendants, are the tutors of the three colleges ; Mr. Crisp, 
 and Dr. Gotch, of Bristol ; Dr. Acworth, Mr. Green, and Mr. Pottenger, of 
 
Eawdon ; and Dr. Angus, and Dr. B. Davies, of Regent's Park, Loudon. 
 Mr. Lepard Smith, Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Joseph H. Allen, have done so 
 as treasurers of the Baptist Fund ; three secretaries of Baptist societies, Mr. 
 Trestrail of the Baptist Foreign Mission, Mr. Middleditch of the Baptist 
 Irish Society, and Mr. Christopher WooUacott (a Strict Baptist), of the 
 Baptist Building Fund, have also all done so as secretaries of those so- 
 cieties. Dr. Edward Steane, Dr. Thomas Price, Dr. John Leechman, and 
 Mr. BirreU, of Liverpool, have done so too. Dr. Joseph Angus, Mr. William 
 LandeUs, Mr. J. H. Hinton, the Hon. Baptist W. Noel, Mr. William Brock, 
 Dr. Thomas Price, Mr. Chi'istopher WooUacott, and Dr. Edward Steane, aU 
 wrote to Mr. Gould, sanctioning his intention to exclude the Strict Baptists 
 from the church ; and were, in fact, approvers of that course of conduct which 
 left no means for the defence of the threatened members, but appeal to 
 Chancery. 
 
 If the whole of the papers in the suit were printed, they would make a 
 volume, which few would read. The object here is to give, in a condensed 
 form, whatever is material, and to take sUght notice of what is not. When 
 docmnents, therefore, are referred to, no more of the exact words can be given 
 than those most material, except in special cases. 
 
 The object of the defendants and their friends, did not relate to this church 
 only. Their aim was to establish a i)recedent for the whole kingdom ; to show 
 that, if like means can he used, the limitation of communion to Baptists may 
 be put an end to wherever it exists, unless the trust deed of the chapel requires 
 that limitation as to the Lord^s Supper, in express terms. Their wish is to show 
 that by such means the Strict Baptist members, if they do not leave, may be 
 either excluded, or placed in a position so degraded and powerless, that they 
 will at once become virtually, and must soon be actually extinct. Mr. Gould, in 
 a discourse delivered on June 30, 1860, the first Sunday after Judgment was 
 delivered by the Master of the Rolls, speaking of the time when the Bill was 
 filed, said : — 
 
 " As soon as it was possible to do so, a few friends assembled together to 
 determine the question, whether the suit should be defended or not. After an 
 anxious deliberation, it was resolved to defend it, upon the special ground, 
 that it would raise, and might finally dispose of the question, foi- every Baptist 
 congregation whose trust deed, like our own, contained no clause limiting the 
 action of the church iu reference to communion." 
 
 It is not denied by the defendants that this deed docs limit the action of 
 the church as to full memhership, and they seem to think that their not 
 acting as to membership on the free communion principle acted on by them 
 in the Lord's Supper, is necessary to the object pursued. Yet, if the deed 
 limits m^emhership to Baptists, it must have been intended to limit the Lord's 
 Supper to them also. For no distinction as to principle, is proved to hive 
 been then made between membership and the Lord's Supper. Admission to 
 
6 
 
 tlio Lord's Supper was held to be a privilege peculiar to church members, and 
 therefore dependent upon the same frincii^les as membership. If, however, 
 by asserting a distinction, as to principles of communion, between member- 
 ship and the Lord's Supper, the constitution of Strict Baptist Churches can be 
 destroyed, events prove that the assertion is likely to be made. Few trust- 
 deeds are supposed to be more express as to the Lord's Supper than this 
 Norwich deed, and every Strict Baptist church, therefore, needs to be well 
 aware of the course which has been pursued by the free communion members 
 of this church. Should wisdom, forethought, and decision, such as are taught 
 by the liistory of this case, be duly exercised, it may be possible to stop the 
 very springs and fountains of an evil, from the effects of which, in its flood 
 stream, not even a favourable decision in Chancery is sufficient to defend. 
 
 The point at issue is this. Is free communion compatible with what this 
 church deemed fimdamental to its own constitution, faith, and worship, when, 
 in 1746, it placed the property in trust for its own sole use ? This is the 
 question which a Court of Chancery had to decide : and in reading the 
 evidence and pleadings, it is to this pomt that attention needs to be directed. 
 How far the Judgment is an answer to this question, is considered in the 
 remarks which follow it. The words of the trust-deed declare the property to 
 have been " purchased for and intended as a place of public worship for the 
 said congregation of Particular Baptists within the city of Norwich, the several 
 members of" which " advanced and paid the money for the purchase of the said 
 premises," and put them in trust for that and " no other purpose whatsoever." 
 The question relates partly, therefore, to what was essential to constitute this 
 church a " congregation of Particular Baptists." Congregation is admitted by 
 the defendants to have been used in the sense of church ; and the beneficial 
 use of the building was at the least, therefore, limited to persons who held 
 Particular Eedemption, were Baptists, and formed a part of this church. But 
 this was not the wliole question. This body professed to be not merely a " con- 
 gi-egation of Particular Baptists," but a congregation or church of Christ ; it 
 professed to hold the doctrines, observe the worship, and administer the laws 
 wliich, Mi its viciv, Christ had revealed and given. Difi'erent congregations of 
 Particular Baptists, are proved to have differed in some points deemed by 
 them respectively essential to true worship, though they were alike in what 
 was necessary to make them congregations of Particular Baptists ; and as this 
 church was independent of all other such churches, and formed its own views 
 of what was fundamental, those views cannot be fully ascertained, except by 
 evidence relatinrj to itself. It was for the "worsliip" of this congregation, so 
 far as it difiered fundamentally or unalterably even from that of other con- 
 gregations of like name, that the property was put in trust ; and the full 
 question therefore which the e^ypress words of the trust-deed make it binding 
 to ask, is this :— What did this church deem essential to, or muilterablc in, its 
 own constitution, faith, and worship ? 
 
•'J^, 
 
 PART IL— ANTECEDENTS AND CAUSES OF THE SUIT. 
 
 The date of the original trust-deed 
 of the chapel is Nov. 24, 1746. 
 
 From May 20, 1790, Mr. Joseph 
 Kinohorn was pastor of the church, 
 till ids death on Sept. 1, 1832. Mr. 
 Wm. Brock was pastor from 1833 to 
 1848. Mr. George Gould has been so 
 since 1849. 
 
 Mr. Robert HaU published his 
 " Terms of Communion" in 1815 ; Mr. 
 Kinghorn replied to it, and became the 
 leading advocate of strict communion. 
 
 Some remarks made by Mr. Hall in 
 the course of this controversy, throw 
 Hght on circumstances connected with 
 the origin of this suit. He suggested 
 means by which a silent revolution 
 [might] be effected* in churches limit- 
 ing communion to Baptists. These 
 related chiefly to ministers, and tna- 
 jorities ; to the latter as fixmg the 
 time when, in those churches, members 
 ofposed to strict communion could no 
 longer, in his view, consistently prac- 
 tise what they condemn. 
 
 " The people," he said, " never fail, 
 sooner or later, to follow the impulse 
 of their jniblic teachers." f "With a 
 change of sentiment in them, it [strict 
 communion] mil gradually disappear ."J 
 The advocates of free communion have 
 paid great attention to this point. They 
 have, by degrees, secured in all the 
 English colleges for Particular Baptist 
 ministers, free-communion tutors. At 
 Mr. Eanghorn's death, there were few 
 young ministers ia them who adliered 
 firmly to liis views. 
 
 Wliile advertmg to the duty of free 
 communion Baptists to practise free 
 communion when they are a majority 
 in a Strict Baptist church, he said that 
 he thought the subject " intimately 
 co7inected with the eventual success of 
 the cause in which [he was] em- 
 barked."* He remarked that when he 
 wrote, it was the custom for Baptist 
 
 * Eeply to Kinghorn, 1818, Pref. xv — xix . 
 t Reply to Kingliorn, 1818, p. 274. 
 t Short Statement, 1826, Pref, vii. 
 
 churches, " whatever [might] be the 
 sentiments of the majority, to con- 
 tinue the practice of strict communion, 
 hi almost every instance, where the op- 
 posite system [was] incapable of being 
 introduced with a ^perfect unanimity." 
 That is, they would not deprive even 
 a minority of any part of their rights 
 as members, whether as to commimion 
 or the use of their chapel. They 
 would probably rather have ivithdraum 
 from the church than do tliis. But 
 Mr. Hall condemned this course ; he 
 said, that if the majority are "con- 
 vinced of the right of aU genuine 
 Christians to communion," and yet 
 " refrain from acting agreeably to their 
 avotoed princijiles, and consent to ivith- 
 hold from another class of their fellow- 
 Christians what they consider as their 
 undoiibted right" that they " in reality 
 place error on the tlu-oue, they pros- 
 trate themselves before it." If so, 
 they do it not only lohen they are a 
 majority. He who acts not on his prin- 
 ciples, or withliolds from another his 
 ^^ undoubted right" is inconsistent, 
 even when one of a few. But if he 
 be one of a few, in a Strict Baptist 
 church, who have such convictions, he 
 vnust, to be consistent, withdraio, and 
 found or join a body wliich acts, as he 
 thinks he ought to act as one of its 
 members. This course, it is true, 
 would prevent "the success" which 
 Mr. Hall expected from the action of 
 a majority of such persons ; because if, 
 when in a minority, they withdrew, a 
 majority could not arise. But suppose 
 a majority to have sprung fi'om sudden 
 conversion to free communion, even it 
 could withdraw, and would not need, 
 in order to be consistent, to injure the 
 minority. Mr. Hall indeed assumed, 
 that the course he advised would in- 
 jure no one, but a little reflection fiu'- 
 nishes proof that this is not true. 
 
 "Whenever," he said, "there is a 
 decided majority in a church. . .let them 
 admit pious Piedobaptists without he- 
 sitation, and Ut ilwse ivhose principles 
 
8 
 
 deter them from joining in such a 
 communion, receive the Lord's Supper 
 apart, retaining, at the same time, all 
 their rights aiid ■privileges unimiMirecU* 
 But this is impossible. One duty of 
 church members is to administer the 
 laws of Christ s kingdom. Each is one 
 of a body of judges, who have to iti- 
 terpret and enforce those laws. If an 
 upright judge be so situated that he 
 must give his silent consent to what the 
 statute law condemns, how can he with 
 efficiency fulfil the duties of Ms office? 
 The nobler his mind, the more he re- 
 coils from filling a place as a jvxdge, in 
 which he cannot enforce what is right, 
 and must by his presence seem to en- 
 force what is wrong. Just such is the 
 case of Strict Baptists in a church 
 which gives the Lord's Supper (ad- 
 mission to which is in charge of the 
 members), to the unbaptized. 
 
 How, also, with consistency, could 
 Mr. Hall's "majority" concur at any 
 time in withholding from P?edobaptists 
 what he calls their " right ; " as it 
 would do in the service which he re- 
 commends to be set apart by it for 
 the strict members. For if strict com- 
 munion be wrong, it never can be right 
 to sanction it ? 
 
 " By this means," he said, " a silent 
 revolution may be effected in our 
 churches unstained by a particle of 
 VIOLENCE OR INJUSTICE."* How dif- 
 ferent the reality is, from this bright 
 vision, will be seen from the facts of 
 this Norwich case. The revolution 
 can scarcely be said to have been 
 " silent," nor yet without something of 
 "violence" and "injustice" towards 
 the Strict members. 
 
 The stream of events which finally 
 led to the suit was as follows : — 
 
 At Mr. Kinghorn's death the church 
 failed to meet with a decidedly Strict 
 Baptist who seemed to it fit to be its 
 pastor. This arose in part from the 
 state of the colleges, and the scarcity of 
 young men of good education who held 
 strict communion. Mr. Brock preached 
 with great acceptance, and was invited 
 on probation. He stated that, as to 
 communion, his vieios " were directly 
 opposite" to those of Mr. Kinghorn, but 
 undertook the pastorate on the proviso 
 
 * Reply to Kinghorn, Pref. xv. — xix. 
 
 made by the church, " not to moot the 
 question of communion at St. Mary's." 
 —Afft. W. N., ph. 22. Minute in Church 
 Book, 1833. 
 
 Nov. 14, 1836, the pastor read a draft 
 letter, with altered heading, for dis- 
 missing a member to a church " open in 
 its membership and communion." Mr. 
 S. Wilkin and others opposed the mea- - 
 sure as likely to lead to the introduction 
 of open communion. 
 
 March, 1838. A member complained of 
 some deviation from the pledge Mr.Brock 
 had given. On April 30, the complaint 
 was considered, the pledge is said to have 
 been read, and it was again understood 
 that he was not to introduce the practice 
 of open communion. 
 
 For years before 1845, Mr. Brock ad- 
 ministered the Lord's Supper in his own 
 house, to persons who had not been 
 immersed after faith. — Ch. Bk. May 26, 
 1845. 
 
 About March, 1845, he addressed a 
 letter to the members of the church, an- 
 nouncing his intention to commence a 
 Lord's Supper service in the chapel, on 
 the third Lord's day of each month, ia 
 which those members who might think 
 with him on the communion question 
 would be " welcome to join, in company 
 with such fmends, beloved in the Lord, 
 as [did] not yet see it their duty to he 
 immersed." 
 
 In this letter he said that a person 
 who had been accepted for membership 
 was at that time debarred from the 
 Supper, because "iU health prevented 
 him" from being immersed. In cases of 
 ill health, communion was at that time 
 deferred, till return of health permitted 
 immersion. 
 
 As to his neio service, he said : — " I 
 should be exceedingly filled with joy to 
 see any Christian brethren, who may 
 worship with ua in the sanctuary, wel- 
 comed to our sacramental service on the 
 first Lord's day in the month.... I cannot, 
 however, forget the fact, that there are 
 some among you who could not consent 
 to the admission of the unbaptized. 
 Were they to come, you must, at the 
 imperative dictate of conscience, go away. 
 Now, for your consciences I entertain 
 the same respect as for my own. Far 
 from me, beloved, be the desire to tempt 
 you to compromise your principles ; or, 
 failing that, to punish you for holding 
 those principles fast." — Exhibit, K. 1. 
 
 Twelve trustees were then living, 
 but only two of them, Mr. S. Wilkin 
 and Mr. W. Norton, were supposed to be 
 likely, at the request of the protesting 
 
9 
 
 members, to endeavour to prevent the 
 use of the chapel for a service felt by 
 those members to be an infringement of 
 the constitutional order, and the aiUhorlty 
 of the church, and to be in danger of 
 alienating the benefits of the trust from 
 some of the members entitled to enjoy 
 them. These two trustees were eai-ly 
 informed of the intended service. Mr. 
 Norton wrote on April 10th to Mr. 
 James Cozens, the elder, a senior trustee, 
 respecting it ; and Mr. Wilkin and Mr. 
 Norton resolved to take the opinion of 
 some able counsel. Mr. Cozens did not 
 reply ; Mr. Norton wrote again on 
 April 18th. On April 21st, the day 
 after the new service had been first held, 
 Mr. Cozens acknowledged both letters, 
 declined to take " any part in such pro- 
 ceedings," and said, " Notwithstanding 
 the risk of being thought ' uncourteous,' 
 I was determined Mr. Brock should have 
 the opportunity of attending to the ser- 
 vice which he had had for some time in 
 contemplation, before I gave any reply 
 to your extraordinary inquiry, the pur- 
 pose of making which is more surpi'ising 
 BiiWr— Exhibit, P. 2. 
 
 Richard T. Kindersley, Esq., now 
 Vice- Chancellor Sir R.T. Kindersley, was 
 the counsel before whom Mr. Wilkin and 
 Mr. Norton laid a statement of the case, 
 accompanied with an abstract of the last 
 trust-deed of 1832. His opinion, dated 
 April 30, 1845, was this, "that the ad- 
 mission of such persons to communion 
 in the chapel in question, is a violation of 
 the trusts and purposes upon which the 
 chapel is held." 
 
 Mr. John S. Brewer, a highly esteemed 
 member of long standing in the church, 
 and who had been a deacon of it since 
 January 1840, drew up a ptrotest after the 
 first service had been held, against the re- 
 petition of it. This pi'otest was signed by 
 forty -two men members, and presented to 
 Mr. Brock. It expressed much grief that 
 such a service had been "encouraged 
 and superintended" by himself; and 
 gave as reasons for this protest, that in 
 their view, " unbaptized persons are not 
 authorized" by Christ to observe the 
 Lord's Supper; that "the peace and 
 prosperity" for which the church had 
 been ^'for so long a time distinguished," 
 would, " by this new order, be exposed 
 to great peril." They denied that any 
 " individual member, or any number of 
 members, unauthorized by the whole 
 church, [had] a right, according to the 
 constitution of [their] society, to receive 
 to the communion-table any pex'son what- 
 ever; because, by so doing, he or they 
 
 [did] infringe on [the] equal common 
 right" of the members, &c. They said, 
 that such a practice was " needless in such 
 a city as Norwich, which supplies ac- 
 commodation for almost all modifica- 
 tions of religious opinions ; " and that 
 they were " persuaded, both by the lan- 
 guage of the trust-deed, and the tisage 
 founded thereon, that the benefits of the 
 building and the endowments are the ex- 
 clusive rights of Baptists," and that the 
 new practice had " a direct tendency to 
 alienate these benefits from them." 
 
 May 26,1845. The pastor referred at 
 church meeting, to a subject by which it 
 appeared, the peace of the church had 
 been disturbed. He spoke of the service 
 which he had instituted for the especial 
 benefit of unbaptized worshippers, and 
 which had then been attended to twice. 
 He read the above Protest against the 
 repetition of it, and his Reply. In his 
 Reply, addressed to the protesting mem- 
 bers, he said, "You are not asked to 
 approve or sanction the communion of 
 the unbaptized at the table of the Lord." 
 " Your own rights and privileges as 
 members of the church in this place, are 
 left altogether untouched." " You are not 
 identified with the practice of open com- 
 munion at all." Also that as he under- 
 stood the case, " the church was not 
 involved." He intimated that if the 
 church adopted any resolution condem- 
 natory of his practice, he should cer- 
 tainly leave; he could not, with the 
 feelings he then had, become or continue 
 pastor of a church which should prevent 
 him from administering the Lord's 
 Supper to persons unbaptized. He 
 stated that several who then worshipped 
 in the chapel would gladly be immersed, 
 but from physical causes were unable to 
 be so, and he did not believe with the 
 protesters, that "they had no right to 
 fellowship at the table." Two members, 
 Mr. Hastings and Mr. Guyton, proposed 
 notwithstanding, a vote of censure on 
 the conduct of the pastor, but as the 
 protest itself expressed disapproval of 
 it, the motion was withdi-awn on con- 
 dition that the protest should be entered 
 in the Church Book. This proposal was 
 adopted. It was resolved that the Reply 
 be entered there also. — Ch. Bk. and P. 2. 
 
 Some of the members ceased to observe 
 the Lord's Supper tvith the church. The 
 ivhole of the members of the church were 
 responsible for the right observance of it 
 at all times, and for the fitness of the 
 persons received to it ; and those re- 
 ferred to, feeling that the church was 
 neglecting its duty in these respects. 
 
10 
 
 thought themselves bound to pi-otest 
 against that neglect and also against the 
 new practice, by ceasing to commune 
 with the church till it should put a stop 
 to the practice. 
 
 June 7, 1845. A meeting of the trus- 
 tees. All were present but Mr. Allen, 
 Mr. Cozens, jun., and Mr. Wilkin. Mr. 
 Norton read the case which had been 
 laid before Mr. Kindersley, and the 
 opinion given. He proposed that if the 
 trustees were not satisfied, so many 
 statements of the case be di'awn up, as 
 different opinions might require ; that in 
 these nothing be stated which any denied 
 to be fact, and that they be laid before 
 two eminent counsel. The trustees 
 ■would neither stoj) the new practice, nor 
 take another opinion. — - W. N. Note Bk. 
 
 Aug. 1845. Twenty of the men mem- 
 bers requested in writing, that each and 
 all the trustees would stop the new prac- 
 tice, as being opposed to both letter and 
 spirit of the trust-deed. 
 
 Aug. 23, 1845. A meeting of the 
 trustees was held, summoned about 
 Aug. 19th, by Mr. Cozens, senior, in con- 
 sequence of the above request. Mr. 
 Allen and Mr. Norton were absent. The 
 meeting requested two solicitors, Mr. 
 Thomas Brightwell, and Mr. John 0. Tay- 
 lor, to draw up a case to be submitted at 
 an adjourned meeting, that day week. — ■ 
 Exhibits, P. 2 ; K. 14, 15. Mr. Brightwell 
 is not a Baptist, but at one time attended 
 this chapel. He has put in an affidavit 
 on behalf of the defendants in this 
 suit. 
 
 Aug. 30, 1845. The case which had 
 been drawn up was read, and somewhat 
 altered; but not so as to state that absence 
 from the Lord's Supper,occasioned by the 
 new practice, would probably lead to 
 the exclusion of several Strict memhers. 
 There was afterwards, however, sent, as 
 part of the case, to Richard Bethell 
 and John Romilly, Esqrs. (now Sir R. 
 Bethell, the Attorney-General, and Sir 
 J. Romilly, the Master of the Rolls), a 
 copy of the documents read at the church 
 meeting on May 26, 1845, which showed 
 that Mr. Brock would leave if the new 
 practice were stopped. Mr. S. Wilkin in 
 a printed note, dated April 20, 1846, 
 addressed to the trustees, said that the 
 case laid before counsel appeared to him 
 in this " very remarkable particular, alto- 
 gether at variance with the instructions 
 given hy [the trustees'] on the 30th of 
 Aug., 1845," and that as they declined to 
 inform counsel that " the secession of a 
 considerable number of members would 
 probably result from the continuance of 
 
 the new service," they surely would not, 
 " had it been proposed to [them] to do 
 so," have informed counsel thatMr.Brock 
 " would leave, if the service were stop- 
 ped." Mr. Norton had on Aug. 30, 1845, 
 declined to consider himself bound by 
 the result, unless all things should be 
 conducted ivith pa feet fairness. — Exhibit, 
 P. 2. 
 
 January 20, 1846. In the ^'omi opinion 
 given by Mr. Bethell and Mr. Romilly, 
 they said : — " No directions are given 
 touching the election of the minister, 
 or the discharge of his duties; there 
 is, therefore, in our opinion, no obliga- 
 tion on the ti'ustees to interfere; and 
 their permitting the minister to act as he 
 proposes to do, will not amount to a 
 breach of trust." 
 
 March 30, 1846. Two members, Mr. 
 Spalding and Mr. Nash, moved at church 
 meeting that " the union of the unbap- 
 tized with the members of this church in 
 the observance of the Lord's Supper" 
 should be thenceforth " discontinued." 
 The proposal was set aside by a vote in 
 favour of the previous question. 
 
 June 1, 1846. Messengers were ap- 
 pointed by the church to visit Mr. 
 Thomas Kelf, and ask why he had been 
 so long absent from the Lord's Supper. 
 He informed them, that the free com- 
 munion service was the sole cause of his 
 absence ; that if it were discontinued 
 he would return to the Lord's table; 
 and that he did not intend to withdraw 
 from membership. — Letter from T. Kef, 
 Sept. 21, 1846. Exhibit, P. 2. 
 
 Aug. 31, 1846. The messengers re- 
 ported to the church that Mr. Thomas 
 Kelf could not attend the Lord's Supper 
 while the free communion service lasted. 
 His place was then " declared vacant," 
 that is, he was excluded from member- 
 ship ; the church, it is said, " regarding 
 his membership as relinquished by his own 
 act." 
 
 This act of exclusion was a violation 
 of the principle of free communion. Mr. 
 Robert Hall says, in his Reply to Mr. 
 Kinghorn, p. 244, "All genuine be- 
 lievers. . .are as much entitled to the bene- 
 fit of admission into the church. ...as 
 
 though they had been mentioned by 
 name." If entitled to the benefit of 
 admission, they must also be to that of 
 retention in it. But it was not alleged 
 that Thomas Kelf was not a Christian. 
 He was excluded merely for having con- 
 scientioudy omitted the Lord's Supper. 
 And those who advocate the reception 
 to communion of those who conscien- 
 tiously omit baptism, excluded this Chris- 
 
11 
 
 tian from all communion because lie con- 
 scientiously omitted the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Mr. Norton had a strong impression 
 that if it were possible to present the 
 whole facts of the case so clearly as to 
 make them well understood, the opinion 
 of Messrs. Bethell and Romilly would, 
 in all probability, coincide with that of 
 Mr. Kindersley. He prepared a case 
 comprising a copy of the original, and 
 an abstract of the last trust-deed, also 
 the case laid before Mr. Kindersley, and 
 his opinion, and that laid before Messrs. 
 Bethell and Romilly, and their opinion ; 
 together with remarks on them, and a 
 fuller statement of facts. He mentioned 
 also the exclusion of Mr. T. Keif, on 
 Aug. 31, 1846. In the course of his re- 
 marks, he said, that the que.stion was 
 whether "it is not a violation of the 
 trust, for persons who are not ynemhers of 
 that or any other Particular Baptist con- 
 gregation or church, nor Ba/itists, to be 
 united at the discretion of the pastor of 
 that church, tvith its memhcrs, in that 
 place of worship, in the enjoyment of 
 one of the peculiar and distinctive pri- 
 vileges of the church, and to the ex- 
 clusion from the church of some of its 
 own members tvho adhere to its ancient 
 and orir/iiial practice." Of such exclu- 
 sion, he said, " an instance had already 
 occurred." 
 
 John Evans, Esq., a barrister well 
 versed in dissenting usages as well as 
 law, was first consulted on these docu- 
 ments. He died while the case was be- 
 fore him, but had written on the deed 
 these remarks, " The deed of 1746 must 
 prevail." " The original trust was for A 
 
 SPECIFIC EXISTING CHURCH OR CONGRE- 
 GATION, and defines nothing in way of 
 condition. Tacit condition that the 
 
 ACTUAL CHURCH MUST RETAIN ITS IDEN- 
 TITY IN ALL ESSENTIAL PARTICULARS." 
 
 If therefore immersion after faith was 
 in this church in 1746 essential to com- 
 munion with its members, the new prac- 
 tice was in Mr. Evans's view a breach of 
 trust. 
 
 W. R. A. Boyle, Esq., was next con- 
 sulted. His opinion was, that it was 
 " the duty of the trustees to see that 
 the practice complained of is put a stop to." 
 
 John Romilly, Esq., before whom 
 the papers were next laid, said, in an 
 opinion dated May 1847 : — ■" I think that 
 the admission of persons who have not 
 received adult baptism by immersion, 
 to participate in the communion of the 
 Lord's Supper is contrary to the tenets 
 of the Particular Baptists, and conse- 
 quently that the continuance of the 
 
 practice in the meeting-house, St. Mary's, 
 Norwich, is a violation of the trusts on 
 U'hich the chapel was originally founded. 
 ...My opinion is derived from a careful 
 consideration of some documents which 
 were not before me, when I concurred 
 with Mr. Bethell in the opinion we gave 
 in January 1846, and also from a more 
 full consideration of the early history of 
 Baptist congregations." 
 
 Richard Bethell, Esq., gave, in 
 union with Mr. Boyle, on June 13, 
 1847, a hke opinion. They said, — " Ad- 
 verting to the history of the times when 
 this trust was created, and to the con- 
 stant usage, which, as we are informed, 
 has prevailed in this particular church 
 down to a very late period, we are of 
 opinion that the church of St. Mary's, 
 Norwich, was intended for the benefit of 
 persons holding the principles of strict 
 communion ; and upon the authority of 
 Lady Hewley's case (7 Sim. 309, CI. and 
 Fin.) that the benefaction cannot be di- 
 verted from its original purpose, unless 
 the practice complained of has existed 
 for twenty-five years, so as to be within 
 the protection of the Dissenters' Chapel 
 Act, 7th and 8th Vic, c. 45, which we 
 are informed is not here the case." 
 
 Thus, Mr. Bethell and Mr. Romilly 
 both reversed their former decision, and 
 were now of opinion that the new prac- 
 tice was a breach of trust. But the 
 opinion of the latter rested on a ground 
 more general and less jjeculiar to this 
 church than that of the former ; that of 
 Mr. Romilly rested on " the tenets of 
 the Particular Baptists" in general ; that 
 of Mr. Bethell upon the coristant usage 
 of " this particular church," in con- 
 nection with " the history of the times" 
 when the trust was created. The latter 
 opinion mentioned the "intention" of 
 the founders of the trust as the point to 
 be determined ; and on the ground that 
 this church had always practised strict 
 communion, as a binding duty, decided 
 that it was its intention that it should 
 still be always practised. The trust was 
 not created either by or for all Par- 
 ticular Baptists. So far, indeed, as they 
 were all agreed, the intention of this 
 church may be inferred from the tenets 
 of any and all Particular Baptists of the 
 time, but no further. This church dif- 
 fered from some Particular Baptists as 
 to what was essential to communion ; 
 and on this point, therefore, the intention 
 ! of this church must be decided by the 
 tenets and practice of " this particular 
 church," of this " specific congregation." 
 
 After roooiving these opinions, 3Ii-. 
 

 Norton printed them and the documents 
 on which they had been given, in a pam- 
 phlet of thirty -two pages, and sent a copy 
 to each of the trustees. He afterwards 
 wrote to several of them asking them to 
 unite in measures to stop the new prac- 
 tice; which had now been pronounced 
 by the two eminent coTinsel to whom 
 they themselves had referred the decision 
 of the question, to be a breach of trust. 
 
 June 28, 1847. Church meeting. Ten 
 other strict members excluded. Their 
 names were, Robert Guyton, James 
 WiLLiMENT, William White, William 
 Owen, William Press, Edmund Hast- 
 ings, John Spalding, Zechariah Rice, 
 James Kelp and William ISTash. Se- 
 veral of them, in an affidavit made in 
 this suit, state that "the duty of insisting 
 on the observance of the rules" of this 
 congregation, " is vested in the members" 
 and that they had " ceased, from sense 
 of duty, to observe the Lord's Sujiper 
 with the church until the church 
 should cause this violation of its rules 
 to be discontinued." As those who 
 had to insist on the due administra- 
 tion of Divine laws, they took the cus- 
 tomaiy course for doing so ; that is, to 
 loithhold fellowship from those who vio- 
 lated them. Though in a minority, they 
 deemed it a duty to act as they would 
 have been bound to do, according to the 
 rules of this church, if they had been in 
 a majority, so far at least as to abstain 
 from having fellowship in the Lord's 
 Supper with those who violated the rule 
 that no unbaptized person should eat of it. 
 That rule had always been recognized by 
 this church as divine, and the ninth of 
 its original articles had declared that 
 those who compose a church must be not 
 merely " baptized believers," but such of 
 them as " voluntarily agree to walk to- 
 gether in obedience to Christ... m all the 
 laws and ordinances of his house." These 
 ten members, no doubt, felt that if the 
 majority still persevered in the violation 
 of this law of Christ's house, they could 
 not consistently recognize them as fit to 
 be members of it at all ; but, as a minority, 
 they could do no more than they did, un- 
 less they resigned their own membership, 
 which they felt bound to retain till all 
 means of correcting the evil should 
 prove vain. 
 
 The pastor is recorded to have said at 
 this church meeting that it was " im- 
 possible for him to give up" the new ser- 
 vice ; and also that " the church had given 
 its direct sanction to it." When the 
 service was first protested against, the 
 pastor, on May 26, 1845, told the strict 
 
 members that they were " not asked to 
 sanction" it ; that they were " not iden- 
 tified with it ;" that " t?i,e church was not 
 involved." At the meeting of March 30, 
 1846, the majority did, indeed, set aside 
 a motion designed to put a stop to it, 
 but it did not even then pass any i-eso- 
 lution of " direct sanction." But now 
 the pastor seems to have held that though 
 " the church, as such, was not convened" 
 at this service, yet its permission of it to 
 continue, was at least equivalent to the di- 
 rect sanction of it by the church itself. If 
 " the church," was considered by the free- 
 communion members to have given such 
 sanction, the ten members were the more 
 justified in the steps they had taken. 
 
 The pastor is also said to have re- 
 minded the brethren at this meeting, 
 " that just what the church had always 
 been, so did it continue," that is, as to 
 the church service on the first Lord's day 
 of the month ; and the statement is said 
 to have been also " distinctly made, and 
 the truth of it acknowledged, that as the 
 church had been a strict communion 
 church so did it remain still, no indi- 
 vidual being introduced to commune 
 with it who had not been previously bap- 
 tized." This testimony was most import- 
 ant, as proving that the ten members 
 were merely insisting on the observance 
 of a law of the church. But it is sin- 
 gular that the church should have been 
 declared to be then both a strict com- 
 munion church, and one which had given 
 its direct sanction to free communion; 
 in short, that it was the patron of both 
 strict and free communion at the same 
 time. The one view was adapted to re- 
 concile as many as possible of the strict 
 members to their position, the other to 
 perpetuate what they opposed. 
 
 The resolution which excluded these ten 
 members declared that by their absence 
 from the Lord's Supper, they had " va- 
 cated and relinquished their membership,'' 
 and also "that their connection with the 
 church is terminated from this time by 
 their oion act." It was clearly not by 
 any act of theirs, but by that of the 
 majority, that this connection was really 
 terminated from that time. Some of the 
 excluded say in their affidavit, as to 
 the above declaration of the majority; 
 " we were thus, against our earnest desire 
 to retain our 7'ights as members of this 
 church, deprived of them." Their ab- 
 sence from the Lord's Supper was not 
 a resignation of membership ; neither, 
 according to the principle of free com- 
 munion, was it even a valid ground for 
 their exclusion. They were all excellent 
 
IS 
 
 men, and if nothing but the ioant of piety 
 is a bar to " Christian communion," their 
 exclusion was a sin ; it was a tearing of 
 the body of Christ. It was violating in 
 the case of persons who had conscien- 
 tiously omitted the Lord's Supper, the 
 very principle used to justify the recep- 
 tion of those ^vho omit baptism ; and with 
 this aggravation, that, by the admitted 
 laws of this church, those were rightful 
 members, while these were not members, 
 and had no right to share the church 
 privilege of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Sept. 18, 1847. A meeting of the 
 trustees held at Norwich, convened by 
 Mr. Norton, to consider the duty of the 
 trustees in consequence of the opinions 
 then recently given by Mr. Bethell and 
 Mr. Romilly. Seven of the twelve trustees 
 then living, were members of the chui'ch ; 
 that is, Messrs. James Cozens, the elder, 
 John Cullet, Jeremiah Colman (then 
 Mayor of Norwich), James Colman, 
 John Gooderson, Josiah Fletcher, and 
 Robert Tillyard, and all of these but 
 Mr. Gooderson, were known or believed 
 to have supported, if they had not joined 
 in, the new service. Mr. Wilkin, Mr. 
 Allen, and Mr. Tillyard were all absent, it 
 is believed, and Mr. Fletcher came in late. 
 
 The manner in which Mr. Norton was 
 accosted by some of the trustees, was 
 proof of what had to be expected. 
 
 Seven of the members who had been 
 excluded on June 28th preceding, Messrs. 
 Williment, Spalding,Rice, Guyton,White, 
 Hastings, and Press, had requested Mr. 
 Norton to read to the trustees a paper 
 calling attention to the fact of their " re- 
 cent expulsion" for absence from the 
 Lord's Supper, originating "solely" in 
 the introduction of fi-ee communion, and 
 respectfully submitting that as it appeared 
 "from the concurrent opinions of the 
 several eminent barristers who had been 
 consulted," that the practice violated the 
 trusts of the meetinghouse, it called for 
 their interference. " We trust," they 
 said, "that from a conscientious and 
 unbiassed conviction of your duty as 
 trustees, you will forthwith take those 
 measures for the discontinuance of the 
 practice, which will have the effect of 
 reinstating us in the rights and privileges 
 from which we have been unjustly ex- 
 cluded." — {Exbt. P. 2.) It produced no 
 effect. 
 
 Mr. Norton endeavoured to refer to 
 the contents of the pamphlet which had 
 been sent to the trustees. But he was 
 interrupted continually, and was soon 
 told by some of them that they would 
 not hear either case or opinions. It was 
 
 impossible to proceed. He simply asked 
 leave, therefore, to propose a paper for 
 their adoption. Interi-uption continued. 
 Mr. Norton prepared to leave ; but they 
 then said, that they would hear this 
 paper. It called on all concerned to cease 
 from observing the new practice in that 
 building, on the ground that eminent 
 counsel had pronounced it a breach of 
 trust. They refused to adopt the paper 
 and the meeting was at an end. 
 
 An extract from a record of such a 
 kind of meeting, written soon after it was 
 held, is given below.* 
 
 * T. stands for one, T. T. for more than one 
 trustee. C. for the Chairman. N. for a 
 Mr. N. A few verbal alterations have been 
 made ia it since lirst written. 
 
 The stonn was wild ; the foaming billows burst, 
 With violence on him, as a thing accursed ; 
 T. " Conscience, indeed ! aha ! aha !" one cries, 
 With curling lip, and anger in liis eyes ; — 
 " Conscience, indeed ! oh no, 'tis utter shame, 
 To dare come hither hi that sacred name." 
 N. "My God ! my God ! denied that sacred plea, 
 I turn with deep solemnity to Thee. 
 Be witness for me, and from thy high throne, 
 Plead, till thy righteous judgment shall be 
 known." 
 
 N. " Ere I commence, 'twere well perhaps to 
 
 stay, 
 "And ask God's blessing." C. " No, /cannot 
 
 pray." 
 T. "Pray !" said another, "No, there is no need, 
 The meeting's not religious ; come, proceed." 
 N. " Let us at least, as Christians, bear in mind 
 We cannot leave that character behind. 
 You all have read this case, I apprehend." 
 T. " / have not read it, nor do I mtend." 
 N. " More soberly I hoped you would incUne" — 
 T. "More soberly! we are not drunk with 
 
 wine." 
 N. " What, brethren, condescend to pot-house 
 
 jest.? 
 Is every sentence to be thus arrest ?" 
 T. " Brethren ! You are tio brother, su-, of 
 
 mine." 
 C. " Bring lights, — And now, sirs, is it your 
 
 design," 
 Inquired the chair, " to hear the case anew ? 
 I think it has been .lettled, what say you ? 
 We took opinion. Ought we then to hear, 
 Or shall we, as I tliink we ouglit, forbear ?" 
 T. T . " ' Forbear, forbeai-.' The question's 
 
 set at rest. 
 T.T.I thmk, and I, to hear hun would be best." 
 N. "I may proceed then. T. "No, Who 
 
 drew the Case? " 
 N. " Heai- me, and afterwards, in the due place, 
 I'll tell j'ou everything." T. " Who drew the 
 
 Case? 
 We will not hear you, till you make reply." 
 N. " You know already," T. "Sir, you should 
 
 comply." 
 
14 
 
 Mr. Norton afterwards signed, pi-inted, 
 and sent collies of the paper to the pas- 
 tor, deacons, and most of the members 
 of the church. 
 
 It was now certain that nothing but 
 proceedings in Chancery could put an 
 end to the practice. 
 
 Mr. Brock resigned his office of pastor, 
 at the close of the next year, 1848. 
 
 January, 1849. Church meeting. Some 
 
 N. " I di-ewthe Case." T. "Enough. Then 
 
 ni not heai-." 
 N. " Are facts less facts because / placed them 
 
 there?" 
 T. " AVe will not hear it, sii-." X. " The 
 
 opinions, then." 
 T. " We ^"ill not hear them. N. " To persist, 
 
 were vain. 
 This paper only, therefore, I'U submit." 
 T. " Say what it is, or we shall not permit." 
 N. " 'Tis veiy short ; and if you wiU but hear, 
 Its whole intent and meaning will be clear. " 
 T. " No, tell us what it is." N. " It is for you 
 To adopt as yours." T. " No, sir, that will 
 
 not do." 
 N. " Then, gentlemen, you plainly mean to say, 
 You 11-111 not hear me. TeU me, yea or nay .' " 
 With papers gathered in a hasty fold, 
 He back retired ; but soon, was meekly told, 
 That they would hear it; and the words were 
 
 read 
 In silence, like the silence of the dead. 
 N. " ' To pastor, deacons, and to all concerned, 
 This property to other uses turned 
 Than those which are by deed of trust defined, 
 Must be misused no longer, or resigned.' 
 Will you adopt this ?" None to second rose. 
 C. " Then, brethren," said the chairman, " I 
 
 propose, 
 That a new motion you do now provide, 
 Setting these last opinions qiute aside. 
 Stating, we think the former to be true, 
 And all feel bound not to receive the new." 
 T. " ^lotion is needless, but we all agree, 
 That 'tis as you have stated it to be." 
 N. Did you not say,* that when a breach arose, 
 You all would be most prompt to interpose ? 
 Did you not all with one consent declare, 
 ■WTien you were met your own case to prepare ;+ 
 That real exclusion not being then a foct 
 Should not be named as an expected act ? 
 Yet, now that it exists, and is made known, 
 To the same coimsel you had made your oicn. 
 And breach of trust's declared, you shut your 
 
 ear, 
 And plainly teU me, that you wiU not hear." 
 
 The LoitD shall judge liis people ; from his 
 
 throne, 
 Judgment shall speak, and sentence be made 
 
 known. 
 "Your brethren who yom" fear of me deride, 
 And cast you out, say, God be glorified ; 
 But 'tis for you, who are despised, defamed. 
 He shall appear, and they shall be ashamed." 
 Isa . Ixvi. 5. 
 
 *June7, 1845. 
 
 t Aug. 30, 1846. 
 
 members are recorded to have said that 
 the free communion service ought to have 
 ceased with Mr. Brock's pastorate : others 
 to have repUed, that not only Mr. Brock, 
 but " the church" was involved ; that it 
 had twice decided that the service bo 
 maintained ; (query, on May 26, 1845, 
 and March 30, 1846) ; and that "all the 
 ordinances of the church" ought to be ob- 
 served though it had no pastor. 
 
 Sept. 18, 1849. The pubUc recognition 
 of Mr. GocLD, as pastor. 
 
 Mr. T. A. Wheeler, a Baptist minister, 
 delivered an address on the occasion, on 
 " The Relation of the Church to the Con- 
 gregation," that is, to the worshippers 
 who are not members of the chm-ch. Of 
 rights which " belong to the church in its 
 corporate capacity, constituting some of 
 its special privileges," he said, that " no 
 resolution of its own can legitimately hand 
 them over" to others. (K. 29 ; Two Ad- 
 dresses, &c., Fletcher, Norwich, 1849, 
 p. 5) ; that, "so far as all privileges of 
 this kind are concerned, the church's 
 rights belong exclusively to her members 
 in their corporate character," and that 
 " the power that bestowed them made 
 them utterly inalienable ;" that " all our 
 Christian societies" or churches, " exhibit 
 then" sense of the propriety of this prin- 
 ciple, by the exclusion of the [said] con- 
 gregation, as such, from their most 
 solemn act of worship — the celebration of 
 the Lord's Supper ;" but that " while the 
 church jealously excludes the [said] con- 
 gregation from uniting in one of her acts 
 of worship, others are left o-pen... If ymns, 
 ...are sung, in which all join :" pp. 7, 8. 
 In this suit, however, well informed per- 
 sons have sworn that prayer, praise, and 
 the preaching of the gospel are " generally 
 according to the doctrine of Particular 
 Baptists, entitled to be called chwch acts 
 in EVERT sense in which the communion 
 of the Lord's Supper is so," thus leading 
 to the impression, that the Lord's Supper 
 is not generally considered by them to be 
 exclusively a church act. 
 
 ilr. Wheeler's remarks were important 
 also, as showing that since the Lord's 
 Supper was generally held to belong spe- 
 cially and exclusively to the church, and 
 to be also "inalienable" from that special 
 use by any " resolution of its own," this 
 church could not have intended that it 
 should ever be shared with mere wor- 
 shippers in the Chapel, who were nei- 
 ther members of the church, nor, ac- 
 cording to its rules, qualified to be so. 
 Yet it was for the special convenience of 
 such persons that the new service was 
 commenced. — Ch. Bk., May 26, 1845. 
 
15 
 
 A " Statement " also was read at the 
 Recognition services, in the name " of the 
 chnrch," containing these words : — " This 
 church has for many years acted on the 
 principle of confining its communion to 
 baptized believers. An innovation on 
 that usage was made during Mr. Brock's 
 pastorate, first on his own i-esponsibility, 
 and subsequently with the sanction of the 
 church." 
 
 This Statement said also that the 
 church, while " without a minister," 
 passed this resolution : " That the com- 
 munion service now held on the first 
 Lord's day of every month shall be con- 
 fined, as hitherto, to members of the 
 church and to baptized believers, the 
 brethren being left free to meet for com- 
 munion at other seasons, according to 
 their own convictions of duty." 
 
 This new rule was destructive of the 
 terms of membership laid down in the 
 original ninth article of the church ; by 
 which its members were required not 
 only to be " baptized believers," but to 
 " walk together in all the laws of Christ's 
 house." The tenth article states that 
 the Lord's Supper was " delivered to the 
 church," that is, to it only, as its practice 
 showed ; and adds, that by it "we," the 
 church, " show forth his death." But it 
 was now resolved that members might 
 violate this law of God's house, and still 
 be left free from discipline and exclusion. 
 The " Statement" called that resolution 
 " a satisfactory and peaceful settlement " 
 of an " important matter which had long 
 agitated the dhurch." It could not sa- 
 tisfy the Strict members, nor could any 
 thing but recurrence to the former Strict 
 practice of the church. Nor did it long 
 satisfy the free communion members ; 
 for in about eight years, they themselves 
 upset this settlement by new agitation and 
 farther innovation. — Kxhibit. K. 29, p. 21. 
 December 29, 1856. Church meeting. 
 Elizabeth Bayes was accepted with a 
 view to being admitted a member, after 
 her immersion. The opinion of a phy- 
 sician was then read that she was not " in 
 a state of health to justify her being ex- 
 posed to the consequences which might 
 possibly result from immersion in cold 
 water," and instead of postponing, ac- 
 cording to custom, her admission to com- 
 munion, till she could be immersed, Mr. 
 Smith and Mr. Cozens, two deacons, fa- 
 vourable to free communion, proposed, 
 that the church should "confer together" 
 at an adjourned meeting " as to the 
 course to be taken" in her case. 
 
 Januaiy 26, 1857. Church meeting. 
 The case of Elizabeth Bayes considered. 
 
 The same two deacons proposed that the 
 church should resolve : — 
 
 " That Christians are bound to receive 
 one another as believers in the Lord Jesus, 
 and to partake of the Lord's Supper to- 
 gether, to show forth his death until he 
 come." 
 
 This proposal was made as " decla- 
 ratory of the princix)le upon which the 
 case of Elizabeth Bayes should be de- 
 cided," and proved an intention to make 
 her case an occasion for admitting all 
 believers to communion in the Lord's 
 Supper with the whole church. The strict 
 members, Messrs. Yarington,Wale3, Spice, 
 and Barber spoke against "the admission 
 of any unbaptized believers to the fellow- 
 ship of the church." 
 
 At Mr. Tilly ard's suggestion the pro- 
 posal was withdrawn " until the case of 
 Elizabeth Bayes was disposed of." He 
 proposed instead : — 
 
 " That Elizabeth Bayes he received at 
 the Lord's Supper on the fiest Sunday in 
 the month as a member of this church, 
 on the ground of her willingness to be 
 baptized as soon as the providence of God 
 allows." 
 
 Mr. Gooderson opposed the motion on 
 the ground that the church had not a 
 dispensing power in respect of Christ's 
 commandments. And Mr. Barber and 
 Mr. Yariugton moved as an amend- 
 ment : — 
 
 " That Elizabeth Bayes remain until 
 her health permit her to be bap)tized with- 
 out being admitted at the Lord's Supper 
 on the FIRST Sunday of the month as a 
 MEMBER of this church." 
 
 There was a strong feeling against put- 
 ting the question to the vote, and very 
 many left the meeting. Six votes were 
 recorded for, twenty-three against the 
 amendment. The majority then adopted 
 the proposal that E. Bayes be received 
 to the Lord's Supper with the church, ■ 
 and "as a member" of it, without having 
 been first immersed, and thus constituted 
 her admission to the Lord's Supj)er, ad- 
 mission to it "«s a member" of the 
 church ; for it was only "as a member" 
 that it gave any permission to receive her 
 at all. 
 
 Sir Hugh Cairns said in Court that 
 the defendants did not avow a right to 
 inti'oduce unbaptized persons into mem- 
 bership. But if they had not that right, 
 this resolution was unlawful. And what 
 occurred after the resolution was passed, 
 implies that it was felt to be so. 
 
 The church records show that to ob- 
 serve the Lord's Supper, as had been 
 usual on the first Sunday of each month, 
 
16 
 
 was deemed so imperative ou its mem- 
 bers, that both before and after the date 
 of the trust deed, absence from that or- 
 dinance was made gi-ound of exclusion 
 from membership. Edward Jervis, for 
 example, was excluded May 3, 1724, for 
 having " omitted and slighted his duty 
 and the ordinance of Christ in this 
 church, as a mcmher thereof." The 
 exclusion also of Mr. Middleton in 
 January 1749 or 1750, was, in part, 
 " for turning his back upon the Lord's 
 table." And it was on the alleged 
 ground that the Strict members who were 
 excluded in 1846 and 1847, had forfeited 
 their right to membership by their ab- 
 sence from the Lord's Supper on the first 
 Lord's day of the month, that they were 
 excluded by those very persons who, as 
 a whole, now made it impossible for the 
 strict members either to enjoy this right, 
 or fulfil this duty. The truth of Mr. 
 Brock's declaration in his letter to the 
 chm-ch in 1845, before referred to, was 
 known and admitted. Were the imbap- 
 tized, he said, to come to the Lord's 
 Supper on that day, "you," the strict 
 members, "must, at the imperative dic- 
 tate of conscience, go away." — Exhibit, 
 K. 1, p. 2. 
 
 Before the first Sunday in February, 
 1857, when E, Bayes was to be admitted 
 to the Lord's Supper, the pastor and dea- 
 cons were assured that "many of the 
 members would, for conscience sake, be 
 compelled to keep away from the Lord's 
 Supper" on that day if she were admitted. 
 But both pastor and deacons positively 
 refused to use their influence to prevent 
 her admission. — Willis and others, Affit., 
 ph. 2. 
 
 Feb., 1857. First Lord's day of the 
 month. Elizabeth Bayes partook of the 
 Lord's Supper with the church, " in pur- 
 suance" of the resolution that she be ad- 
 mitted to that ordinance " as a member." 
 {Church Book, Feb. 23, 1857, Min. 6.) 
 A great number of the members, knowing 
 her intention to be there, kept away ; and 
 from that time the strict members were 
 deprived of power to observe the Lord's 
 Supper with the church on the first Sun- 
 day of the month ; nor could a new con- 
 vert, after that time, join the church 
 without practising free communion. 
 
 And not only did the strict members 
 keep away, but even members not un- 
 favourable to free communion in itself, 
 did so, because they would not share in 
 what they deemed this unjust exclusion 
 of the Strict members, from their cove- 
 nanted rights, guaranteed to them by the 
 fundamental constitution of the church 
 
 and the trusts of the deed. (See de- 
 claration by such members, Exhibit, 
 K. 44.) 
 
 March 11, 1857. Church meeting, ad- 
 journed from Feb. 23, to consider the 
 motion, then re-intrpduced in a some- 
 what altered form, which Mr. Smith and 
 Mr. Cozens had withdrawn on January 
 26th ; and also to consider an amendment 
 to it. The motion and amendment were 
 these : — 
 
 " That the constitution of this church 
 remain unaltered ; but that, as Christians 
 are bound to receive one another as be- 
 lievers in the Lord Jesus, and to partake 
 of the Lord's Supper together to show 
 forth his death until he come, we agree to 
 receive believers at the table of the Lord," 
 
 The amendment was : — That the first 
 Sunday of the month be set apart as here- 
 tofore for baptized believers to partake of 
 the Lord's Supper, according to the prac- 
 tice of this church for the last 170 years." 
 
 Some terms in the above motion may 
 perhaps need a little explanation, both 
 of meaning and allusion, in order to be 
 understood by all. 
 
 1. The words "the constitution of 
 this church," were afterwards referred 
 to as implying that its constitution 
 would not be altered if unbaptized 
 believers were admitted to the Lord's 
 Supper only, and not to full member- 
 ship. (Mr. Gould to Mr. Norton, Janu- 
 ary 9, p. 2 ; and January 15, p. 3, 1858 ; 
 Exhibits, p. 3, and K. 38.) Mr. Kinghorn 
 had, on the contrary, often said in his 
 works (as shown in Mr. Norton's First 
 Affit. ph. 21,) that the constitution of 
 Strict Baptist churches is altered by the 
 admission of unbaptized believers even 
 to the Lord's Supper. — Baptism a Term of 
 Communion, pp. 4, 9, 58, 68, 167.) 
 
 2. The allusion of the words " as 
 Christians are bound to receive one an- 
 other" is supposed to be to Rom. xv. 7, 
 " Receive ye one another," &c. ; a passage 
 often refeiTed to in defence of free com- 
 munion. It was addressed to the mem- 
 bers of the church at Rome, and does not 
 refer expressly to the Lord's Supper. 
 The argument from it as to the Lord's 
 Supper is, that the receiving commanded 
 as & general duty, is so as to t\n& particular 
 privilege ; and that since the members 
 were to receive one another to whatever 
 was common to them as Christians, they 
 were to receive one another to the Lord's 
 Supper. So that the argument seems 
 clearly to require the admission of the 
 unbaptized to full church membership, if it 
 really requires it to the Lord's Supper. 
 Mr. Gould in his Address on Schism {Ex- 
 
17 
 
 hibit, K. 41, p. 3), referred to Rom. xv. 7, 
 as including reference to membership. 
 
 3. " Sound " is supposed to mean 
 bound by the express command of God ; 
 so that Cliristians must not treat the rule 
 as one left loose, and open to modification 
 either by individuals or church ma- 
 jorities ; nor as dependent on circum- 
 stances merely, and to be observed or not 
 at the convenience or discretion of men; 
 but as one which they are boi(,nd to ad- 
 here to, and which binds them not to do 
 the contrary, nor to do this and the 
 contrary as well. 
 
 4. By " believers" was understood to 
 be meant, not believers as opposedTto 
 unbelivers ; for the church had never 
 admitted these ; but all believers of any 
 class or denomination; whether they 
 might hold particular or general re- 
 demption ; be Calvinists or Arminians ; 
 Congregationalists, Presbyterians, or 
 Episcojjalians ; Baptists, Pfedobaptists, 
 or Katabajitists, like the Friends, deny- 
 ing the obligation of baptism altogether; 
 and whether they might wish or not 
 to receive the Lord's Supper ; and both 
 bread and wine, or the bread only. — See 
 Affit. of Willis and six others, ph. 3. 
 
 Mr. Goold delivered, by request, 
 AN ADDRESS before the discussion was re- 
 sumed. His object was to prove that 
 CJiristian baptism is not a term of com- 
 munion, in the Lord's Supper. (See Ex- 
 hibit, K. 40.) In it he said, that " the 
 Lord's Supper is obligatory upon the 
 church," as distinguished from the " in- 
 dividual ;" and that the church consists, 
 of " the members of the body of Christ," 
 that is, of all believers, " dwelling in 
 any place ; and, according to the New 
 Testament, constituting," in his view, 
 " 'the church' in that place," p. 9 ; that 
 " the baptism of the Holy Ghost... t'wcor- 
 porates us into Christ," " renews the 
 soul, and imparts to it a divine life ;" that 
 " the disciples of Jesus were not consti- 
 tuted ' a church' until the day of Pen- 
 tecost;" but that they were then con- 
 stituted one by the baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost ; and that " unto this church the 
 converts of the day of Pentecost were 
 added," pp. 4, 5. So that first, in Mr. 
 Gould's view, renewal, or the gift of di- 
 vine life by the Spirit, is the same thing 
 with immersion in the Spirit, and this 
 renewal does, of itself, formally and ac- 
 tually incorporate persons into "the 
 church," independently of baptism, and, 
 apparently, of any admission by men ; 
 from which it follows that no body of 
 Christians is " the church" in any place, 
 which does not recognize all believers 
 
 RESIDING in that place as full members 
 of it. Secondly, The Lord's Supper, iu 
 his view, as it is also in that of Strict 
 Baptists, " is a church ordinance," p. 9. 
 Not only does he say that it is obligatory 
 upon the church as distinguished from 
 the individual, but also that " that which 
 makes [persons] members of the body, de- 
 termines their duty ; ' p 9 ; meaning appa- 
 rently their duty to observe the Lord's 
 Supper. So that he differs from Strict 
 Baptists solely as to the question. Who 
 are church members ? Mr. Gould says 
 all believers. But in this chvirch, only 
 baptized believers are so ; and the reso- 
 lution of the free communion majority, 
 on that day, declared, by implication, 
 that the admission of all believers as 
 members of it, would be the destruction 
 of its constitution. — {Affit. of Willis and 
 six others, ph. 3.) 
 
 The free communion members of this 
 church have in various ways of late, re- 
 cognized the right of unbaptized persons 
 to church membership, and especially by 
 virtually or expressly owning churches 
 of which they are members, to be true 
 churches, and by both dismissing mem- 
 bers to them as true churches, and re- 
 ceiving their members to communion on 
 the ground that they are members of 
 true churches. So that the exclusion of 
 any believers from full membership in 
 this church, is wholly inconsistent, not 
 merely with the reasons assigned for 
 receiving them to the Lord's Supper, 
 but also with various acts recognizing 
 their right to membership. 
 
 Votes given for the amendment, 54 ; 
 against it, 78. The original motion was 
 declared to be carried. The resolution as 
 to E. Bayes, related to a special case, and 
 would have ceased to exclude the strict 
 members from the Lord's Supper after 
 her baptism, which took place on July 1, 
 following. But this resolution declared 
 the admission oi all unbaptized believers 
 to be binding as a permanent and uni- 
 versal rule. The suspension of that rule 
 once a month, resolved on March 30th 
 following, was clearly inconsistent with 
 the declaration that the rule was binding 
 on the church ; for if it was binding, the 
 church was not at liberty to unbind it. 
 
 March 30, 1857. Church meeting. 
 Three resolutions as to communion. 
 
 Resolution I. — Proposed by Mr. 
 Fletcher and Mr. J. D. Smith; "That 
 this church, whUst welcoming to the 
 table of the Lord those whom we regard 
 as joint partakers with ourselves of the 
 grace of Christ, is anxious to meet the 
 case of such brethren as conscientiously 
 
18 
 
 object to commune with unbaptized be- 
 lie vei-s at the table of the Lord ; and 
 therefore resolves to set apart one after- 
 noon in each month for the celebration 
 of the Lord's Supper by baptized be- 
 lievers ; but leaves the choice of the day 
 to be determined by those brethren." 
 
 Observation 1. — By "partakers of the 
 grace of Christ," was supposed to be 
 meant any and all partakers of it, 
 and by "baptized believers,'' baptized 
 believers onli/. 2. — What God makes 
 " binding," it is sin in man to violate. 
 Those who thvis resolved to exclude the 
 unbaptized from the Lord's Supper once 
 a month, had declared it to be a " bind- 
 ing" duty, nineteen days before, to re- 
 ceive them to it. 3. — Church members 
 have all the same right to meet tchenever 
 the church meets. This resolution ad- 
 mitted that the strict members could no 
 longer do so " conscientiously," and in- 
 stead of " meeting their case," it asked 
 them to endorse the act by which they 
 had been excluded from some of its 
 meetings, and to consent to that ex- 
 clusion. 4. It deprived them also of 
 power to fulfil the duties devolving on 
 them as part of the governing body. 
 They could no longer enforce, as the 
 ancient constitution of the church re- 
 quired them to do, the limitation of the 
 Lord's Supper to persons immersed after 
 faith. Like judges, they must not si- 
 lently acquiesce in the violation of the 
 statute laws of the realm — the laws they 
 were bound to enforce ; they must not 
 misuse their office to countenance what 
 they were bound to oppose. 5. The ac- 
 ceptance of this proposal would have 
 countenanced the systematic violation, by 
 those who made it, of what they avowed 
 to be a binding duty. But, 6. the most 
 destructive e^'ect of it was this ; the 
 only service at which new converts are 
 received, had now been made a free com- 
 munion service ; no 7ieic converts, there- 
 fore, but those wlio were in favour of ft-ee 
 communion could now become 7nembers of 
 the churc?i. The only other means of re- 
 ceiving members, is by letter from other 
 churches ; but no Strict Baptist from an- 
 other church would be likely to join this 
 church under such circumstances ; and, 
 as such transfers of membership are only 
 casual, and are never the chief means of 
 supplying the places of those who die, 
 this plan was an almost certain means 
 o{ e.vtirpatingfrom the church, aiid soon, 
 eveiy member who adhered to its former 
 constitution ; that is, every Strict Bap- 
 tist member such as those were by 
 icfiom the chapel teas built, and for whose 
 
 sole worship the deed declares it was in- 
 tended. — -See Letters of Willis of Mar. 31, 
 1857 ; and Mar. 30, and April 5, 1858. 
 
 Statements then made on the side 
 of those who adopted this resolution, 
 and in it declared themselves "anxious 
 to 7neet the case" of the strict members, 
 made it evident that the plan would 
 have this result. Had they endeavoured 
 to devise a plan at once most plausible 
 in appearance and most destructive in 
 its ett'ects, consummate skill could not 
 have done more. That these eflects 
 would happen, was soon pointed out to 
 thejp, and yet they continued to urge 
 assent to their proposal ; and, to the 
 last, defended the introduction of free 
 commvuiion on the very ground that this 
 plan secured to the strict members their 
 rights and privileges. The learned 
 Judge, thus assured, seems, fi-om his re- 
 marks when deUvering judgment, to 
 have had the impression that it did so. 
 
 Res. IL Proposed by Mr. Tillyard and 
 ilr. Norton (not the trustee, he was 
 not a member) : — " That those believers 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ, who have been 
 accustomed to meet together with mem- 
 bers of this chmxh on the third Lord's 
 day in each month to eat the Lord's 
 Supper, be aflFectionately invited to meet 
 with the church henceforth in «// com- 
 viemorations of the Lord's death, which 
 may be agreed to ajnongst us, save that 
 which is set apart for baptised believers 
 only." 
 
 Observation 1. — The names of the 
 persons thus admitted are said to 
 i have been E. Bleakley, Mrs. Bleakley, 
 [ Mrs. J. C. Norton, Edward "^'illett, :Mrs. 
 Willett, William Brooke, Mrs. Brooke, 
 I Mrs. John Culley, jun., Mrs. J. J. Col- 
 man, Marina Warue, Amelia Wai*ne, 
 Mi-s. C. Hart, Mrs. Abraham Tillyard, 
 Miss Eliza Blakely, and Charles Irons. 
 2. These persons were received, not as 
 occasional, but permanent communi- 
 cants. Never till then, so far as has 
 been shown, had any persons been re- 
 ceived to permanent communion but 
 full members. The defendants admit 
 that these were neither full members, nor 
 personally entitled by the deed to the 
 use of the chapel ; and yet, by meeting 
 with this congregation, they excluded 
 from its meetings at all times when they 
 were present, those who were members 
 of it, who had an admitted title to the 
 full benefit of the building, and whose 
 conscientious adherence to the worship 
 of those who put the chapel in trust for 
 their own use, was admitted to have 
 made it impossible for them to meet with 
 
19 
 
 the church when these unbaptized per- 
 sons were present. 3. These unbaptLzed 
 persons were thus avowedly received to 
 greater privileges as to the Lord's Sup- 
 per, than were offered to the strict 
 members ; the latter were offered one 
 service monthly, the former were invited 
 to all other such services, including that 
 at which new members were received. 
 
 Res. III. " That believei-s in the Lord 
 Jesus, who may hereafter desire com- 
 munion with this church at the Lord's 
 table, be admitted thereto by the vote of 
 of the church." 
 
 Observation 1. This was acted on in 
 the case of those who desired permanent 
 communion. Believers of various kinds 
 were received, it will appear, to occasional 
 communion, without any such special 
 vote as to each individual. 2. In ac- 
 cordance with this resolution, messen- 
 gers were appointed on December 29, 
 1858, to visit two Presbyterians and 
 one Independent, all Psedo-Baptists, who 
 had applied for leave to commune with 
 the church. On January 31, 1859, leave 
 was given by the free communion mem- 
 bers. Messengers were appointed to 
 visit an Episcopalian applicant also. — 
 Willis and six others, Affit. ph. 6, 7. 
 
 These persons, as to this mode of ad- 
 mission, and the permanence of the pri- 
 vileges given, were treated the same as 
 church members ; and if the Strict Bap- 
 tists would be members, when deprived of 
 a part of the rights of members, these 
 persons were partly members also, though 
 admitted only to a j}art of the exclusive 
 rights of members. 
 
 April 11, 1857. Mr. W. Norton, the 
 trustee, having been informed of what 
 had occurred, and appealed to as a trus- 
 tee by the strict members (see Affit. of 
 Willis and six others, ph. 17), went down 
 to Norwich, heard full particulars, and on 
 Api'il 11th, 1857, called, in company with 
 Mr. Willis and Mr. Thouless, two of the 
 members, on Mr. Gould, the pastor ; also 
 on Mr. Cozens the eider, Mr. Fletchei',and 
 Mr. Tilly ard, all three of whom were trus- 
 tees, deacons of the church, and active 
 promoters of the free commimion ser- 
 vices. He, as a trustee, urged them 
 all, if they felt bound to pursue practices 
 declared by concurrent legal opinions to 
 be breaches of that chapel-trust, to 
 withdraw from the place, and pursue 
 their convictions of duty elsewhere. 
 They all, in effect, denied that the prac- 
 tices referred to were breaches of the 
 trust. Mr. Norton urged other trus- 
 tees to unite in putting a stop to these 
 practices ; but in vain. — Affit. of Willis 
 
 and Thouless; also of W. Norton, i. 
 phs. 48, 49. 
 
 May, 1857. A meeting, to observe the 
 Lord's Supper, called a " Missionary 
 Communion," and connected with the an- 
 nual meetings in Norwich of the Baptist 
 Missionary Society, was held in this 
 chapel, to which were invited " the mem- 
 bers of all Christian churches." Among 
 those present, as the evidence in this suit 
 states, were Wesleyan Methodists, who 
 avowedly hold the doctrine of general 
 redemption. They had not, they ^ said, 
 to apply to any one for ticket or intro- 
 duction, but only to go and take their 
 places. — Willis and six others, Affit. 
 ph. 1 L The evidence states that a simi- 
 lar service was held in the chapel on 
 May 10, 1859.— Same, ph. 12. 
 
 Observation 1. Church membership 
 was thus by act as well as argument, 
 made the basis on which a title to observe 
 the Lord's Supper depends ; for church 
 members were the persons invited. This 
 basis of the title to observe it, had been 
 recognized in argument by the resolution 
 of March 11, and by the express state- 
 ments also made by Mr. Gould on that 
 day. 2. All the churches thus referred 
 to, were recognized as true " Christian 
 churches." From what variety of 
 churches members were present, does 
 not appear in the evidence, but it does 
 appear that Wesleyans were present, and 
 this is sufficient to illustrate the extent of 
 this actual recognition. 3. All members 
 of these churches were also recognized 
 as really church members, and as entitled 
 to be so ; which was also a recognition 
 of the title of all such persons to mem- 
 bership, if they desired it, in this Chris- 
 tian church in St. Mary's, as well as in 
 those other "Christian churches." 4. But 
 more than this, if a Unitarian, for in- 
 stance, was in doubt whether his church 
 was meant to be included among " Chris- 
 tian churches," it does not seem, judging 
 from the testimony of the Wesleyans 
 present, that means were taken to pre- 
 vent even him, or indeed any one, from 
 uniting in the service. 5. But since 
 Wesleyans are declared to have been 
 present, and their admission was jus- 
 tified by Mr. Gould {Exhibit, K. 38), it 
 is evident that the service was intended 
 to include those who had nothing, whe- 
 ther as to doctrine, proof of saving faith, 
 baptism, or church government, which 
 was essential to constitute a person a 
 member of that congregation of Particu- 
 lar Baptists, for whose sole worship the 
 building was put in trust. As to proof 
 of saving faith, for in-stance ; Mr. Norton 
 B 2 
 
20 
 
 remarked to Mr. Gould (in letter of 
 Jan. 13, 1858, Exhibit, P. 4,) that the 
 Wesley an Society is declared by its 
 rules to be no more than " a company of 
 men having the form, and seeking the 
 qjower of godliness ;" and that a believer 
 in the Particular Baptist sense is " one 
 who has saving faith." Mr. Gould, on 
 Jan. 15, 1858 {Exhihit, K. 38), replied, 
 as to the Wesleyans, " I am willing... to 
 vindicate their admission to the Lord's 
 table." " I shall always be ready to re- 
 ceive any man who professes to be a 
 * believer in the Lord Jesus,' as one who 
 professes to have saving faith." " I am 
 commanded to [receive him], but I must 
 not judge him." These words seem to 
 deny the right of any one to judge 
 whether he who professes to believe, has 
 really saving faith or not. . Such a view 
 may be necessary, perhaps, to justify 
 the free communion of such services. 
 But surely Mr. Gould was mistaken as 
 to the former practice of this church, and 
 the possibility of its existence, if he really 
 said on February 1, 1858, (see Church 
 Minutes), of Mr Norton's statement 
 " that proof of Having faith " had been 
 " necessary to communion in that chaj)el," 
 — " It is an unblushing attempt to sup- 
 port a false charge by ascribing to the 
 church a rule which it has never recog- 
 nized and in the nature of things never 
 could have recognized." Mr. Gould, after- 
 wards, in his first Answer to the Infor- 
 mation and Bill, ph. 67, quoted the 
 title of chap. xiv. of the Particular 
 Baptist Confession of 1677 and 1689, 
 " Of saving faith ;" and no doubt saw 
 then and there that the faith of all 
 God's elect, was called by Particular 
 Baptists " saving faith," and that this 
 was the faith which they deemed pre- 
 requisite to " the administration of bap- 
 tism and the Lord's Supper," section 1. 
 April 27, and June 1, 1857, were the 
 regular days for monthly church meet- 
 ings. The meetings were not held, nor 
 any church meeting from March 30 till 
 June 29th, 1857, three months. The 
 Declarations, or Protests against the new 
 practice, designed to be presented at a 
 church meeting, could not be so till 
 June 29. This suspension of meetings, 
 afforded time for preparing measures in 
 support of that practice, and prevented, 
 for the time being, any motion at 
 church meeting against it. (R. W., May 
 29, 1857, Jan. 15 and 20, 1859; J. B., 
 Mav 30, 1S57.) 
 
 May 3, 1857. From 90 to 100 mem- 
 bers, who were unnhle to observe the 
 Lord's Supper at their own chapel ac- 
 
 cording to the ancient strict communion 
 rule of this church, on this the regular 
 day for its observance, observed it ac- 
 cording to that rule elsewhere. The 
 above-named Declarations asserted their 
 continued right as membei's of this 
 church to observe it thus in their 02on 
 chapel ; and while awaiting the result of 
 a probable appeal to Chancery, they re- 
 solved to continue the exercise of this 
 their right and privilege, and of this their 
 duty to Gud, though unable to do so in 
 their own chapel. It was reported that 
 there were not nearly so many members 
 at the free communion service held at 
 the same time in St. Mary's Chapel it- 
 self. (R. W., May 3 ; J. B., May 6, 1857.) 
 
 May 28, 1857. Letter of Mr. Norton, 
 the trustee, to Mr. Gould {E.chibit, M. 1). 
 " Dear Sir, — I have need as trustee of 
 the meeting-house in which the church 
 of which you are pastor worships, to 
 inspect the early records of its proceed- 
 ings contained in its church books, in 
 reference to the question of a breach of 
 trust, and request that, if you deem 
 it necessary, you will consult the church 
 at its next meeting, and will inform 
 me where I, in company with one 
 or more members of the church, can see 
 the said books, and make such extracts 
 from them as shall appear necessaiy, 
 with a view to enforce the observance of 
 the trusts. I hope that neither you nor 
 the church will offer any objection. If 
 necessary, power will be obtained, but I 
 hope that every facility of that kind will 
 be afforded by you and the church with 
 readiness and courtesy." 
 
 This letter implied that an appeal to 
 Chancery was contemplated, and that, if 
 necessary, power would be applied for 
 to the Court, to do what this letter asked 
 leave to do. That power had to be ap- 
 plied for, and was granted during the 
 progress of this suit. Mr. Norton's re- 
 quest was that Mr. Gould, in the event 
 of not feeling at liberty himself to 
 give the leave asked, would consult the 
 church. But Mr. Gould acted as if no 
 such request had been made. Yet, in 
 his published sermon, delivered June 3, 
 1860, he said, in reference to Mr. 
 Noi'ton's request : " Acting under legal 
 advice, I declined his request, and there- 
 upon he addressed himself to the 
 church ;" as if Mr. Norton's first request 
 had related to Mr. Gould only, and not 
 to the church at all. For some reason 
 he did not " consult the church," as re- 
 quested, and Mr. Nortou had to write 
 again ; but in that letter he addressed 
 the whole church, and made it impos- 
 
21 
 
 sible for answer to be given to it but by 
 the church itself. Mr. Gould's first re- 
 ply related solely to his own authority as 
 pastor. 
 
 June 7, 1857 ; Sunday. The protest- 
 ing members observed the Lord's Supper, 
 according to the strict communion rules 
 of the church, as they had done in May. 
 While they were doing so, two members 
 who had voted for the resolution of 
 March 11, came in and sat down. They 
 were offered the bread and wine, but re- 
 fused to take them. They must, it is 
 supposed, have omitted the Lord's Supper 
 altogether on that day, on the ground 
 that their present object jastified the 
 omission. (R. W., June 10 and 25, 1857.; 
 
 June 8, 1857. Mr. Gould to Mr. 
 Norton {Exhibit, P. 3). " In reply, &c. 
 I beg to state that I am advised that, as 
 pastor of the said church, I am not au- 
 thorized to allow you, as trustee of the 
 said meeting house, to inspect the church 
 books, and must, therefore, respectfully 
 decline acceding to your request." On 
 the evening of this day, by an accident, 
 one of the two persons referred to above 
 (Jime 7), was found in the chapel vestry 
 with the pastor and deacons. (R. W., 
 June 10, 1857.) 
 
 June 10, 1857. Mr. Norton addressed 
 a letter to the pastor, deacons, and mem- 
 bers of the church ; in which he said : — 
 " Having been informed that practices 
 have been continued, and carried out so 
 as to involve a more serious breach of 
 the trusts of the meeting house in which 
 you worship, than when eminent counsel 
 declared that a breach of trust had been 
 committed, I hereby request permis- 
 sion to examine the church books in 
 order to ascertain whether its former 
 practice and decisions contain any evi- 
 dence bearing on the question of breach 
 of trust....! shall need, also, to make ex- 
 tracts of whatever afi'ects the question of 
 breach of trust, and request your assent." 
 
 June 29, 1857. Church meeting. Dis- 
 closure of measwes intended to be adopted 
 towards the jjvotesting members* The 
 two Declarations of those members pre- 
 sented. They are denied to have a right to 
 make motions. The free communion mem- 
 bers iwopose arbitration. Mr. Norton's 
 letter of June \Qth read. 
 
 * The " revolution," then in process of ac- 
 complishment, " may be effected," said Mr. 
 Hall, (Reply, Preface xix.), without " a 
 particle of violence or injustice;" and as the 
 means adopted in this case have been so pa- 
 tronized, and s eem to be regarded as ilhistra- 
 tive of that statement, the next steps are de- 
 scribed more at length. 
 
 I. Mr. John King, one of the mem- 
 bers who witnessed the celebration of 
 the Lord's Supper by the protesting 
 members on June 7, bore witness of that 
 fact. Mr. Newbegin, one of the free com- 
 munion body, asked the pastor in what 
 relation those members, in consequence of 
 this celebration of it, stood to this church. 
 
 IL The Pastor then read an ad- 
 dress, in which he stated his view of the 
 law of Christ as contained in the New Tes- 
 tament, upon the subject. It was a paper 
 on " the Question of Schism" (See Exhibit, 
 K, 41). In this address, as referred to 
 in the evidence ( Willis and six others, 
 ph. 14), Mr. Gould said : — " a Christian 
 minister invokes the aid of the civil au- 
 thorities to enforce his own personal 
 convictions upon all who may use this 
 building," p. 2. Was there any one who 
 was doing so ? Mr. Gould said that he 
 did not intend to urge the church to 
 carry his view of the law of Christ into 
 immediate execution, p. 3. 
 
 The absentees were all declared 
 guilty op the "grievous " sin of schism 
 — of having " sinfully ' rent ' this body of 
 Christ" (p. 5, line 41 ; p. 8, line 1). They 
 had " not formally resigned their mem- 
 bership" (p. 1, line 33), but had " sejxi- 
 rated themselves from this church," (p. 6, 
 line 5) ; and had done so without 
 " groimd " for so doing, (p. 6, line 33). 
 " The church is bound," he said, " if 
 they persist in their course, to deal with 
 them as causing divisions and offences 
 (among them) ' contrary to the doctrine 
 u'hich they hare learned, and to avoid 
 them.' Rom. xvi. 17," p. 8, line 14. It 
 was "bound.... to proceed, upon their 
 continuance in schismatical acts, to with- 
 draw from those who thus ' ivalk dis- 
 orderly.' " p. 8. 
 
 How remarkably opposite are the views 
 which are sometimes taken of the same 
 events. A person who has injured 
 others, may occasionally be heard in 
 pious tones, urging his victims to repent 
 of having so greatly injured him. Per- 
 chance a son who has made his father's 
 house unbearable, will tell him when 
 heart-broken, that if he does not mend 
 his manners, he shall be locked out. 
 Certain it is that in the Norwich case, 
 the protesting members thought that 
 the authors of the " revolution" were 
 those who had rent the church, by mak- 
 ing it impossible on the first Sunday of 
 each month, for those who adhered to 
 its constitution to meet with those who had 
 violated it. But here was quite another 
 view ; those who thought themselves 
 forced out by the revolution, were de- 
 
22 
 
 scribed as having wilfully and sinfully 
 broken the church to pieces. The differ- 
 ence was great and most material. The 
 reader must judge which view is the right. 
 
 The punishment threatened was 
 " "withdeawment " (p. 8.), total excom- 
 MUNICATION, in the name of Christ, for 
 " rending this body of Christ." To deserve 
 such a penalty, the sin m ust have been great. 
 What had these members done ? They 
 had observed the Lord's Supper as mem- 
 bers of this chmxh, according to the an- 
 cient rules of this church, and at the 
 regula/)' monthly time of its observance. 
 At that time certain other professed 
 members of it were violating the ancient 
 rules and constitution of the church by 
 observing the Lord's Supper in a manner 
 contrary to those rules. None of the 
 protesting members could conscientiously 
 join with them in that violation ; though 
 not all for precisely the same reason : 
 some could not join, because they them- 
 selves could not conscientiously com- 
 mune with the unbaptized, others be- 
 cause they could not countenance the 
 unjust exclusion of these last mentioned 
 members from their rights. The duties 
 and rights of the protesting members 
 were not affected by the conduct of the 
 friends of the "revolution." According 
 to the rules of the church, it was still the 
 duty and the right of the former to ob- 
 serve the Lord's Supper as it had always 
 been observed, and they did so observe it. 
 The sole reason why, to their grief, all 
 the members were not observing it to- 
 gether, was because the "revolution" 
 had made this impossible. The charge 
 that the members who adhered to the 
 constitution of the church were sinfully 
 rending this body of Christ was, in their 
 view, not only a false charge, but one 
 which attached to the very 2:)ersons who 
 brought it against them. They felt that 
 the latter by introducing the unbaptized 
 had rent the church into two parts. 
 " They have met," said Mr. Gould, " at 
 the same times, on two occasions at least, 
 as this church has assembled for commu- 
 nion at the table of the Lord ;" by this 
 church, meaning those members who were 
 violating the rules of this church, and who 
 had made it impossible for the strict mem- 
 bers to join with them in communion at 
 those stated times : p. 4, 1. 37. 
 
 There was another alleged ground 
 for thus punishing schism : the ab- 
 sent members were adhering to strict 
 communion, and this, the ancient practice 
 of this church, was itself schism. After de- 
 fining schism to be "'a 'rent' in the 
 body of Christ" (p. 5, line 7), Mr. 
 
 Gould said, " it is schism in professed 
 Christians now-a-days to refuse commu- 
 nion in the Lord's Supper, to those who 
 are by grace partakers of the substance," 
 &c., meaning evidently to unbaptized 
 behevers (p. 5, line 24.) But how 
 could it be true that the absent mem- 
 bers by obsei-ving those very rules of 
 strict communion which tins church 
 had always before observed, had, as on 
 the same page (line 41) they were de- 
 clared to have done, " sinfully rent this 
 body of Christ." 
 
 But, CONSISTENTLY WITH FREE COM- 
 MUNION, HOW, even if these members had 
 violated the rules of this church in some 
 way as to the Lord's Sujjper, could 
 Mr. Oould, with his views, allege that 
 they ought to be excomm^inicated ? for he 
 had spoken on March 11, of all believers 
 " DWELLING in any place," as " constitut- 
 ing the church in that place." — Exhibit, 
 K. 40, p. 9, line 30. If so, to excom- 
 municate any true believer even for the 
 omission of the Lord's Supper altogether, 
 must be to tear the church limb from 
 limb. Besides, how could he consistently 
 receive believers who omit baptism, to 
 one act of church communion, and yet 
 exclude believers who omit the Lord's 
 Supper from all such communioii ? 
 
 Since March 11, circumstances had 
 changed. Views seem to have changed 
 also. Church membership no longer 
 consisted in faith and residence. " Mem- 
 bership in this church," according to 
 "OUR UNIFORM PRACTICE," said Mr. 
 Gould, is "essentially a voluntary 
 COMPACT to walk together as becometh 
 saints." "The church, so constituted, 
 is 'pledged to meet together to hear the 
 word of God preached, to eat the Lord's 
 Supper, to unite.... in prayer and praise," 
 &c. "It is, therefore, a condition of 
 membership in this church,... thsit these 
 terms of the compact be observed." " Our 
 voluntary comp)act is at am, oid, if any 
 member withdraw from our assemblies 
 without just cause as a believer," &c., " or 
 dishonour the name of Christ by walk- 
 ing disorderly," &c. " Our practice is to 
 deal with all such cases as matters of 
 church discipline." (p. 3). " We with- 
 draw from the w///((^ absentee." "We 
 exclude those who transgress Ood's com- 
 mandments," p. 4. Upon these grounds, 
 Mr. Gould said that the " withdrawal," 
 of the protesting members " from public 
 worship and communion with vs. ..is a 
 violation of their compact with the church, 
 and should be dealt with in accordance 
 with its established RnLES," (p. 4). 
 But how, according to the "uniform 
 
28 
 
 ■practice" of this church, were its mem- 
 bers required to " eat the Lord's Sup- 
 per ?" according to the rules of strict or 
 oifree communion ? If, according to the 
 former, as the evidence proves, then the 
 compact of church membership, made 
 by members on admission, involving a 
 pledge to " walk together in all the laws 
 and ordinances of Chi'ist's house," was 
 a pledge to unite with none but the im- 
 mersed in communion. This was part 
 of the "pattern" which they might 
 " not alter." To receive others, was to 
 " walk disorderly" — to transgress a rule 
 which, on the authority of universal 
 apostolic practice, the church held to be 
 a " Divine command." It was the free 
 communion body of members who had 
 violated this compact, had walked thus 
 disorderly, had broken this command, 
 and who, having thus violated their 
 church compact, had ceased to be en- 
 titled to membership in this church. 
 This is proved by Mr. Gould's own 
 mode of argument. The absent mem- 
 bers had declined thus to violate their 
 pledge and contract ; they had adhered 
 to their pledge to support the " worship 
 and communion" of this church. Instead 
 of having withdrawn from that "wor- 
 ship and communion," they had adhered 
 to it ; p. 4, 1. 12. Their partial separation 
 from the friends of the "revolution," 
 was not " wilful," it was not " with- 
 out just cause;" they, and they only, 
 had maintained their church compact; 
 and they were therefore the church itself. 
 They who peofessed to punish, 
 
 HAD ENFORCED THIS ABSENCE. The Only 
 
 . means of giving speciausness to the imputa- 
 tion of wilful absence, was the declaration 
 that the innovating members, by offer- 
 ing to unite in excluding from the Lord's 
 Supper once a month all but baptized 
 believers, had "provided for all" the 
 members, (p. 6, line 27). Mr. Gould said, 
 that they " who could not commune with 
 unbaptized believers, were assured of 
 their brethren's willingness to meet with 
 them... at the table of the Lord," so that 
 " there was no ground provided, upon 
 which any should be, or were, compelled 
 to withdraiv from the fellowship of the 
 church." (p. 6, lines 28 — 35. But what 
 is the fact y At p. 8, line 6, he says of the 
 protesting members, " if [they] see that 
 with our convictions of duty to Christ 
 it IS impossihle for us to refuse to receive 
 those whom Christ has received," and 
 " that it would be sin in ms to abstain 
 from doing what we believe to be our 
 Lord's will ;" &c. Once a month those 
 who had these solemn " convictions of 
 
 duty, " proposed to refme to receive un- 
 baptized believers, and to abstain from 
 doing their Lord's will. But could any 
 one of noble mind consent to receive a 
 gift which, the givers said, cost them 
 their conscience towards God, and plunged 
 them into sin ? Could he consent to a 
 special contract that others should once a 
 month sin with a special view to his ac- 
 commodation ? Next it must be borne 
 in mind that the strict members if 
 they had accepted this service, would 
 not merely have accepted a gift so costly 
 to those who gave it, but must have 
 assented to their own permanent exclusion 
 from church services, including the chief 
 Lord's Supper service ; to attend which, in 
 common with all others, they were en- 
 titled as members, and at which last, and 
 then exclusively, new converts were re- 
 ceived; that they must also have as- 
 sented to be treated as persons under a 
 ban, whose very system Vfas spoken of 
 and regarded as the sin of sch ism ; and 
 still more, must have assented to the 
 sp)eedy extirpation of every Strict Bax:)tist 
 from the church. Surely if devotedness to 
 God, to conscience and integrity, makes 
 anything imperative, they were compelled 
 to refuse communion which could be 
 possessed only on such terms. Nor 
 could they have assented to such com- 
 munion, without compromising their 
 duty as church members to withdraw, 
 if no remonstrance could avail, from those 
 members who " walk disorderly," and 
 break the laws of God's house, as these 
 innovating members, in view of the strict 
 members, did. 
 
 As TO THE DUTY OF NOT PARTAKING IN 
 
 OTHER men's sins ; Mr. Gould said : — 
 "If it be assumed" that the proposed 
 separate service for the strict members, 
 cannot free them "from complicity in 
 the supposed sin of others, then it is 
 their duty to withdraw... from such a 
 church." " Nothing can justify our be- 
 coming partakei's in other men's sins." 
 (p. 7, lines 20—27). 
 
 But, first, this remarkable suggestion 
 quietly assumed, that the innovating mem- 
 bers represented the church, for which the 
 property was put in trust. 
 
 Secondly. Ought not the duty of not 
 partaking in other men's sins to have 
 been fiist exercised by the friends of free 
 communion themselves ? Some of them 
 might think it very rash and very imjust 
 if one of their number were to address 
 them thus ; yet there might be, perhaps, 
 a touch of reason even in this rashness : 
 " 'Believers in Jesus are bound by his 
 laws in all things : ' (p. 7, line 4). 
 
24 
 
 We say it is sinful, ' it is schism, to re- 
 fuse communion in the Lord's Supper' 
 to all believers, (p. 5, line 25). We say 
 that ' unwillingness' to commune with 
 them is ' the essence of schism,' p. 29. 
 It must then be a sinful thing in us 
 to ' assure' those who have this ' un- 
 willingness,' that once a month we will 
 to exercise this unwillingness too, (p. 6, 
 line 29), and to Join with them so to refuse 
 communion, and so to break what we 
 say is a law of Christ. We thus commit 
 the sin we condemn. It is no excuse 
 for doing so that we do it in order to 
 leave ' no ground' for them to say that 
 they are ' compelled' to commune, if 
 at all, separately from us. We must not 
 sill either to please them, or to keep 
 their chapel, by showing that our prac- 
 tice is compatible with their rights, and 
 the trusts of the deed. But besides 
 this, spite of our sinning, they would 
 still have ' ground' for separate com- 
 munion; for they have as much right 
 to commune on the regular ^rs< Sunday 
 of the month as we have, and a little 
 more than we have to commune in 
 tiuit chapel with those who are not Bap- 
 tists. We must not parcel out church 
 privileges as we like ; give one member 
 fall privilege and cut off another with 
 a part ; church membership, is church 
 equality, and he who robs a member of 
 any part of that equality, is guilty of 
 treason, violence, and oppression. As to 
 the proposed strict service, instead of 
 giving the strict members their rights, it 
 would prove, as any of us may see, who is 
 willing to see it, an utter delusion ; it 
 would cheat them, if they accepted it ; 
 were they to do so, they would commit 
 siiicide by lingering torture. I will have 
 nothing to do with such iniquity. Let 
 the chapel go ; it was intended for them ; 
 and we cannot act consistently and claim 
 it. We are trying to make out that they, 
 by communing twice separately from us 
 on ihe first Sunday of the month, ' have 
 ipso facto separated themselves from tltis 
 church: (p. 5, 1. 38 ; p. 7, 42 ; p. 6, 1. 5). 
 Now first, we communed separately from 
 this church in Mr. Brock's private house, 
 and the chapel, and in a manner quite 
 opposite to the rules of this church, and 
 yet we allege that we did not thereby 
 sacrifice our membership, but are members 
 still. Is it not, then, something like 
 hypocrisy for us, who claim membership 
 spite of such an act, to use that member- 
 ship to exclude them for holding a sepa- 
 rate service, and one which, owing to the 
 position in which we had placed them, 
 waa justified by the rules of the church 
 
 itself? Again, in their cominunion ser- 
 vices they have not separated themselves 
 from MS the members of this church, but 
 only from the unbaptized persons whom 
 we had associated with us and who are 
 7iot members. They offered the elements 
 even to the two members of our party 
 who went to spy out their liberty. And 
 once more : in what, as to principle, do 
 the services in which they have joined 
 differ from the service lohich we offer them i 
 We who look upon this offered service 
 as a schismatical service, could not, of 
 course, require the members in general 
 to attend it ; nor could the strict mem- 
 bers attend the first Sunday service, 
 which all the members ought, according 
 to the rules of the church, to be required 
 to attend. A few of us would go to the 
 strict service just to keep the thing alive ; 
 but, declaring it as we do, to be a wicked 
 and sinful service, the strict members 
 would be thus about as much separated 
 from the other members as they are now, 
 both as to the act of observing, and the 
 mode of observing the Lord's Supper. 
 The fact is, we want to get rid of them, 
 and to get their chapel. The attempts we 
 make to justify ourselves, only condemn 
 us the more. It is we not they, who 
 ought to withdraw from this place. 
 There is another thing ; almost all the 
 arguments we use for free communion at 
 the Lord's Supper, require us to receive 
 sllheWevevBto full membership. All our 
 chief writers say that these arguments 
 make it our duty to receive them to 
 membership. At present we practise 
 strict communion as to all church pri- 
 vileges but one. We are models of in- 
 consistency. We admit that if we were 
 to receive all believers to full member- 
 ship, we could not retain the chapel ; 
 and we forbear to do what our principles 
 say we ought, hoping to retain it. We 
 go far enough to deprive the strict mem- 
 bers of their property, and stop short 
 enough to retain it for ourselves. I 
 loathe myself as in dust and ashes, for 
 the part I have taken in such conduct. 
 I will have nothing to do with it 
 more." 
 
 Thirdly. Whatever amount of separa- 
 tion might be necessary, after the final 
 decision of the Court of Chancery, the 
 strict members were well aware that at 
 that time a voluntary declaration by 
 themselves that they ivithdrew from the 
 very congregation of which they only 
 and their friends were the true represen- 
 tatives, and for which the property was 
 put in trust, would have left the chapel 
 to be enjoyed exclusively by those 
 
free commuuiou members, one of whom 
 suggested this course. 
 
 A correct knowledge of the facts of the 
 case at this period, will be found to be 
 most important, both on account of the 
 use made, in this suit, of statements like 
 those of the above address, and of the 
 degree in which they seem to have influ- 
 enced the Judgment. 
 
 July 29, 1857. III. Advice. — Advice, 
 to be of value, as to what is constitu- 
 tional, must come from those who are 
 friends of the constitution ; and from 
 friends too who are above the reach of 
 unfriendly influence. If, for instance, by 
 skilful means, persons who, in private 
 sentiment, were opposed to the rights of 
 private propei-ty, had become a majority 
 in our House of Commons, and if, after 
 an actual breach of those rights had 
 been alleged against them, they were to 
 write to members of associate bodies on 
 the continent, were to receive replies 
 favouring their common aim, by means 
 of revolution, to seize on private and to 
 make it common property, were to 
 place these replies before the British 
 Parliament as the best advice it could 
 receive, and were to add a letter from 
 a person, who, though not one of them- 
 selves, gave the same advice, — what 
 would the value be of the advice so ten- 
 dered ? Let not the analogy be stretched 
 beyond resemblance. 
 
 The pastor, after reading the above 
 address, is said in the Church Book to 
 have remarked, that " being anxious in 
 so novel and important a case to obtain 
 for the church the best advice, he had 
 made a copy of all the minutes in the 
 chui'ch-book relating to the question of 
 open communion, as now resolved upon, 
 and had laid it, together with a state- 
 ment of the conduct of the brethren 
 who had worshipped and communed 
 together at Tombland chapel, before 
 several ministers whose written opinions 
 he would therefore read." The letters 
 read were from Dr. Joseph Angus, Mr. 
 William Landells, Mr. J. H. Hinton, 
 the Hon. Baptist W. Noel, Mr. Wm. 
 Bkock, Dr. Thomas Price, Dr. Edward 
 Steane, and Mr. Christopher Woolla- 
 COTT. All but the last are advocates of 
 the free communion system of Mr. Hall, 
 and most of them are regarded as giving 
 their best help to speed the " revolution" 
 at which he aimed. If, too, the editor 
 is not mistaken, they admit, without re- 
 sei-ve, that true believers of all kinds are 
 entitled to fall membership ; and even if 
 they have not all received them as 
 fellow members, have at least declared 
 
 tiieir full approval of those who have 
 done so. If this be true, how can it 
 be shewn that they could advise the 
 exclusion from membership of any true 
 believer on any account whatever, and 
 yet act worthily of their principles and 
 practice? how shewn that they ought not, 
 acting consistently with these, to have 
 said to Mr. Gould, that on the principle 
 of free communion, all believers should 
 be received not merely to the Suj^per, 
 but to full mrcmbcrship ; that if the 
 chapel could not be used for this pur- 
 pose, it should be resigned ; and that on 
 no account should the strict members 
 be excluded from membershijD, unless 
 they ceased to be true Christians. Might 
 they not have said with Mi*. Hall, most 
 fitly, that if the "greater part of a society 
 refrain from acting agreeably to their 
 avowed princi23les...they in reality place 
 error on the throne — they prostrate 
 themselves before it ? " — Hall's Reply, 
 &c., Pref. xvi. 
 
 Such, however, was not the advice 
 given. 
 
 Dr. Angus is recorded to have said, 
 on June 17th, that the course pvu-sued 
 by the strict members " if persisted in, 
 ought to end in exclusion fi-om chui-ch 
 fellowship." In 1845, when assisting to 
 form a church, to consist of all believers, 
 at High Wycombe, he said, " Shall these 
 men [true believei-s] be excluded from 
 the body of believers, because... they 
 differ from you on one point ? Is it not 
 the perfection of the church.. ..when all 
 Cliri&tians are in it ? — Prim. Ch. Mag. 
 1846, p. 15. He rejoiced, he said, that 
 that church was not " a Baptist church." 
 (p. 15). "In a Baptist church, baptism 
 is essential to membership,''' but "in 
 a Christian chvLVch.... true faith is aloi.e 
 essential." (p. 14). Exbt. M. 6. Yet 
 in 1857 he said of true Ch/)'istians, that 
 they ought to be excluded from the church. 
 
 Mr. Landells is recorded to have 
 said, on June 17th, that "the dissident 
 members" should be called upon "to 
 repent and retrace their steps,'' and if 
 they did not, " should be ecccladed from 
 the felloivshij:) of the church.'" Yet in the 
 Freeman newspaper of April 29, 1857, 
 he maintained the duty of " uniting in 
 Christian fellowship at the Lord's table 
 and elseivhcrc, with all " persons be- 
 lieved to be "children of God;" and is 
 reported in the same paper, of May 13th, 
 to have said of his church, that " they 
 did not insist on bapttism as a pre-requi- 
 site to church membership." (p. 265). 
 Yet in June of that very year he urged 
 the exclusion of " children of God" from 
 
26 
 
 this church. Mr. Landells denies " that 
 the death of Christ secures the salvation 
 of its objects." (The Church Mag., 1858, 
 p. 284). He is not really, therefore, a 
 Particukw Baptist. 
 
 Mr. HiNTON is pastor of a church 
 of which Mr. Gould, in his first An- 
 swer, ph. 36, says that it at first and 
 " for many years from its formation 
 practised strict communion," but " tiow 
 practises open membership i' that is, re- 
 ceives all believers to it. The change is 
 so recent that the editor of these pages 
 has some remembrance of it. Some- 
 where near the time when the meeting- 
 house was devoted to its present use, 
 that is, on January 24, and March 6,1846, 
 he wrote to Mr. Edwai-d Smith, who 
 was then, he believes, a deacon of the 
 church. He requested a statement of 
 the actual trusts on which the property 
 was held, intimating that it was said 
 that they had no title to use it for such 
 a purpose. Mr. Smith's replies of 
 February 23 and March 26, are before 
 him. In the latter, Mr. S. said that he 
 had laid his letter of " March 6th before 
 a meeting of the pastor and deacons," 
 and was directed to say " that they can- 
 not recognize any title on your part to 
 the information requested." There is, 
 however, a general title in all persons 
 interested to inquire into the right use 
 of trust property. That case is believed 
 to be one of like kind with this at 
 Norwich. It has, in the present suit, 
 been appealed to, as if it could give a 
 sanction to what has occurred there, 
 and as if one act, which had been pro- 
 tested against as wrong, could sanction 
 another of like kind. Mr. Hinton, 
 though it appears that he receives all 
 believers to membership, recommended on 
 June 18th, 1857, that those believing 
 members, at Norwich, should, after a 
 time, " be ruled off," that is, deprived of 
 membership. His advice, too, was that of 
 one in like position, as to a question 
 affecting trust property. 
 
 The Hon. Baptist W. Noel is recorded 
 to have said, on June 18, 1857, that if 
 the strict members thought that they 
 might remain "members of the church 
 without sinning, they should be warned 
 that to abstain from uniting with the 
 church... in prayer and in the Lord's Sup- 
 ■]>er, would be an act of schism, and 
 must be accordingly dealt with by the 
 church." The Hon. B. W. Noel spoke 
 on the assumption that fi-ee communion 
 was lawful in that church. But that 
 was the question which had now to be 
 determined. If this church was founded 
 
 on strict communion principles, it was 
 now constituted by those members who 
 adhered to those principles. His advice 
 assumed this to be " an open communion 
 church ;" but it is remarkable that like 
 that of others, it did violence even to 
 his own avowed principles. In the 
 Freeman newspaper of Dec. 24, 1856, 
 ai^peared a note from him to the pro- 
 moters of a chapel at Shepherd's Bush, 
 erected for a church receiving all Chris- 
 tians to " full membership," in which 
 he said, *' I entirely approve the principles 
 on which you propose to build." But 
 the principles of that church were alto- 
 gether violated by a recommendation to 
 exclude these trioe Christians from mem- 
 bership at Norwich. 
 
 The question on which advice ivas 
 needed was afterwards placed before the 
 Hon. B. W. Noel, just before the bill in 
 this suit was filed in Chancery, and he 
 was entreated to counteract the influence 
 of this by other advice. Mr. Norton, in 
 a letter dated March 6, 1858 (in Exhibit, 
 P. 4), said : — " My dear Sir, — I hear that 
 the measure of excommunication against 
 the Strict Baptist brethren at Norwich 
 is again threatened. You and others 
 are said to have counselled it. I re- 
 member that when Mr. Oncken was pre- 
 sent at the Diorama Chapel, you felt 
 bound to protest against the exclusion 
 of true Christians from church commu- 
 nion. How is it, then, as a question of 
 consistency, that you can counsel the 
 excommunication of men whose only 
 sin is fidelity to conscience and to God ?" 
 ' ' The trust-deed most expressly declares 
 that the chapel is for no use whatever 
 but that of the Particular Bajitists of 
 that congregation, or church ; that is, as 
 to legal right. I have just laid the case 
 with its attendant circumstances, before 
 the Attorney-General, and am assured 
 that there is no question as to the reality 
 of a breach of trust. Nor is there a 
 single barrister whose o^^iniou has been 
 given upon the facts as they have existed 
 for some time past, who has not pro- 
 nounced it [the practice] a breach of 
 
 trust. Yet is it possible that you are 
 
 aiding and abetting such a course ? I 
 
 now plead with you as a Christian, to 
 clear yourself [of], and dissuade others 
 from, the wrongs which are being done 
 to Christian men under the name of 
 Christian love at Norwich.... 0, my dear 
 Sir, listen." The appeal had no effect. 
 The case was treated as a quai-rel, — a 
 quarrel between Mr. Norton and the 
 church. There was a refusal to with- 
 draw the counsel before given : it was 
 
27 
 
 left to work its natural result ; and an 
 earnest appeal which, if listened to, 
 might, perchance, have stopped the filing 
 of the Bill, was treated thus. 
 
 Mr. Brock was the former pastor of 
 this church. He knew, for he had said 
 it, in 1845, that if the unbaptized com- 
 muned with the church in the Lord's 
 Supper, the strict members "must, at 
 the imperative dictate of conscience, go 
 away." He had now become pastor of 
 a church which (as Mr. Norton is in- 
 formed by one of its deacons,) professes 
 to act on the principle of admitting 
 every Christian to full member ship, and 
 therefore of denying the right of any 
 church to exclude from it a true Chris- 
 tian. Yet, he is recorded to have ad- 
 vised, on June 18th, 1857, that in each 
 case of continued absence " from the 
 sacramental communion," the church be 
 moved to declare, respecting such an 
 " offender against the law which requires 
 unity," that his membership had "ceased 
 by the offender's own act." But who 
 were the actual absentees from the Lord's 
 Supper, as rightly observed, according to 
 the rules of this church ? Who were 
 the offenders against its unity ? And 
 how, if all Christians are entitled to 
 membership, could it be right to say of 
 the strict members, exclude them, though 
 Christians ? Were these writers so eager 
 for the exclusion of the strict mem- 
 bers as to forget their own principles ? 
 Mr. Brock, as shown already by the 
 evidence, had " deliberately originated 
 another sacramental communion" at Nor- 
 wich distinct from that of the church, 
 and yet in this letter he said that if an 
 absent member could be shown to have 
 so originated such a service, his "void- 
 ance of membership [was] indisputable." 
 What a difference between the effect of 
 the same act in a free and a strict Bap- 
 tist ? Mr. Brock said in this letter that 
 he, as a pastor, " should hold any such 
 aots of communion,.. to constitute aviola- 
 tion of the unity of the church," and 
 yet had he not himself for years as a 
 2^astor persevered in such acts ? 
 
 Dr. Price, a predecessor of Mr. Hinton 
 at Devonshire Square, London, said in 
 his Protestant Nonconformity {Exhbt. 43, 
 vol. ii., p. 317,) that " the separation of 
 the Baptist and Independent bodies" is 
 an " unjustifiable division." No doubt, 
 therefore, he maintains that all Chris- 
 tians are entitled to membership. Yet in 
 the case of these true Christians at Nor- 
 wich he is recorded to have advised, 
 June 19, 1857, that the church should 
 declare that by what they had done they 
 
 had become " guilty of the aim of schism," 
 and " rent themselves from the church." 
 
 Dr. E. STEANE,in a letter which appear- 
 ed in the Freeman newspaper of Dec. 24, 
 1846, said, that " the purpose to organize 
 a Christian church, on the [open-mem- 
 bership] principles avowed" by those 
 who built Oakland's Chapel, Shepherd's 
 Bush, above referred to, was " worthy 
 of all commendation." Yet on June 20, 
 1857, he recommended the church at 
 Norwich, to declare that those true 
 Christians, who were suffering a forced 
 exclusion from a portion of their rights, 
 had, by serving God consistently with the 
 rules of that church, "■separated themselves 
 from the church, and " that they " ipso 
 facto cease to be members of it." If all 
 true Christians are entitled to church 
 membership, how could the exclusion of 
 these true Christians from membership, 
 be justified ? 
 
 The TRUE VALUE of the above letters 
 of advice seems to be this : to show how 
 those who hold the principles of the 
 respective writers act, when in keen pur- 
 suit of their desired ends ; what unity 
 of spirit and of purpose guides them ; 
 and what estimate is to be formed of 
 their statements, plans, and mode of 
 action, when endeavouinng to promote 
 what Mr. Hall called a " revolution" in 
 Strict Baptist churches, and Mr. King- 
 horn, " the annihilation of the Baptists 
 as a distinct body of Christians." {King- 
 horn's Life, p. 412, Exbt. 39). It must 
 not, however, hastily be inferred that 
 they would, knowing it, sanction injus- 
 tice. If in any case, persons are thought 
 to have brought a charge of sin against 
 those who, instead of sinning, suffer ; 
 to have spoken of their wrongs, as if they 
 were their crimes ; and to have prompted 
 aggressors to inflict on those whom they 
 have driven from home, ecclesiastical 
 death, and civil disinheritance, let every 
 allowance be made for the mistakes 
 which may attend the keen pursuit of a 
 desired end. 
 
 Mr. WooLLACOTT " wrote as a Strict 
 Baptist," yet called " the conduct" of 
 the strict members in observing the 
 Lord's Supper as they had done, accord- 
 ing to the rules of this Strict Baptist 
 church, and their own right, " dis- 
 orderly." He said that their con- 
 duct " must be dealt with," that is, that 
 they must be excluded ; and he thus 
 aided to deprive them and their suc- 
 cessors of what was designed to be en- 
 joyed by them for ever. No wonder 
 that Sti-ict Baptists have censured, and 
 that others have made use of, this advice. 
 
28 
 
 Mr. Woollacott afterwards became a 
 witness in favour of the defendants. 
 
 June 29, 1857. IV. Two declara- 
 tions were presented, signed by 132 
 members. The first by 92 adhering in 
 jirinciple as vjcll as }yractice to strict 
 communion, the other by 40 members, 
 who though adhering to the practice of 
 strict communion in that place of wor- 
 ship, were not convinced that the oppo- 
 site practice was in itself wrong, but felt 
 it to be wrong, in this church and this 
 building. The two Declarations were 
 read by the pastor. (Ch. Bk.) Most of 
 those who signed them had signed also 
 a second copy of them, which was pre- 
 sented to Mr. W. Norton, the trustee, 
 but that copy, having been jjresented to 
 him before the other copy was presented 
 to the church, did not contain some 
 of the signatures which were added to 
 the latter. Mr. Norton's copy (see 
 Exhibits K. 23 and 24) contained 85 sig- 
 natures to the first, and 31 to the second 
 declaration. Before the duplicate de- 
 signed for the church, was presented, a 
 copy of it, and of all the signatures, was 
 made. This is Evhibit K. 44. At the 
 bottom is the following authentication : 
 — " We, the undersigned, having com- 
 pared the above with the original decla- 
 ration, hereby declare this to be a true 
 and faithful copy of the same. John 
 Barber, William Moll, Wm. Wales, 
 Richard Spalding, John WooDHonsE." 
 
 Mr. Gould and Mi'. Benjamin Alexan- 
 der, in an afl[idavit sworn Nov. 9th, 1859, 
 in this suit, gave the names of only 55, 
 instead of 92 persons, as those who 
 actually " signed" the first of the two 
 presented to the church. Thirty-seven 
 names occurring in the midst of the 92 
 signatures, that is the names from 41 to 
 77 inclusive, are by the said deponents 
 sworn to have been those of persons who 
 actually '^signed" the second declara- 
 tion,* and ai'e placed after the forty 
 names of those who really signed it. 
 
 • The names are : — Elizabeth Tomkins, 
 Jonathan Green, Jacob BowbUl, James M;it-4^ 
 thews, Sarah Pitchers, Sarah Breeze, M. A. 
 Flood, J. F. Flood, William Gilbert, Heury 
 Randall, Sarah Randall, Maria Spinks, Mary 
 Ann Bullen, John Bullen, Sarah Rix, Sarah 
 Smith, Charles Spinks, Susan Plummer, Wil- 
 liam Emms, -Jonathan Ciistance, Lydia 
 Jarv, William Alexander, Henry Pope, Fanny 
 Pope, E. Alexander, Hannah Plummer, 
 Rachel Plunkett, Mary Ann Atkins, Sarah S. 
 Kcrrison, Christiana Hendiy, Deborah Howes, 
 Elizabeth Salter, E. Harris, Ann Ringer, 
 Elizabeth Gates, Charlotte 'islasj Playford, 
 and Charlotte Oxley. 
 
 Most of those 37 names are among the 
 names signed by the parties themselves 
 to the first Declaration in the copy of 
 it presented to Mr. Norton. The editor 
 hopes that he has not fallen into any 
 error in making this statement ; for he 
 is aware that if the facts are as he has 
 stated them to be, it will seem certain 
 that what was sworn to, as to the said 
 names, was contrary to actual fact, and 
 that the inquiry may be made how far 
 the deponents had reason, in the docu- 
 ment before them, to believe that what 
 they said on oath was true. On a 
 point so important to character, the 
 editor wishes to abstain carefully from 
 everything but a statement of the facts 
 as they appear in evidence. By the said 
 afiidavit, those who signed as Strict Bap- 
 tists ill pnnciple, were reduced from 92 
 to 55 ; and those who signed the other 
 Declaration, were raised from 40 to 77. 
 
 "Declaration [I.] That we, the under- 
 signed members of the Particular Bap- 
 tist church, meeting in the Baptist 
 meeting-house in the parish of St. Mary, 
 Norwich, believe that the Lord's Supper is 
 a church ordinance, and that none should 
 be received to it, or to full church mem- 
 bership, who have not been immersed on 
 a profession of faith in Christ ; that we 
 regard the admission of several persons, 
 who had not been so immersed, to com- 
 mune with the church in the celebration 
 of the Lord's Supper, on the first Sun- 
 day in April, 1857, as at variance with 
 the trusts of our place of worship. That 
 by the practice thus introduced, we are 
 deprived of the ability to worship God 
 there according to our consciences, and 
 also according to the former practice 
 of the church, and the sole j^urpose for 
 which the property was put in trust; 
 that those whose sentiments require the 
 practice thus introduced, are not entitled 
 to the use of our place of worship, and 
 that we, so long as we faithfully adhere 
 to our sentiments above expressed, are 
 entitled to the use of that pi-operty as 
 before ; and in order that there may be 
 no doubt or uncertainty, now or here- 
 after, on this point, we hereby declare 
 that we, who, by the introduction of the 
 said new practice, are deprived, for con- 
 science' sake, of our accustomed rights 
 and privileges, have the aforesaid deep 
 convictions. Signed April, 1857." Signa- 
 tures, 92 ; " John Barber, Thomas Pot- 
 ter, William W. Yarington," &c., &c. 
 
 "Declaration [II.] We, the under- 
 signed, members of the Particular Bap- 
 tist church, mentioned in the Declaration 
 written on the first page of this sheet, 
 
29 
 
 agree in that Declaration, with this ex- 
 ception ; that, to express our view, the 
 words 'in that place of worship ' must be 
 added, after the words ' and that/ in 
 line third, so as to read, ' and that in 
 that place of worship none should be 
 I'eceived,' &c. ; since we do not object 
 ourselves to commune with believers 
 who have not been immersed ; but object 
 to the introduction of the practice into 
 that meeting-house, as at variance with 
 the ancient practice of the church, and a 
 violation of the trusts on which the 
 meeting-house is held." 
 
 June 29, 1857. V. Eefusal by Mr. 
 Gould, and othbr individuals, to 
 permit the strict members to act as 
 members at church meetings. no 
 members of this church are actually 
 under church censure or discipline till 
 a vote of the church has passed it upon 
 them. The tenth of the original ar- 
 ticles of the church declared that " unto 
 this church," composed of bajttized be- 
 lievers, " is committed the i^ower of put- 
 ting in operation all church censures, 
 admonitions, withdrawing communion," 
 &c. But from June 29, 1857, there were 
 individuals who endeavoured to prevent 
 the strict members from taking part in 
 the business of church meetings, and did 
 so on the alleged ground that they were 
 under church c^/sc/yj^/ne, though no vote of 
 the church had placed them under it. If 
 those members wished to place them 
 under church discipline, the proper course 
 was to submit a proposition to that effect 
 to the church. But instead of this they 
 persisted in what other members re- 
 garded as lawless misdemeanour, which 
 violated still further the rights of the 
 strict members. 
 
 Mr. Barber and Mr. Wales proposed 
 that the Declarations, together with the 
 signatures, be inserted in the church 
 book. Mr. Tillyard said that these 
 members were incompetent to make the 
 motion; they were " under the discipline 
 of the church " ( Ch. Bk.). " An amend- 
 rtient" to their proposal was moved by 
 Mr. Colman and Mr. James King ; a 
 course wliich admitted that they were 
 competent to make the original motion. 
 Mr. Fletcher also recognised them 
 as "fully competent to exerd.te all their 
 rights as members of the church, both 
 in, speakinrj and votinfj upon all ques- 
 tions." The amendment pre posed arbi- 
 tration, and "it was understood," says 
 the Church Book, that the Declarations 
 presented " should not be dealt with 
 until the result of the arbitration was 
 known," That time never came. 
 
 The same attempts to prevent the 
 Strict members from taking a part in 
 church biisiness continued, and did so 
 even after the Bill had been filed, in May, 
 1858. On Feb. 1, 1858, Mr. Gould 
 refused to take an objection made by Mi*. 
 Willis. (Oh. Bk.) On May 30th, the 
 Strict members were urged to leave the 
 meeting, but maintained their right to 
 be there. (Ch. Bk.) On Dec. 29th, 1858, 
 Mr. Gould refused to let Mr. R. Spalding 
 speak ; (C'h.Bk.) and on Jan. 31, 1859, he 
 declared to several strict members that 
 he would not hear a syllable from them. 
 (Afft. Willis and others, phs. 8, 9). 
 At length these membei's resolved to 
 compel him to shew his right to treat 
 them thus. On Feb. 28, 1859, Mr. John 
 Barber asked him to point out anj' 
 resolution of the church which had 
 placed him under church discipline, and 
 insisted on an answer. The indefensible 
 nature of Mi\ Gould's conduct may 
 be judged of by the result. He "imme- 
 diately dissolved the meeting," nor ven- 
 tured to hold another, so far as the 
 editor knows, uj? to the time when judg- 
 ment was given in the Rolls Court. 
 (Same Afft. ph. 10). 
 
 June 29, 1857. VI. Mr. Gould's plan 
 OF arbitration. The amendment pro- 
 posed by Mr. Colman and Mr. King 
 was to the effect that it was " desirable 
 to have the legal question settled by 
 arbitration, and that all further pro- 
 ceedings in relation to communion, be 
 deferred until the result of the arbitra- 
 tion be known.'' (Ch. Bk.) 
 
 Mr. Gould "intimated his willingness 
 to submit the question of the legal con- 
 struction of the Trust Deed, in regard 
 to communion at the Lord's table with 
 un baptized believers, to the arbitration 
 of one or more persons, mutually to be 
 agreed on between the Rev. W. Norton, 
 and himself, on the understanding that 
 the result of such arbitration should be 
 accepted as a final settlement of such 
 question ; the pastor expressly binding 
 himself to resign his office, in case the 
 result is adverse to the resolution of the 
 11th day of March, 1857, and Mr. Nor- 
 ton being bound in case the result is 
 adverse to his interpretation of the 
 Trust Deed, to abstain from all legal 
 proceedings." 
 
 The church resolved to abide by the 
 result of such arbitration. (Ch. Bk.) 
 
 June 29, 1857. VII. What to be 
 done while the legal qufstion was 
 PENDING ? This very proposal for arbi- 
 tration declared that the lawfulness of 
 the new practice was questionable. 
 
30 
 
 The practice ought therefore at once to 
 have been stoivped, till the question of 
 its lawfulness was decided. " Whatso- 
 ever is not of faith is sin." But instead 
 of that, immediately after this proposal 
 had been adopted, Mr. Gould insisted 
 that the dissentient members " ought " 
 to accept of the neio strict san-ice which he 
 offered. By accepting it, they would 
 have declared that their conscientious 
 objections, and the maintenance of 
 their right to attend all services, could 
 be surrendered by them at discre- 
 tion ; so that the necessity for that ar- 
 bitration would, by that very acceptance, 
 have been virtually set aside ; for if their 
 principles permitted them to do this for 
 a time, they might do it always. If a 
 person were stripping an estate of tim- 
 ber, it would be a strange proposal for 
 him to offer to submit to arbitration, on 
 condition of having leave, meanwhile, to 
 cut down every tree. 
 
 Mr. Wales replied to Mr. Gould, that 
 that offer would not meet the case, as 
 the brethren stood upon their rights, and 
 insisted upon meeting to eat the Lord's 
 Supper on the afternoon of the first 
 Lord's-day of each month, that is, at the 
 principal service from which they were 
 now excluded by the admission of the 
 unbaptized. (Ch. Bk.) 
 
 June 29, 1857. VIII. Mr. Norton's 
 Letter of June 10th, kequestinq leave 
 
 TO INSPECT AND MAKE EXTRACTS FROM THE 
 
 CHURCHBooKS,was not read tUl after Mr. 
 Gould's plan of arbitration had been 
 proposed and adopted. It was then 
 concluded, " that no action thereon was 
 necessary at the present time." (Ch. Bk. 
 mill. 5.) 
 
 Chancery. Papers had already been 
 laid before counsel, relating to the sup- 
 posed necessity of a Chancery suit. ( W.N. 
 to Mr. Irimey, June 16th.) 
 
 June 30, 1857, Tuesday, Mr. Gould 
 sent to Mr. Norton the proposal for 
 ARBITRATION, begging that "an imme- 
 diate intimation whether " he accepted it 
 or not, might be sent to him " at Wood's 
 Hotel, Furnival's Inn, London," where 
 he would be on Thursday to receive it. 
 (Ehihit. P. 3.; 
 
 July 1, 1857. Mr. Norton as to the 
 
 CHURCH BOOKS, EVIDENCE, ARBITRATION, 
 AND A GIFT TOWARDS A NEW CHAPEL FOR 
 THE FREE-COMMUNION MEMBERS. 
 
 He replied first that " no notice what- 
 ever " was taken in Mr. Gould's letter 
 of the request as to the cJiiirrh books. 
 Nc:rt, that he, Mr. N., renewed the state- 
 ment he had made at Norwich, of his 
 readiness " to receive any evidence " 
 which could be adduced to show that the 
 
 chapel could be " legally used by those 
 who are not Particular Baptists, and 
 members or communicants of that Par- 
 ticular Baptist Congregation for the time 
 being." He said, " I am directed as a 
 trustee to judge of this question myself, 
 and if you have no evidence to adduce, 
 feel that it would be unsafe to the in- 
 terests of the cestuis que trust " — (the 
 persons beneficially entitled under the 
 trust,) " to place myself under such an 
 obligation as you propose, for several 
 reasons ; first, you have evaded any di- 
 rect reply to my request to examine the 
 church books, which is not courteous, 
 and has, for the present, the effect of a 
 refusal," &c. ; " secondly, the decision of 
 the most eminent counsel, after know- 
 ing the fact of Mr. Keif's separation, 
 applies with greater force to present cir- 
 cumstances, and if their decision is not 
 respected, I know of no parties whose 
 opinion is more worthy of confidence. 
 Thirdly, the refusal to state the facts 
 respecting Mr. Keif, when a case was 
 prepared by the trustees jointly, shews 
 that party feeling is so strong on the 
 part of some of the free-communion 
 members, that it is unsafe to bind one- 
 self, in any manner, to any proceeding, 
 the whole details of which are not pre- 
 sented, and fully known." Lastly, he 
 said that he had not yet had time to 
 consult those whose interests were 
 " most concerned." He renewed his 
 request as to the church books. 
 
 He said that "if the object of the re- 
 solution of the church," as to arbitra- 
 tion, were to come to " an equitable and 
 amicable settlement," he thought, though 
 " personally unconcerned with the sub- 
 ject as trustee," that it might best be 
 obtained by the concession of a sum of 
 money to Mr. Gould and his friends, "by 
 the remonstrants, on their own choice, 
 and not as a question of legal right." 
 Mr. Norton suggested this as a course 
 of settlement kind, honourable, and 
 becoming to both parties. It woidd have 
 been generous on the part of those who 
 denied entii'ely the claim of the free-com- 
 munion party to use that chapel for their 
 services ; and have aided the free-com- 
 munion body to provide a chapel where 
 they could carry out their system with- 
 out depriving others of their unquestion- 
 able rights. 
 
 July 1, 1857. Caution Suggested. — 
 Mn. Reuben Willis, a church member, 
 and afterwards a plaintiff in this suit, 
 wrote thus to Mr. Norton : " The [strict] 
 brethren pledged you to nothing. You 
 are therefore left perfectly free, to act 
 according to the best of your judgment. 
 
31 
 
 I think the case requires you to act with 
 great caiition, as I feel confident you 
 will have all the talent, tact, and influ- 
 ence of the advocates of free communion 
 residing in London, to contend with . . . 
 If you think it right to accept of their 
 offer, be careful to whom you refer the 
 case. Don't be hurried by them, but 
 take time to consider before you give a 
 pledge. . . . 
 
 " It is generally admitted that the 
 practice of any people is the best proof 
 how they understand their laws. The 
 author of the pamphlet I sent,* admits 
 that the practice of the church at the 
 time when the property was put in 
 trust, was most probably strict com- 
 munion. It therefore follows that it 
 was put in trust for persons who under- 
 •stand this to be the law of the New 
 Testament." 
 
 July 2, 1857, Thursday. Church 
 Books and Ahbitration. Mr. Gould 
 informed Mr. Norton what had been 
 the decision of the church on June 29th, 
 respecting the church books. He also 
 said " I renew the offer ... to submit 
 the case of communion at St. Mary's, 
 OS it now stands, to arbitration upon the 
 conditions expressed" in the proposal 
 of June 29; and he requested the favour 
 of an answer to this renewed proposal, 
 on the Saturday following, at Fui-nival's 
 .Inn, saying, " I shall wait in town on 
 purpose that I may know your decision." 
 (Exhibit. P. B.) 
 
 "As it 710W stands :" E. Bayes was 
 baptized on July 1. A letter, dated 
 July 1 2th, informed Mr. Norton that a 
 free communion member had said that 
 many of his friends thought they should 
 be obliged " to return to the ■practice estab- 
 lished by Mr. Brock." 
 
 July 2, 1857. Mr. Norton, willing 
 
 TO ACQUIESCE IN ANY EQUITABLE AR- 
 RANGEMENTS. Writing to Mr. John Bar- 
 ber, a church member, Mr. Norton said 
 as to Mr. Gould's proposal that he should 
 bind himself by a 2^l^d9^ upon such 
 terms, " I have declined thus to bind 
 myself ; not that I am unwilling to ac- 
 quiesce in any equitable arrangement, 
 but that this is not the safest, and, I 
 think, the best plan. The former pro- 
 posal to take a joint opinion ''• — that of 
 Aug. 23, 1845 — "was used to present a 
 case omitting the most material point." 
 Mr. Norton stated also what he had said 
 
 *" The communion question at St. Mary's, 
 &c._ {Exhihit K 30., p. 14 , 1. 35.) An affi- 
 davit in this snit states that the Defendant, 
 Mr. Robert Tillyard, is the author of this pana- 
 phlet. ( Willis and others, Afft, ph, 19.) 
 
 to Mr. Gould as to an " amicable settle- 
 ment." 
 
 July 4, 1857, Mr. Norton, in reply 
 to Mr. Gould's letter of July 2nd, said 
 as to the Church Books, " Until you are 
 authorised to treat me with the confi- 
 dence necessary to enable me to form 
 my own judgment respecting their con- 
 tents, I must reserve my own duty of 
 judging what is right, undelegated . . . 
 I have not to ask the mere resignation 
 of the place by yourself, on the ground 
 that your practice is a breach of the 
 trust, but of all whose practice has long 
 been a breach of it, and not merely from 
 the 11th day of March last. I have to 
 repeat, therefore, my request to the 
 whole church for permission to examine 
 and make extracts from the church 
 books." 
 
 July 4, 1857. Mr. Norton, writing 
 to Mr. John Barber, a Strict member, 
 said : As to the proposed strict com- 
 munion service " By assenting to [it], 
 you would be understood to acquiesce 
 in the continuance of the change made as 
 to the first Sunday service ; and your 
 numbers would be gradually drained off 
 into that service. After [their] ranks," 
 he said, had been thus thinned, the free 
 communion members might (for he had 
 heard that such a service had in another 
 case been soon given up), " send the rest 
 away." 
 
 As to Mr. Gould's plan of arbitra- 
 tion, he thought that if the decision 
 were adverse to Mr. Gould, he " would 
 resign, bat another, just like him, would 
 fill his place ; the practice introduced 
 on the 11th of March would cease, but 
 any other practice which had existed 
 before, or could be invented afterwards, 
 might be substituted." If the decision 
 were adverse to Mr. Norton, " I myself," 
 he said " having pledged myself to de- 
 sist from all legal proceedings, could 
 not, on discovering too late any improper 
 means of securing that result, act as my 
 obligations... might otherwise require." 
 
 As to arbitration on equitable terms, 
 he said, " you know that I shall not be 
 unwilling to acquiesce in what is safe and 
 sufficient." Part of this letter, referring 
 to arbitration, is said to have been read 
 at a church meeting, held the same 
 month. J. B., Feb. 11, 1859. 
 
 July 7, 1857. First Sunday of the 
 month. The protesting members for- 
 bore TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO OB- 
 SERVE THE Lord's Supper, according 
 
 TO THE strict COMMUNION RULES OF 
 
 THE church. They did so, not because 
 they doubted their right so to observe it, 
 
32 
 
 but at the request of the pastor. There 
 had also been misrepresentation. It was 
 said that they had formed a separate 
 church. Ch. Bk., July 27 ; R. W., June 
 25, 1857. 
 
 July 13,1857. Leave to examine 
 Church Books refused: Arbitration. 
 Special church meeting. Two resolutions. 
 The above correspondence between Mr. 
 Gould and Mr. Norton as to the church 
 books, and arbitration, was read. 
 
 Resolved, on the motion of Mr. Flet- 
 cher and Mr. Tillyard : " That the 
 church book.s being the private records 
 of the proceedings of the church, are 
 not accessible to any but members ; but 
 that whatever information Mr. Norton, 
 as a trustee, requires relative to the 
 usages or constitution of the church, 
 we are fully prepared to give at any 
 time." {Ch.Bk.) 
 
 Resolved also, on the motion of Mr. 
 Fletcher and Mr. John King, that this 
 church " reqtiests the pastor to I'enew 
 the negotiation with the Rev.W. Norton, 
 on the basis of the minute of the church- 
 meeting, of June 29, 1S57, and to urge it hy 
 ail means on his attention." 
 
 Ml". Barber is said to have " informed 
 the church that Mr. Norton had stated 
 in a letter, addressed to him, his willing- 
 ness to arbitrate upon the question, upon 
 conditions which were not stated to the 
 church." (Ch. Bk.) 
 
 It was asked at this meeting whether, 
 if Mr. Norton still refused the said plan 
 for arbitration, the protesting members 
 meant to " break off connexion" with him ; 
 but " no response " it is said was elicited 
 from any of the brethren so appealed 
 to. Mr. Barber, Mr. Gooderson, and Mr. 
 Moll, were " addressed personally," but 
 "each declined to give any pledge" as 
 to "what his conduct in future would 
 be." (Ch. Bk.) 
 
 This " offer of arbitration," it was 
 argued, was "intended to settle the legal 
 question at once and for ever." The right 
 to use the chapel had been said to be " re- 
 stricted to Particular Baptists holding " 
 strict communiou,and therefore"through 
 their non-acceptance " of the proposed 
 separate service, " a settlement of the 
 legal question was an essential condition 
 of an 11 arranj^cmoii" between the church 
 and the protesting members. (Ch.Bk.) 
 
 By common consent, therefoi-e, the 
 legal question was now the question 
 which had to be decided. The only 
 difference was as to the means of ob- 
 taining, if possible, a just decision, 
 founded upon a full consideration, not 
 oi some, but of all the facts of the case. 
 
 July 14, 1857. Church Books : 
 extracts promised. arbitration : 
 Mr. Gould's plan urged a third 
 TIME. Mr. Gould forwarded to Mr. 
 Norton a copy of the above two resolu- 
 tions of July 13th, and said, "I am 
 fully prepared to furnish you with all 
 the information which you may apply 
 for as to our usages and the constitution 
 of the church."— j^xS^, K. 3, 
 
 He again urged the acceptance of this 
 proposal as to arbitration, saying, " I 
 trust you will not hesitate to accede to " 
 it ; but " will appoint the earliest day 
 which may suit your convenience for 
 entering \ipon the discussion and settle- 
 ment of the necessary preliminaries." 
 
 He said that "the church intended 
 the resolution " of June 29th to mean 
 that, if open communion should be 
 declared a violation of the deed, " ho 
 attempt [^oouhV] be made to preserve any 
 service in whichunbuptizedbelievers[inight^ 
 commune, in that chapel, with baptized 
 believers, who are members of the church 
 ivorshipping therein." If the church had 
 added words expressly stating this, it 
 would have removed one ground of ob- 
 jection to the original proposition ; but 
 the meaning of that proposition was 
 not sufficiently clear and expiress, and the 
 church never altered it in any way. 
 Mr. Gould said of Mr. Noi-ton's reasons 
 for not placing himself " under such an 
 obligation as " Mr. G. had proposed ; 
 " neither the reasons themselves nor the 
 manner in which you have conveyed 
 them to me can be approved of your 
 own deliberate judgment. Differences 
 in judgment can never be an apology 
 for the violation of truth or charity."* 
 
 Mr. Norton had given to no one reason 
 to think that he would oppose equitable 
 arbitration, if the question could not 
 otherwise be settled. But the impression 
 made on him by past events above re- 
 ferred to, and even by the proposal then 
 before him, was that others would not 
 agree to submit tJie ichole case to arbitra- 
 tion, on terms equal and fit. The ear- 
 nestness with which this plan was urged, 
 tended, after what had passed, to make 
 his hope the fainter. The fond par- 
 tridge, when her brood is near, flutter.'', 
 as if with broken wing ; but vain 
 
 * ]f this imputation, however unfounded it 
 may be felt to be, had affected Mr. Norton 
 only, it would not, even though it had been 
 read at church meeting, and is part of the 
 exhihiis in this suit, have been inserted here ; 
 but it refers to facts connected with the ca.se 
 itself. 
 
33 
 
 is pursuit. Mr. N. feared that pursuit 
 in tliis case, would be as vain. He ex- 
 pected soon to be able to put it to the 
 test. For the present, he was intent on 
 ascertaining for himself, the nature of 
 t/ie evidence by ivJiich the lawfulness of the 
 neto practice could be proved, and of the 
 contents of the chu/rch books; which con- 
 tents were equally important, whether 
 the case might be submitted to arbi- 
 tration or to Chancery. And if satisfied 
 by these, and the evidence which might 
 be given by the free communion party, 
 that there was no breach of trust, it 
 would he his duty not to interfere. 
 
 Mr. Gould "implored" him not "to 
 drag [his] brethren. " into Court ; said 
 that Christ forbad " brother to go to law 
 with brother; " it would do them, the free 
 communion party, " a grievous wrong ;" 
 "the legality of [their] conduct [might] 
 be determined by a friendly and united 
 appeal to men conversant with the law, and 
 the scandal of a suit between Chris- 
 tians avoided." There was no " neces- 
 sity" for Mr. Norton " to enter upon any 
 suit to enforce the claims of justice." 
 
 What a difference between these en- 
 treaties, and the conduct of the trustees 
 on Sept. 18th, 1847, and April 11, 
 1857. How could it be accounted for ? 
 Besides, had not men conversant with 
 the law been appealed to ? Had not 
 their last opinion been scornfully re- 
 jected ? Were not the persons who 
 now talked of suffering " a grievous 
 wrong," those who were alleged to per- 
 sist in inflicting such a wrong? Mr. 
 Norton stood in no church relation to any 
 of them. Nor was the duty which de- 
 volved on him a duty of Christianity as 
 distinguished from natural duty. He 
 was acting, not as a church member, but 
 as a trustee ; was acting in a civil, not a 
 religious capacity ; and if the trust which 
 he was pledged to guard, was violated, 
 his duty was the same, whether the vio- 
 lating parties were called Christians or 
 not. It is no protection to a person be- 
 fore a magistrate, for him to say that he 
 and the magistrate are both Christians, 
 and that it would be wrong, very wrong, 
 for Christian to commit Christian. All 
 feel that the less said in such a case 
 by the person whose conduct is in ques- 
 tion, of his Christianity, the better. 
 And is not the rule the same on all points 
 relating to a breach of natural duty? 
 Mr. Norton, however, was resolved that 
 in no case but that of necessity in order 
 " to enforce the claims of justice," would 
 he become a party to a suit in Chanceiy. 
 The labour, anxiety, cost, and liabilities 
 
 as to i:)roperty and health, were all too 
 serious to be incurred on any considera- 
 tion but one of such neces.-^ity. The 
 above entreaties were used to induce him 
 to accept the specific basis proposed by 
 Mr. Gould, and this had pecuharitiea 
 which will soon apfsear. 
 
 July 14 and 15, 18o7. Arbitration: 
 SUPPOSED NEED OF CAUTION. A mem- 
 ber of the church, writing to Mr. Norton, 
 said of the church -meeting of July 13, 
 that a hope was then expressed that as 
 Mr. Norton "had not positively refused to 
 submit the case to arbitration, it might 
 yet be settled without going into Chan- 
 cery." The writer advised Mr. N. to be 
 cautious. He feared that stratagem 
 would be used to eutrap him. Let him 
 take time to consider, let him consult 
 all his friends, before he gave any 
 pledge. 
 
 Whether that fear might jDrove to be 
 well founded or not, the renewed cau- 
 tion enforced double care. 
 
 The writer also said, " I think that 
 Mr. Gould's resignation of ofiice is not a 
 sufficient guarantee that the practice 
 will be discontinued, or that, if dropped 
 for a time, it will not be resumed again. 
 We must have something better than 
 that." 
 
 July 14. Another member stated 
 
 that a certain person had declared that 
 
 he would suffer his right hand to be 
 
 cut off rather than allow Mr. Norton to 
 
 I see the books. — Exhibit, P. 3. 
 
 July 18, 1857. E.\tracts REauESTED 
 
 FROM CHURCH BOOKS; OBJECTIONS TO 
 I PL.\N OF ARBITRATION. Mr. NoRTON, 
 
 1 writing to Mr. Gould, requested the ex- 
 i press words of all entries in the church 
 
 books, of a certain kind. He was igno- 
 ' rant of most of the contents of the 
 j books, and could only, by general ques- 
 j tions, endeavour to elicit the information 
 
 sought. 
 
 He urged again the production of 
 
 ' EVIDENCE THAT THE NEW PRACTICE 
 WAS LAWFUL IN THAT PLACE. He Said ; 
 
 — " I repeat that I am ready to judge of 
 1 ANY EVIDENCE you havc to lay before 
 I me, in proof that a limitation of pro- 
 perty to a certain congregation of Par- 
 ticular Baptists, includes Wesleyan Me- 
 thodists. Episcopalians, Independents, 
 and persons connected with no church 
 whatever, as persons entitled to use it to 
 the exclusion of some of its own mem- 
 bers. You have hitherto admitted, by 
 your silence, as I have understood it, 
 that you have no proof whatever to 
 adduce of this. Why do you insist on 
 arbitration, in.«tead of first adducing 
 
 C 
 
34 
 
 proof yourselves." The word first was 
 so emphasized iu Mr. Norton's letter. 
 '•' I ask for this evidence firtst, and I ask 
 it of you as persons professing a wish to 
 act as it becomes Christians. If, after 
 receiving evidence, to be adduced by the 
 chui-ch, that open communion, as advo- 
 cated by John Bunyan and Robert 
 Hall,* can be rightfully ado^jted in that 
 I)lace of worshij), that is, conformably 
 with the trusts of 1746, I am con- 
 vinced by it, then as trustee my duty to 
 interfere is at an end. If I am not con- 
 vinced by it, the lasis of arbitration ivill 
 nxd to he revised before it will suit the case." 
 
 The principal alleged breaches 
 OF TRUST ivere five : — 
 
 1. The separate free communion ser- 
 vice instituted by Mr. Brock in 1845. 
 
 2. The resolution to admit Elizabeth 
 Bayes to eat the Lord's Supper ivltli the 
 church when imbaptized, " as a mem- 
 BEii," and her actual admission. 
 
 3. The resolution of March 11, 1857, 
 to admit cdl believers to jjartake of the 
 Lord's Supper with the church : on which, 
 two distinct varieties of practice were 
 founded, that is : — 
 
 4. The reception of any nnbaptized 
 believers, whether Independents, Pres- 
 byterians, Episcopalians, or of other 
 
 views, to PERMANENT COMMUNION with 
 
 this church in the Lord's Supper (except 
 once a mouth, when they were to be 
 excluded) ; and 
 
 5. The admission to the Lord's Supper 
 of idl persons who plecised to accepd an 
 invitation addressed " to members of all 
 Christian churches ;" an invitation which 
 did not e.rcejjt the members of anj/ 
 church called Christian, but addressed 
 itself to the members of them all, even 
 though not Particular Baptists, nor Bapi- 
 tists, nor, in some cases, persons by whom 
 any evidence had been given that they 
 had saving faith and were born again. 
 Might not even Sociniaus have accepted 
 such an invitation ? 
 
 The terms of the trust deed, on 
 the other hand, limited the beneficial use 
 of the building to tlds " congregation, of 
 Particular Bapttists," — to it only. 
 
 So that the PROPOSED basis of 
 
 ARBITRATION WAS OBJECTIONABLE for 
 
 these various reasons : — 
 
 « The ijaiiiphlet above referred to, as said to 
 liave bet-ii written by the defendant Mr. L'ubt. 
 'liilyard, Exhibit, K. 30, at p. 21, includes 
 Huiiyan amorig ''the -warmest advocates of 
 iree communion," and immpdialely the wiiter 
 adds, " I am proud to be identified with sucli 
 men as these bvmv free communion. '' 
 
 1. It defined "the auESTioN" to re- 
 late to the lawfulness in that chapel of 
 " communion at the Lord's tabic with 
 nnbaptized believers." To this definition 
 there were three objections : first, the 
 resolution to admit E. Bayes related to 
 membersliip-) as well as to the Lord's Sup- 
 per ; and the arguments which had been 
 used iu favour of free communion, in- 
 volved and required admission to full 
 membership as a duttj also. Next, ac- 
 cording to the trust deed, not even bap- 
 tized believers, unless they hold the doc- 
 trine of Particular Redemption, and are 
 either permanently or transiently part 
 of this church, are entitled to a bene- 
 ficial use of the j^roperty ; so that the 
 question related to who, even among 
 " baptized," as well as " unlxtptized," be- 
 lievers, are entitled to the use of it. 
 Thirdly. The word believer, as iised by 
 Particular Baptists, denotes one who has 
 exiaerieuced a saving change, but the 
 common use of it in the Church of Eng- 
 land and elsewhere is to denote one who 
 assents to a Cliristian creed ; and unless a 
 moj'C definite ^eriathan " believer" were 
 used, the arbitrators might decide that 
 any one professing to believe the truth 
 of Christianity, was to be assumed by 
 them to be a believer. 
 
 2. The question was further and 
 wrongly limited by another clause. It 
 was provided that Mr. Gould was to re- 
 sign on condition that the decision was 
 " adverse to the resolution of the church- 
 meeting of May 11, 1857," which would 
 incline the arbitrators to regard that re- 
 solution as comprising, for all practical 
 purposes, the whole of the question before 
 them, and would tend to exclude the 
 consideration of Mr. Brock's sepmr ate free 
 comrmtnion service, and to leave that ser- 
 vice to be maintained even if the later 
 practice had to be abandoned. 
 
 3. The extressly stipulated bond, 
 in case the decision should be adverse to 
 the said resolution of 31 arch 11, was that 
 the piastor was to " resign his office." 
 The free communion members were not 
 bound expressly, but only as the arbi- 
 trators should determine, to renounce 
 or not all attempts to carry on there, 
 under any pastor, the p)ractices founded 
 on the resolution of March 11, and the 
 separate service commenced by ]Mr. Brock. 
 If a part only of these services should be 
 expressly set aside by them, there was 
 nothing in the jjroposed pledge to pre- 
 vent the other jiart from being practised 
 at 2')leasure. 
 
 4. .The result of this plan, was 
 to be, without limitation, " accepted as a 
 
3L 
 
 FINAL SETTLEMENT of tlie questiou, iu 
 
 regard to communion at the Lord's 
 table ; " although Mr. Brock's Lord's 
 Sujiper service was not named, and ex- 
 press reference was limited to the reso- 
 lution of March 11 ; so that though the 
 effect was to be general, the [/round of 
 the decision might be limited; and if, 
 after that decision, the free communion 
 members had gone back to Mr. Brock's 
 separate service, those members might 
 have said, The decision was, indeed, ad- 
 verse to the resolution of March 11, but 
 did not relate at all to Mr. Brock's ser- 
 vice. Nevertheless you pledged your- 
 selves to accept that decision as a final 
 settlement of the whole question of com- 
 munion at the Lord's table, and you are 
 therefore bound not to interfere. 
 
 5. The bond to be given by Mr. 
 Norton, (who, for some reason, was sin- 
 gled out fi-om all persons who were com- 
 petent to file a bill in Chancery on the 
 part of the strict members, as the onh/ 
 one who was to be pledged and bound 
 not to do so), was this, that in case the 
 decision actually come to was "adverse 
 to his interpretation of the trust deed," 
 he was " to abstain from all legal pro- 
 ceedings," without any condition as to 
 whether the decision were adverse in 
 j)art or in whole to his interpretation of 
 the deed, or were come to upon a con- 
 sideration of a 2^a'>'t or the whole of the 
 alleged breaches of trust as to the Lord's 
 Supper ; and he was to give this bond, 
 as one who was acting for the strict com- 
 munion members, though, on the other 
 hand, the free communion members were 
 not to he bound to any thing more specifi.c 
 than "to abide by the result." 
 
 Mr. Norton's consent to arbitra- 
 tion WAS NOT INDISPENSABLE TO IT. 
 
 This plan of arbitration, if his name had 
 not been in it, might have been pursued, 
 without even asking his consent at all. It 
 was only on account of this attempt to 
 hind him, (as if he, though utterly iveak, 
 \inless there were a breach of trust, were 
 terrible to them as a Samson) that 
 they needed to make him a party to it 
 at all. But if they ivould propose to 
 bind him, he was at liberty to say with 
 what he would be bound ; or, if he 
 pleased, to decline all fetters, and say 
 that, as a trustee, he had a right to 
 freedom. 
 
 The use which he might expect 
 
 TO BE MADE OF SUCH A PLEDGE may be 
 
 judged of by the use actually made of 
 his conditional pledge, given reluctantly 
 and in consequence of urgent entreaty, 
 on August 30, 1845 ; and particularly 
 
 by the use which Mr. Gould has himself 
 made of it since Judgment in the Rolls 
 Court was given. In a sermon already 
 mentioned, preached after that decision, 
 and " published by request," he has said, 
 p. 16, that Mr. Norton, after having 
 given that j^ledge to " abide hy the 
 opinion of the counsel on the case [then] 
 laid before them," provided that every 
 thing should be done with" perfect fair- 
 ness," " REPUDIATED THEIR DECISION !" 
 
 The reader needs not to weary himself 
 with further details ; but, if they are 
 asked for, they are these : — 
 
 In a letter to the trustees, dated 
 Jan. 30, I8i6, (printed in the pamphlet 
 which Mr. Gould referred to when mak- 
 ing this charge,) Mr. Norton said of the 
 opinion, " the first sentence is the only 
 one which refers to the point at issue, 
 and this states that it is the duty of the 
 trustees to preserve the meeting-house 
 as a place of worship for all Baptists re- 
 siding in the city of Norwich, which 
 most certainly implies that some Bap- 
 tists are not to be compielled to disuse 
 the 25lace for the sake of receiving those 
 who are not Baptists, to share with Bap- 
 tists in acts of special and distinctive 
 worship in this place. The fact, there- 
 fore, that this practice will exclude some 
 Baptists from an equal use of this place 
 — a fact which was not known to counsel 
 — shows that the trusts are broken by this 
 practice. The first paragraph of the 
 opinion, therefore, taken in connection 
 with this fact, requires that the trustees 
 immediately insist on the discontinuance 
 of the practice." This, instead of being 
 a repudiation of " the opinion," was a 
 declaration of what it reguirkd, if a 
 certain thing, unknown to those who 
 gave the opinion, but known to most of 
 the trustees, were taken into account. 
 
 Suppose, however, that Mr. Norton 
 had repudiated the opinion, and filed 
 immediately a Bill in Chancery : the be- 
 lief expressed in Mr. Wilkin's note of 
 AjDril 20, 1846 (p. 10 preceding, under 
 Aug. 30, 1845), that a document was, 
 ivithout authority, included in the case, 
 would, if correct, as Mr. Norton con- 
 sidered it to be, have proved that 
 the breach of this cundition as to " pei*- 
 fect fairness," had released him wholly 
 from the pledge he had given upon 
 that condition ; especially as Mr. Wilkin 
 said that even with this condition at- 
 tached, the pledge was given "iu re- 
 luctant compliance with an importunity, 
 which ought not, I think, to have been 
 carried so fAr."-—£.ibt. P. 2. 
 
 And, besides this, the case on which 
 C 2 
 
3G 
 
 Mr. Norton took a further opinion was in 
 part a nciv case, it stated a fact on which 
 those counsel had not yet given an 
 opinion, that is, the exclusion of Mr. Ktlf. 
 1 he opinion given on a case which did 
 not contain that fact, could not be re- 
 pudiated by taking another opinion on 
 another case, which did contain it. On 
 this point Mr. Gould answers himself; 
 for in reply to the objection made by 
 Mr. Norton, that the pledge required 
 of him by the proposed plan of arbitra- 
 tion, bound him to "abstain fi'om all 
 legal proceedings, including those which 
 refer to breaches not included in the 
 question submitted to arbitration," Mr. 
 Gould said, " You must be well aware 
 that the legal proceedings referred to, 
 would, in the very nature of thini/s, be un- 
 derstood as those relating to the question 
 submitted to arbitration." {E.rhibit, K. 38, 
 Jan. 1.5, 185S) No doubt they ouijlit to 
 be understood to relate to those onlj', and 
 on this ground, the taking of an opinion 
 upon Mr. Keifs exclusion, which had not 
 formed j)art of " the question submitted" 
 to counsel, could not imssibly be a breach 
 of a pledge made as to the question so 
 .submitted ; and Mr. Norton could not be 
 said, by taking such an opinion, to repu- 
 diate any pledge which might have been 
 given as to a different question. 
 
 Yet now Mr. Norton is publicly said 
 to have repudiated a decision by which he 
 liad pledged himself conditionally to 
 abide. Mr. Norton had reason to be- 
 ware of pledges which might afterwards 
 be so used. 
 
 Bur WERE THR ABOVE OBJECTIONS TO 
 THIS SAID PLAN OF ARBITRATION KNOWN 
 
 BY those who insisted upon this and upon 
 this plan only ? It is not likely that a 
 plan founded, no doubt, upon the best 
 advice, would contain provisions, the 
 effect of which was unknown either by 
 Mr. Gould or the able men who may 
 liave counselled or approved it. And if 
 the members of the church did not see 
 these objections when the plan was first 
 proposed to it, they were afterwards 
 stated by Mr. Norton, partly in the above 
 letters of July 4 and 18, 1857, and 
 partly in others of January 8, 13, and 
 16, 1858. These letters were all read to 
 the church. The objections contained 
 ia them and that of July 1, 1857, were 
 also extracted by Mr. Gould, and ar- 
 ranged under thirteen heads, and were 
 read a second time, it is said, to the 
 church on Ist Feb., 1858, before the re- 
 solution was passed on that very even- 
 ing declaring that it was the opinion of 
 the church that fiirther correspondence 
 
 on the subject " should cease." The 
 objections are placed on I'ecord in the 
 church book under date of Feb. 1, 1858. 
 
 July 18, 1857. Mr. Norton, in his letter 
 of this date, objected that the proposal 
 for arbitration limited the question to 
 the Lord's Suj^ier only, and to the law- 
 fulness of admitting •' unbaptized be- 
 lievers," instead of the lawfulness of 
 admitting any persons whatever, to it, 
 or membership, who were not " Par- 
 ticular Baptists and members also of that 
 or some other church of Particular Bap- 
 tists ;" also that the proposal made the 
 resolution of March 11" the sole question 
 for decision;'" and he said also, "if free 
 communion cannot be practised there, the 
 proposal to arbitrate ought to pledge 
 those who have avowed it to be a sacred 
 duty to practise it, that they will with- 
 draw from that place, tliat being the 
 only course they can pui'sue without 
 abandoning the principles and practice 
 they have avowed to be binding on them." 
 
 As to his ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 
 
 TRUTH AND CHARITY, Mr. N. Said, "The 
 Lord will rebuke you if yoLi are wrong, 
 and I leave him to answer for me." 
 
 As to EVIDENCE to be adduced by^ 
 themselves, he said : — " You decline to 
 lay before me the evidence I ask for from 
 you ; you urge to an arbitration suit be- 
 fore men ' conversant with the law,' and 
 yet deprecate the scandal of a suit be- 
 tween Christians. Is this consistent ? 
 As TRUSTEE, I hope to act honestly in 
 discharge of my pledge." 
 
 July 21, 1857. Mr. Gould to Mr. 
 Norton.— &'A/6/V. K. 37. 
 
 Admission that there was no 
 
 EVIDENCE SUCH AS Mr NorTON ASKED. 
 
 " It has never been asserted," said Mi'. 
 Gould, "that I know of, 'that a limita- 
 tion of property to a certain congrega- 
 tion of Particular Baptists, includes 
 Wesleyan Methodists, Episcopalians, In- 
 dependents, and persons connected with 
 no church whatsoever, as persons en- 
 titled to use it to the exclusion of some 
 of its own members.' When I am suffi- 
 ciently forgetful of the meaning of words 
 to make such an assertion, I dare say 
 that I shall attempt to prove it also, but 
 at present I do not feel bound to un- 
 dertake the task." "If your acceptance 
 of the offer of arbitration depends upon 
 our giving ' evidence ' of such a propo- 
 sition, I am sure that it must not be 
 looked for. Those who ' wish to act as 
 it becomes Christians,' cannot be ex- 
 pected to prove themselves fools. The 
 ' limitation ' of a bucket is never sup- 
 
posed by sane men to ' include ' the 
 ocean." 
 
 Some such persons were actually acl- 
 initted to the Lord's Supper, and their 
 admission to it exdiidcd from that ordi- 
 nance, at those times, members of the 
 church. Yet, by the above words, Mr. 
 Gould admitted that such persons had 
 NO TITLE whatever to the use of the 
 chapel, except so far as every chapel is 
 open by law to any one who pleases to 
 enter it as a spectator, or general wor- 
 shipper. How was it possible, thei'e- 
 fore, to justify this exclusion, from the 
 Lord's Supper of persons who laid, by 
 those who had n^t, a title to be there? 
 No one denies that those members who 
 adhei'ed conscieiitioitsly to the former 
 practice of the church, were compelled 
 on these occasions to keep away. If a 
 wife might be deprived of her peculiar 
 rights as a wife, and another be admit- 
 ted to them in her room, for a day or 
 an hour, without a breach of proprietj^, 
 then, indeed, might these members be 
 deprived justly in such way of their 
 rights also. If hijh mass might be per- 
 formed in the chapel, then might the 
 Lord s Supper be observed there with 
 the "members of all Chi-istian churches." | 
 Mr. Gould proceeded to say, — " In I 
 the absence of any phrase iu the Trust- j 
 deed which allects the question of com- 
 munion at the Lord's table, I fling back j 
 the accusation [of a breach of trust], as 
 a slander upon your brethren." This I 
 remark virtually denies what the former ' 
 admits : for the deed cannot exclude all 
 but members, from rightful use, without 
 excluding all but membei's from the 
 2»'irile[/es peeuliar to memhership ; and . 
 such a privilege the Lord's Supper has 
 always been esteemed in this church. 
 Nor does Mr. Gould himself deny it to 
 be rightly so esteemed. The ground on 
 which he admits " all believers " to the 
 Lord's Supper, is that faith constitutes 
 them members of the church of Christ. 
 The Deed, therefore, is as conclusive as 
 to the Lord's Sapper, as it is respecting 
 fall membership. It cannot limit use to 
 this church, without limiting use also to 
 those entitled to its privileges, including 
 that of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 To prove " violation of truth," 
 Mr. Gould said that " the facts alluded 
 to" in Mr. Norton's letter of July 1, 
 1857, " had not occurred" at the time 
 of the meeting of trustees, on Aug. 30th, 
 1815, at which, Mr. N. said, there was 
 a "refusal to state the facts respecting 
 Mr. Keif." (See p. 10 preceding). Mr. 
 Gould assumed that these words referi'cd 
 
 to " the facts respecting " Mr. Keifs 
 actual exclusion, which occurred a year 
 later, that is ou Aug. 31, 18i6; and 
 upon this error of his own imagination, 
 he founded a charge which nothing but 
 proved fart and guilty intention could 
 justify. The facts Mr. Norton really 
 alluded to, were these : — For some time 
 before Aug. 30th, 1845, Mr. Keif aad 
 other members had been aud were stiil 
 absent from the Lord's Supper ; this 
 absence was from a sense of duty, aud 
 in order to protest against the new ser- 
 vice ; and it was also a fact well known 
 that by this course th-iy were exposed, 
 if treated according to the usual prac- 
 tice as to absentees, to speedy exclusion 
 by the free commuuion members ; unless 
 the new service were given up, so as to 
 enable them conscieutioudly to rettiru. 
 Mr. Norton's notes of his visit to Nor- 
 wich, in June, 1845, state that he then 
 heard membei's say that thej' felt bouud, 
 as a matter of conscience, not to ob- 
 serve the Lord's Supper with those who 
 communed with the uubaptized ; and 
 for this rea.^on, that if they v/ere to do 
 so, they would be giving a tacit consent 
 aud sanction to the new practice, which 
 they felt bound not to do. He also 
 heard that Mr. B. had said he had three 
 charges against Mr. Keif. On July 18th, 
 1845, Mr. Edmund Hastings, after stat- 
 ing that from the Lord's Supper that 
 month, " more of the brethren [had] 
 absented themselves," said " we feel 
 that we can do nothing further at pre- 
 sent than continue thus to show our dis- 
 approbation of the measure.'''' (Letter be- 
 fore the Ed.) Among these members 
 Mr. Keif became remarkable as the first 
 selected for exclusion. Messengers 
 were appointed on June 1, 1846, to 
 visit him ; and on doing so said (as Mr. 
 Keif informed Mr. Norton, Sep. 21st, 
 liiQ.—Exbt. P. 2), that "they were 
 come according to the usual practice of 
 visiting persons who had absented them- 
 selves a tivelremonth." Reckoning twelve- 
 months from the Lord's Supper in May, 
 1846, Mr. Keif, must, at the least, have 
 been absent from the Lord's Supper 
 since May, 1845. The ten members 
 afterwards excluded were so in June, 
 1 1857. Mr. Norton mentioned Mr. Keif 
 ; as the one in whose case the facts to 
 1 which he referred were, on Aug. 30, 1345, 
 I most unquestionable. That the trustees 
 did actually refuse to insert a statement 
 of the facts couceruiug the said absent 
 members, was stated by Mr. Wilkin iu 
 j his printed letter of April 20th, 1846. 
 I Seep. \Q preceding, under Aug. 30</(.,lS45. 
 
38 
 
 As to Mr. Noi"tou's alleged vio- 
 lation OP cii-VKiTY, it is BuiScient to 
 say that one of the things stated by Mr. 
 Gould, as grounds for the charge, was 
 this : " The insinuations that myaelf and 
 friends ' desire that [«] money consider- 
 ation should be conceded to ' us." These 
 "insinuations " consisted of Mr. Norton's 
 proposal, with a view to an amicable 
 settlement, that a sum of money should 
 be given by the strict members, in case 
 the free communion members withdrew; 
 a proposal which he viewed as in every 
 sense a charitable, and in no sense an un- 
 charitable one. How it could have been 
 viewed otherwise he can scarcely tell. 
 
 "Between a friendly reference" 
 to men " conversant with the law," and 
 " a public contention for the mastery 
 in open Court," Mr. Gould said there 
 was an "essential difference.'' There 
 was, it must be admitted, if the one was 
 to be an act of contention, and the other 
 an act of real friendship. But it is jms- 
 sible to make a reference to a Court of 
 law as friendly as one to arbitrators. 
 Mr. Gould added, " God has forbidden 
 you to drag us into a court of law," 
 ^hich seemed to intimate that the 
 difference he meant was one of Chins- 
 tian principle. But did he suppose 
 that the words, "Dare any of you go 
 to law before the unjust, and not be- 
 fore the saints," (1 Cor. vi. 1,) included 
 barristers when made judges by the 
 Crown, among " the unjnst," and barris- 
 ters chosen to be judges in arbitration, 
 among the saints? If an appeal to the 
 'principles and practice of " the saints " 
 who founded this church and this 
 trust, and had a right to decide what 
 was the worship to be conducted in 
 this building, had been deemed suffi- 
 cient by all to decide this case, there 
 would have been no need to refer it to 
 persons learned in the law. But when 
 lawyers, as laivyers, are appealed to, it is 
 vain to attempt to divide them into an 
 unjust Bench and a saintly Bar. 
 
 This letter was accompanied by ex- 
 tracts FROM THE CHURCH BOOKS, con- 
 taining valuable information. 
 
 July 24th, 1857. Mr. Norton to 
 Mr. Gould. 
 
 Mr. Norton requested further ex- 
 tracts FROM THE CHURCH BOOKS in 
 answer to other inquiries. 
 
 As to VIOLATION OP TRUTH, he Said : 
 " Please to prove that no facts to which 
 I could refer [on July 1], were known 
 respecting Mr. Keif and others, at the 
 time referred to [Aug. 30th, 1845]. or 
 confe-s the impropi'iety of imputing to 
 
 me a violation of truth on the grounds 
 you have stated. You will find the fact 
 to which I refer," that is the refusal of 
 the trustees, " stated at p. 5 of a certain 
 pamphlet, thus : ' the insertion of a 
 statement that the nctv practice would 
 have the effect of excluding several of those 
 who adhered to the old practice,' &c. 'was 
 refused.' " The pamphlet thus referred to 
 was that containing the cases submitted 
 by Mr. Norton to counsel, and printed 
 in 1847, above referred to. 
 
 July 25, 1857. Mr. Gould to Mr. 
 Norton.— £'.r6<. P. 3. 
 
 Further extracts from church 
 BOOKS were sent in answer to Mr, Nor- 
 ton's inquiries. 
 
 In answer to the request for a minute 
 " authorising the admission of members of 
 all christia7i churches, includingWesleyan 
 Methodists, &c., &c.," to the Lord's 
 Slipper ; Mr. Gould gave the resolution 
 of Mar. 11, 1857. 
 
 In answer to the request for "the 
 terms of any and every entry which 
 shews that any person who had not been 
 immersed on a credible profession of 
 faith, has ever been received to communion 
 with the church either at the Lord's Sup- 
 per or otherwise," Mr. Gould could ad- 
 duce nothing earlierthan 1857, which was 
 an admission that the practice of the 
 church had always till then been Strict. 
 The sole extract he gave in answer to 
 this request was the second resolution, 
 given under date of Mar. 30th, 1857, — 
 " That those believers," &c., p. 18 
 preceding. 
 
 As to the alleged violation of 
 TRUTH, Mr. Gould no longer insisted 
 that Mr. Norton had alluded to Mr. 
 Keif's exclusion, and had assigned to it 
 a false date. He now admitted that Mr. 
 N. " intended to refer " to the fact 
 mentioned in the above named pamph- 
 let, that the trustees refused on Aug. 
 30th, 1845, to state that several mem- 
 bers (among whom was Mr. Keif), were 
 in clanger of exclusion for conscientious 
 absence from the Lord's Suppei", occa- 
 sioned by the new practice ; but Mr. G. 
 still spoke of " the facts respecting Mr. 
 Keif " as if not included in these facts, 
 and of " the words used in [Mr. N's] 
 letter of July 1, 1857," as if they were 
 "a< variance with what occurred at the 
 meeting of the trustees," on Aug. 30th, 
 1.845. So that what he still maintained 
 was contrary to what has just been 
 proved. 
 
 July 27, 1857. Regular church- 
 meeting. 
 
 The LETTERS which had passed 
 
39 
 
 between Mr. Gould and Mr. Norton, 
 between July 14tli and 25th, were read. 
 
 Accuracy of statement. The re- 
 cords say, that Mr. Newbegin expressed 
 " his concurrence with Mr. Barber, in his 
 designation of the tone of the corres- 
 pondence fls most unrjcntlcmanhj, so far 
 as Mr. Norton's share in it extended;" 
 and his conviction that not a word in Mr. 
 Gould's letters was open to censure. — 
 Ch. Bk. 
 
 The first statement is of little impor- 
 tance as to Mr. Norton, but it is of 
 much as to accuracy, in relation to this 
 suit. On enquiry, Mr. Norton was in- 
 formed that Mr. Willis and Mr. Spalding 
 after this record was read, told Mr. 
 Barber of it ; who found that it com- 
 pletely altered his meaning. Mr. Barber, 
 as Mr. Norton is assui-ed, did not allude 
 to him at all, but to Mr. Gould's cor- 
 respondence.—/. B. Feb. 11, 1859. 
 
 Mr. Fletcher thought that to come to 
 
 an AGREEMENT AMONGST THEMSELVES, 
 
 leaving Mr. Norton out of the question, 
 was woi'th while. 
 
 Open Membership. Mr. Spalding 
 said that even if the Strict members 
 were to leave at once, the church would 
 not be united ; because some would 
 desire to have a thorougldy open church, 
 while others would be content with open 
 communion at the Lord's table. — Ch.Bk. 
 
 Measures to be taken with the 
 dissentient members. mr. j. d. 
 Smith, a deacon, moved that messengers 
 be sent to those who had been absent 
 since March 11, 1857; which was the 
 course usually taken before exclusion 
 from membership. Mr. Moll and Mr. 
 Barber said that, on account of " the 
 pastctrs request," the Lord's Supper had 
 not been observed by these members this 
 month as it had been before. But Mr. 
 Gould said that as they had " set up a 
 rival communion at the Lord's table, and 
 established public worship at the same 
 time as this church [was] accustomed to 
 meet," they " were chai-geable with a 
 
 schismat'ical proceeding upon which the 
 
 church could act without delay," Ch. Bk. 
 Mr. Barber is said to have replied that 
 they were " obliged by their consciences to 
 act as they had done, because they were 
 prevented from communimj at »%. Marys. 
 Mr. Gould denied that they were alto- 
 r/cther prevented from communing as 
 Strict Baptists in St. Mary's ; they could 
 accept the service offered by the reso- 
 lution of March 30. In answer to Mr. 
 Spalding, Mr. Gould is recorded to have 
 said that though they had ceased to ob- 
 serve the Lord's Su^jpcr as before, yet if 
 
 they did not attend public worship, they 
 were, upon the grounds stated in his 
 paper read at last church meeting, liable 
 to proceedings against them. 
 
 Are, then, the facts these ? that at this 
 very time (see July 13), it was admitted 
 that no arrangement could be made 
 without settling the legal question'/ that 
 the dissentient members, by the treat- 
 ment they had received, had been com- 
 pelled for the time being, and till that 
 question was settled, for their own spi- 
 ritual comfort and for conscience' sake, 
 to meet most fi-equeatly elsewhere ? (for 
 some did not wholly absent themselves 
 from meetings of the church, as their pre- 
 sence at this meeting proved) ; yet were 
 they not still threatened with exclusion 
 for absence from worship and the Lord's 
 Supper, if they did not at once acquiesce 
 in the establishment of the new practice, 
 and the surrender of a most impjortant 
 part of their own rights? Was it a fact 
 that after being urged to give up then* 
 own Lord's Supper service, and having 
 so far conformed for a time to the pas- 
 tor's wishes, they were still told that 
 they were not less liable to exclusion 
 than before, if they continued absent 
 from public worsliip, and declined the 
 bread and cup, injurious to their welfare 
 as Strict Baptists, offered to them at the 
 special strict service ? Was it not still 
 maintained that for adhering to the prac- 
 tice of this church they were, according 
 to its practice, liable to exclusion from 
 it ? and liable to exclusion by the very 
 members of it, who had themselves 
 really violated its practice, and then con- 
 strued unwilling absence caused thereby, 
 into wilful absence, deserving to be 
 visited with such exclusion ? And had. 
 not these members given reasons also 
 for having violated that practice of the 
 chui'ch, which, if sound at all, made the 
 exclusion of these true Christians, a sin 
 of tei-rible magnitude, — the sin of tear- 
 ing Christ's body limb from limb ? 
 
 Aug. 3, 1857. Mr. Norton to Mr. 
 Gould. 
 
 Result of reading extracts from 
 CHURCH Books. " The information sent 
 with your letter of July 25, confirms all 
 my previous convictions as to breach of 
 trust." 
 
 No NEED OF ARBITRATION AFTKlt. 
 
 Mr. Gould's admission, MaDe July 
 21. " The deed," said iMr. Norton, " de- 
 clares that the building was designed 
 for [this] congregation of Particular 
 Baptists, and for no other use," &o. 
 
40 
 
 "Words caunot be clearer. It would 
 1)0 vain to suj)pose that any attempt to 
 arbitrate upon their meauiug could make 
 it clearer, or make them mean the re- 
 verse of what they express. You feel 
 their force apparently when, in reply to 
 my request for evidence that Christians 
 of eveiy class and denomination are in- 
 cluded by words which exclude them, 
 you say, that persons who ' wish to act 
 as it becomes Christians, cannot be ex- 
 pected to prove themselves fools.' 
 
 After your admission there is nothing 
 left us to discuss. I pray you, act as it 
 becomes you, and exhort your friends 
 who agree with you to do so too. Do 
 not attempt to put persons who have no 
 right or title to the use of property, 
 into possession of it ; knowing also 
 that you thereby exclude those who are 
 entitled to it, from their right," &c. " I 
 am sori"y that my office as an agent of 
 the law [a trustee], should need to be 
 resorted to, to enforce what I think 
 should have been discharged not merely 
 as a Christian, but as a natural duty. 
 Yours dear sir, with regret and entreaty 
 that you and your friends will spare me 
 any further need of interference, Wil- 
 liam Norton." 
 
 Aug. 10, 1857. Church meeting. 
 Above letter read. 
 
 Aug. ol, 1857. Church Meeting. 
 Open membership. A letter read from 
 a DEACON of the church, " resigning his 
 office of deacon and his membership in 
 this church, on the ground that unbap- 
 tized believers were admitted ' merely to 
 the Lord's Supper,' and not ' also to full 
 membership with the church,' but re- 
 questing permission to commune with 
 the church." The resignation was ac- 
 cepted, and the request agreed to, Sept. 
 28, 1857.-6%. Bk. 
 
 Sept. 1, 18j7. Charity Commission- 
 ers. A statement of the facts of the 
 case, and an Appendix, were laid before 
 the Charity Commissioners for England 
 and Wales, by Reuben Willis and Rich- 
 ard Spalding, two members of this 
 church, who were afterwards two of the 
 plaintiffs in this suit. They prayed that 
 the matters referred to might be in- 
 quired into, and that directions and re- 
 commendatiuus might be given. They 
 referred to Mr. Norton and Mr. Gould 
 as able to give further information on 
 behalf of each, side respectively, if the 
 Commissioners saw fit to ask for such 
 Id formation.— Copy of Statement; and 
 letter of ff. M. Vane, of Sept. 4, 1857. 
 
 Oct. 19, 1857. Thomas Hare, Esq., 
 I::!iPECTOK OF Charities, pursued an in- 
 
 vestigation to-day, Monday, and on the 
 following Friday, into the " charities con- 
 nected with St. Mary's chapel." At the 
 request of the trustees in or near Nor- 
 wich, Mr. H. U. Culley continues to 
 hold the deeds, which are now all num- 
 bered and described in a schedule. Mr. 
 Hare made a remark on the name of 
 Norton, from which it was supposed, in- 
 correctly, that Mr. Norton the trustee, 
 " had been in communication with him." 
 This was not the case. But Mr. Norton's 
 name appeared in the Statement which 
 had been laid before the Commissioners. 
 —Exhibit, P. 4, p. 48 ; /. C. N., Nov. 
 5, 1857. 
 
 Dec. 4, 1857. The eeplt op the 
 Charity Commissioners to the State- 
 ment laid before them on Sept. 1, long 
 expected and often applied for, was 
 sent to-day ; but it merely stated that 
 if the building wei'e registered, and 
 really used, " as a place of meeting for 
 religious worship, it [was] excluded from 
 the operation of ' The Charitable Trusts' 
 Act,'1853,as one of the exemj^tions to the 
 Act specified in the 62nd section." P. 1. 
 
 Dec. 8, 1857. Sec. 64 of Charita- 
 ble Trusts' Act. Mr. Ivimey was re- 
 quested to ascertain, whether the ques- 
 tion at issue could be brought before 
 the Commissioners under the 64th sec- 
 tion of the Charitable Trusts Act, which 
 provides, " That if any question or dis- 
 pute shall arise among the members of 
 any charity exempted from the operation 
 of this Act, in relation to any office," 
 trustee, or officer, "or generally in rela- 
 tion to the management of the charity, it 
 shall be lawful for two-thirds of the mem- 
 bers present at any sjDecial meeting, duly 
 convened by notice for the purpose in 
 the same manner in which meetings of 
 such charity are by the ndea thereof 
 appointed to be held and convened, to 
 refer such question or dispute to the 
 arbitration of the commissioners, who 
 shall acccut such reference, and act therein 
 as arbitrators, and their award shall be 
 final, and may be made a rule of her 
 Majesty's High Court of Chancery." — ■ 
 W. N. to J. I., Dec. 8. 
 
 Dec. 9, 1857. Mr. Ivimey wrote to 
 the Commissioners on the subject. — J. I. 
 Dec. 9. 
 
 Dec. 17, 1857. No answer yet re- 
 ceived from the Commissioners, in answer 
 to i\li-. Ivimey's letter of Dec. 9. The 
 opinion at Norwich was that the free 
 communion majority would not refer the 
 question to the arbitration of the Com- 
 missioners.— IF. N. to J. J., Dec. 17. 
 
 Dec. 17, 1857. Mr. Norton, as atrus- 
 
41 
 
 tee, went to the office of the Commis- 
 sioners, and saw two of the chief clei-ks. 
 They informed him that, in their view, 
 if two-thirds of the members should agree 
 to ask the Commissioners to arbitrate, the 
 latter must, according to the wording of 
 the Act, do so ; also that the endou-ments 
 came under the proper jurisdiction of the 
 Commissioners. — Note Boole, and W. N. 
 to J. B., Dec. 17. 
 Dec. 22, 1857. Proposal madk to 
 
 THE CHURCH TO SUBMIT THE QUESTION TO 
 
 THE Charity Commissioners, as arbi- 
 trators, by Mr. Norton to Mr. Gould. 
 
 Though Mr. Gould's admission as to 
 want of evidence, seemed to leave no 
 ground of defence whatever for the new 
 practice, it was still continued. To test 
 once more the willingness of Mr. Gould 
 and his friends to submit the question 
 to arbitration upon a broad basis which 
 would make the ichole ccue the subject 
 of decision, Mr. Norton proposed, on 
 Dec. 22, the Charity Commissioners for 
 arbitrators, and the following questions 
 for tlieir consideration .•— 
 
 " Whether the system, commonly called 
 Free or Open communion, that is, the free 
 admission to communion of all persons 
 applying for it, viho may be regarded as 
 godly, ichaterer their religious sentiments 
 or denomination, can, according to the 
 trusts on which the chapel and premises 
 are held, be lawfully pjractised by this 
 church, or by any persons whatever, in this 
 chap)el. 
 
 "And whether the introduction into this 
 chwch and chapel of a part of the said 
 system, is a breach of the trusts or not." 
 
 He also proj)osed that it be an " ex- 
 press provision and condition" that Mr. 
 Gould and Mr. Norton, the trustee, and 
 also any others of the members or trus- 
 tees who might " accompany them, be 
 first fully heard in presence of the said 
 Commissioners and of each other, touch- 
 ing the reasons in favour of and opposed 
 to the lawfulness of introducing the prac- 
 tices of the said system," into that chajDcl ; 
 and it was to be understood that, "on 
 these conditions, the award of the Com- 
 missioners on these questions would be 
 
 FINAL." 
 
 In the letter which accompanied this 
 proposal, Mr. Norton said : — " Dear Sir, 
 — At length all is ready, if no equitable 
 mode of arbitration be assented to, to 
 use the only remedy left. But if you 
 iliink fit," &c., &c., " I think that the ne- 
 cessity for other measures may be pre- 
 vented."— ^.t7(/6/f, P. 4, pp. 68 to 71. 
 
 Dec. 24, 1857. A further statement 
 by Mr. Willis and Mr. Spalding was sub- 
 
 mitted to the Commissioners, referring 
 specially to the endoioments, amounting, 
 they were informed, to " upwards of 
 £2000, yielding interest, part of which 
 interest is entrusted to the deacons of 
 the said Baptist church, to be by them 
 distributed to poor persons connected 
 with that church and place of worship." 
 They said "that the innovations which 
 they [had] referred to at length, in 
 the statement and Appendix which they 
 [had] " already submitted, would " have 
 the effect of entirely excluding them fi-om 
 their share of the said interest in case of 
 their being in need ; because their con- 
 science compels them to be members, if 
 it be possible, of suc?t an organized body 
 as this was, when" the endowments were 
 made, and these innovations, if con- 
 tinued, would " compel them to leave" 
 that body, and would thus exclude them 
 from their share in the endowments. 
 They therefore entreated opinion and 
 advice as to the means by which those 
 innovations might be caused to cease, and 
 their interest in the said endowments se- 
 cured. — Copy in Exhibit, P. 1 ; and It. W. 
 to W. N., Dec. 25. 
 
 Mr. Norton had said, on Dec. 21, as 
 to this second appeal, " Do not think 
 that it will of itself settle the question ; 
 but it is desirable as a help, especially as 
 to expenses, if we must, as it is probable, 
 go into Court." — Exlilbit, P. 4, p. 63. 
 
 His allusion was to a provision in the 
 Charitable Trusts' Act. In sec. 16, it 
 says, that " every trustee and other per- 
 son who shall act upon or in accordance 
 with the opinion or advice giren by the 
 said Board shall, in respect of so acting, 
 be deemed and taken, so far as respects 
 his own responsibility, to have acted in 
 accordance with his tru.st ; and no judi- 
 cial order or direction subsequently 
 made or given by any court or judge... 
 shall ... impair the indemnity by this 
 act given to trustees and other persons 
 who have acted upon or in accordance 
 with such opinion or advice of the said 
 Board." 
 
 Dec. 25, 1857. Mr. Gould asked Mr, 
 Norton, if he had " ascertained that 
 suclx question [was] within" the jurisdic- 
 tion of the Commissioners, "and whether 
 tliey [would] themselves, and not by an 
 inspector, or other deputy, entertain and 
 finally dispose of the same." 
 
 Dec. 28, 1857. Mr. Norton replied 
 that " from the information [he had] re- 
 ceived, [he had] reason to think that if 
 tir'i-thirds or more of the menibers" re- 
 quested it, " the office of arbitrators 
 [would] probably be accepted by the 
 
42 
 
 Commissioners themselves, not by deputy, 
 and as final adjudicators." 
 
 Dec. '28, 1857. Church meeting. 
 
 TUE PROPOSAL FOR ARBITRATION BY THE 
 
 CiiARiTv Commissioners was submitted. 
 The church-book says that Mr. Barber, 
 a .strict member, said that papers on the 
 subject had been for some time past in 
 the Commissioners' hands ; that Mi*. 
 Fletcher and Mr. Tillyard objected to 
 "the terms proposed, because of their 
 misrepresentation of the true issue which 
 had been raised ;" also that Mr. Gould 
 stated his objections, and " was requested 
 to act according to his own judgment." 
 — Minutes 3 and 7. 
 The church membership of unbap- 
 
 TIZED persons AGAIN RECOGNIZED. The 
 
 invitation of unbaptized church members 
 to the missionai-y communion had recog- 
 nized their membership. The majority 
 of this church had also long been accus- 
 tomed to dismiss members to Indepen- 
 dent and other mixed-membership churches. 
 A letter may, no doubt, be sometimes 
 called one of dismission, and yet be so 
 worded as neither to recognize, nor be 
 intended to recognize, the society to 
 which it is sent, as being a duly consti- 
 tuted church. But the free communion 
 members of this church recognized such 
 churches as "sister churches." — Ch. Bk., 
 Sept. 1, 1851. And a letter drawn up by 
 the pastor, and adojpted on Dec. 28, 1857, 
 was not only addressed " to the church 
 of Christ meeting in the Independent 
 chapel. Prince's Street," but expressed 
 gladness that the person then dismissed 
 to it could thus recognize the unbaptized 
 as having a right to membership. The 
 letter said tliat the person dismissed 
 had signed tlie Declaration presented to 
 this church on June 29, and had thei-ein 
 stated that 7ione but persons immersed 
 upon faith " should be received to the 
 Lord's Supper or to full chxirch member- 
 ship," and in refei'ence to her now seeking 
 membership in a church composed chiefly 
 of those who had not been so immersed, 
 the letter said, " We are glad to find that 
 she has learnt ' a more excellent' way." 
 
 The question whether this letter 
 proves that the free-communion mem- 
 bers must, if they act consistently witli 
 their otvn principles, admit unbaptized 
 believers to full membership), is left to 
 the decision of the reader. 
 
 Jan. 2, 1858. Mr. Gould to Mr. Nor- 
 ton. Exhibit, P. 3. Arbitration. " I 
 am glad that at last you admit the prin- 
 ciple of arbitration in the question be- 
 tween us." 
 
 His rea.sons F(»u declining Mr. N.'s 
 
 proposal were briefly these. First, as 
 to the arbitrators, he said, "I am ad- 
 vised that tlie question at issue between 
 us does not lie within their [the Commis- 
 sioners'] jui'isdiction ;" that they " have 
 no authority to" arbitrate. Next, as to the 
 questions proposed for decision. " Your 
 proposal contains a definition of * open 
 or free communion' which I could not 
 accept," nor " allow to be substituted for 
 the resolution [that of March 11] upon 
 which you have presumed to charge the 
 church with a violation of the trust 
 deed. The question between us is... 
 ...whether that resolution is a violation of 
 the trust deed. An arbitrator, or a judge, 
 can only be called upon to decide that 
 point." The " Characteristics of [the] 
 proposal," he said, were, " arbitrators 
 that cannot (as I am advised) arbitrate, 
 and false issues substituted for the true 
 one." Mr. Gould said that he was ready 
 to listen to proposals for arbitration as 
 to " communion at the Lord's table," and 
 " ujion the basis of the resolution of 29th 
 of June last." He adhered absolutely to 
 his own plan, even in the points ob- 
 jected to. 
 
 Questions for the reader. In what 
 were the issues raised by Mr. Norton's 
 " questions" false ? Why could not an 
 arbitrator be asked to decide on " the 
 resolution" directing E. Bayes to be re- 
 ceived " as a member;" as well as on " the 
 resolutioti" of March 11, 1857, relating 
 solely to communion at the Lord's table? 
 and also on the question whether unbap- 
 tized persons may observe the Lord's 
 Supper "in this chaiDel" at all, as well 
 as whether they may observe it there 
 with tlds church, in its church capacity ? 
 for to this last jjoint, the resolution of 
 March 11, 1857, said to be "the question 
 between us," related. 
 
 Jan. 8, 1858. Mr. Norton to Mr. 
 Gould, L'.vhibit, P. 4, p. 73. 
 
 " I admit notliing as to ' the principle' 
 of ar'oitratiou, which I have not always 
 admitted. You are not correctly advised 
 as to the powers of the Charity Com- 
 missioners. The resolution.... to which 
 you refer [March 11, 1857] does not... 
 include all the breaches of trust which 
 have been complained of; at rdl events 
 the question at issue could not be 
 ' fairly' raised upon that resolution 
 only. One person has been received as 
 a member, I believe, uuimmersed."... 
 
 As to any alteration of expression 
 
 AND MODE OF STATEMENT, the Writer 
 
 said, " If your objection to the ques- 
 tions raised m my proposal, were one 
 of expression only, or if you wished 
 
43 
 
 to state the question in any other mode, 
 which would raise all the points at 
 issue, and i-ecognize all that has been 
 already i-ecoguized, as to the relation of 
 these practices to the great question of 
 free and strict communion, there might 
 be hope of such an appeal as I have pro- 
 posed. But it is impossible to admit 
 that it is a matter of fact that the reso- 
 lution to which you refer, is the sole 
 point on which an arbitrator or judge can 
 be called to decide,.... and even if this 
 sole point were raised, it would leave 
 other instances of breach of trust still 
 undecided." 
 
 Jan. 9, 1858. Mr. Gould to Mr. 
 Norton. Exhibit, P. 3. 
 
 As to the resolution of March 11, 1857, 
 Mr. Gould said, that ' ' nothing had been 
 previously agreed to by the church," 
 that is, before it was passed. Will the 
 reader compare with this statement the 
 resolution said to have been passed by 
 the church in 1849, when without a pas- 
 tor (p. 15 preceding, column 1), and that 
 of Jan. 26, 1857, as to E. Bayes (p. 15, 
 column 2). Mr. Gould said he was 
 still willinr/ to submit to arbitration the 
 question "in regard to communion at 
 the Lord's table ;" and added, " In no 
 instance, that I am aware of, has any 
 resolution been adopted, or any act been 
 performed, which is not provided for in 
 the terms of this offer of arbitration." 
 
 " Elizabeth Bayes," he said, " com- 
 muned with the church prior to her bap- 
 tism, but was not received as a member 
 until after her baptism. ' The constitution 
 of the church remains unaltered.' " 
 
 He would meet Mr. Norton either in 
 Norwich or London, " to set forth the re- 
 solutions which the church [had] ari-ived 
 at upon the question of ' communion at 
 the Lord's table with unbaptized be- 
 lievers.'" But, unless the resolution 
 that E. Bayes be admitted as a member, 
 were set forth also, the objection that Mr. 
 Gould's plan excluded it from considera- 
 tion, would still have remained, even if 
 the fullest consideration could hy this 
 setting forth have been secured, of every 
 resolution relating merely to the Lord's 
 Hupper. Mr. Gould, in his letter of 
 Jan. 2, had contended that the reso- 
 lution of March 11, 1857, was the sole 
 point which an arbitrator could " be 
 called upon to decide." 
 
 Jan. 13, 1858. Mb. Norton to Mr. 
 Gould. Exhibit, M. 2. 
 
 Mb. Gould's plan of arbitration. 
 What was " not provided for " by it. 
 
 The " resolution " to admit E. Bayes 
 AS A MEMBER was not provided for. 
 
 Nor the question as to the admis- 
 sion of persons not proved to have sav- 
 ing FAITH. The missionary communion 
 of members of all Christian churches, in- 
 cluded Wesleyans. But "their society 
 is declared by its rules to be ' a company 
 of men having the form, and seeking the 
 power of godliness.' " Mr. Gould's plan 
 related only to " unbaptized believers" 
 and not to the admission of any person 
 who is an unbeliever " in the Baptist 
 sense, of one who has [not] saving faith," 
 a person such as, by the very constitu- 
 tion of their society, some Wesleyans are 
 implied to be. 
 
 Nor did the expression " unbaptized 
 believers," touch the subject of particu- 
 lar REDEMPTION, and "fully raise the 
 question as to the admission of Armin- 
 lANS, even if they are believers." 
 
 The meaning of "unbaptized," was 
 more ambiguous than unlmmersed would 
 be. 
 
 The plan was " defective in its pro- 
 posals to bind each side to certain 
 courses." It did not expressly bind 
 "the members of the church to cease 
 from all the practices objected to as 
 breaches of trust ;" and if, as Mr. Gould 
 said, on July 14th, it was intended to 
 do so, that meaning could "be ex- 
 pressed." On the other hand, the plan, 
 though it included " only a part of the 
 breaches of trust alleged," yet proposed 
 to bind Mr. N. "to abstain from a/t legal 
 proceedings, including those which refer 
 to breaches not included in the question 
 submitted to arbitration." 
 
 Mr. N. said that the proposal sub- 
 mitted BY himself permitted questions 
 as to " each of these alleged breaches of 
 trust to be raised;" and added : " As I 
 said before, I do not stipulate that no 
 other terms shall be used." 
 
 He gave choice of two other modes 
 of stating the questions, both of them, 
 in effect, raising these three questions : 
 " Whether the admission of persons 
 who are not 'Particular Baptists' to com- 
 munion vjifh this church in the obser- 
 vance of the Lord's supper ; and whether 
 the communion of such persons with 
 some of the members of this church iri cb- 
 scrving it in this place of worship ;" and 
 also " whether the resolution pHissed by 
 the church as to Elizabeth Bayes, on Jan. 
 26th, 1857," were, or involved, breaches 
 of the trust deed. 
 
 Jan. 15th, 1858. Mr. Gould to Mb. 
 Norton. Exhibit, K. 38. 
 
 His reply to objections to his plan 
 of arbitration. First, That the case of E. 
 Bayes [was] not provided for. Mr. G. said 
 
41 
 
 tbat she " was uot received as a mem- 
 ber imtil after her baptism." He said 
 also, " the discussion at the church-meet- 
 ing no less than our subsequent 
 
 action towards her, distinctly shews the 
 meaning which, from the first, was at- 
 tached to the phraseology of the reso- 
 lution. And I therefore declare that, 
 by its adoption, the ' constitution of the 
 church ' was unaltered. It simply ad- 
 mitted Elizabeth Bayes to the Lord's 
 Supper as an unbaptized believer on the 
 ground of her willingness to be baj^tized 
 as soon as the providence of God allow- 
 ed." He quoted the resolution of Jan. 
 26th, 1857, and said that it was "in 
 consequence thereof [she] communed with 
 the church prior to her baptism." 
 
 That resolution directed her to be ad- 
 mitted " as a member ;" so that if her 
 actual admission was " in consequence," 
 and, as the Church Book (Feb. 23, 1857) 
 states, "in pursuance" of that resolution, 
 it must have been as a member. Again, 
 how could the words "as a member" 
 possibly mean, not as a member, but 
 "simply to the Lord's Supper ?" Besides, 
 Mr. Gould himself when he said, in this 
 letter, that she " was not received as a 
 member until [July 5] after her baptism," 
 did not mean that she was not receircd to 
 the Lord's Supper till then. He himself 
 used the words as a member in the very 
 sense which he denied to them in the 
 resolution. 
 
 The "discussion at church meeting" 
 too, is said by others to have left au 
 impression contrary to that stated ; an 
 impression that Mr. Tillyard meant E. 
 Bayes to be received to the full rights 
 of membership when unbaptized ; and 
 upon the ground that she was " rlrtuully 
 baptized," and therefore as much entitled 
 to them as if she had actually been so. 
 Seven trustworthy members, in April, 
 1857, stated, and signed the statement, 
 that Mr. Tillyard urged his motion on 
 the ground tliat E. Bayes was " vii-tually 
 baptized." "An account," &c., p. 2. One 
 of these had made the same statement 
 on Mar. 2, 1857, Exhibit, K. 25, and 
 made it again on Mar. 30, 1858, saying, 
 " certain I am that several of the breth- 
 ren understoixi theresolution to mean that 
 she was admitted a member of the church ;'' 
 for " 3fr. Tillyard said, iu proposing the 
 resolution, that he considered she was 
 virtually baptized." 
 
 Resfjecting the reason of the "subse- 
 quent action towards her," that is, after 
 the resolution was passed, it may be 
 .stated that this member said, on Mar. 
 30th, 1858, "I cannot help tliiuking 
 
 that Mr. Gould's not enrolling her as a 
 member of the church till after her 
 baptism was an after thought." This 
 is made jjretty evident by the words of 
 the re.solution of Mar. 11th, 1857, "that 
 the constitution of this church remain 
 unaltered," and Mr. Gould's two state- 
 ments in this letter, she " was not 
 received as a member," and " ' the con- 
 stitution of the church ' was unaltered ;" 
 for the words as a viember would scarcely 
 have been used on Jan. 26th, 1857, if 
 the imj^ression had been as deep then as 
 on Mar. 11th following, that to receive 
 an unbaptized person as a member was 
 an alteration of the constitution of the 
 church. On May 29th, 1857, the above- 
 named member wrote that a free-com- 
 mimion deacon had lately said to him 
 tliat "none could be accepted as members 
 of the church but those who had been 
 baptized," and that "E. Bayes was not a 
 member." Such were the reasons ap- 
 parently why the words " as a member" 
 iu the resolution of Jan. 26th, 1857, 
 were said not to mean as a member. 
 
 As to the objection that, in specifying 
 THE BOND on Mr. Gould's side, the plan 
 did not expressly mention the members as 
 bound to cease from all the practices 
 objected to, Mr. Gould said : "'The 
 result ' of the arbitration was to ' be 
 accepted as a final settlement of such 
 question' and the church ' resolved to 
 abide by ' it :" could this " be fairly 
 iutrerpreted as not binding [them] to 
 cease from all that the arbitrators might 
 condemn as breaches of trust ?'' He spoke 
 of Ml". N.'s "slanderous assertion," and 
 said " your language is either an insult or 
 a calumny."' Nothing of the kind was 
 of course intended. The objection was 
 this. The "question" referred to in 
 the above words, was that " of the legal 
 construction of the trust-deed iu regard 
 to communion at the Lord's tcdjle." 
 This, if it had been left without a rider, 
 would have applied to all acts of com- 
 munion at the Lord's table, though not 
 to admission " as a membei:" But after 
 stating that " the result [was to] be 
 accepted as final," a rider followed spe- 
 cifying by special bond how this accept- 
 ance was to be carried out : " the i^astor 
 expressly binding himself" as to the 
 resolution of Mar. 11th, 1857, '' and Mr. 
 Norton being bound :'' words which 
 seemed to intirjwct what was meant by 
 " accepted as final." A 11 parties, there- 
 fore, or noyie, ought to have 'oeen here 
 specially bound. The effect of binding 
 some only was to limit or seem to 
 limit the general expressions preccdinif, 
 
45 
 
 to the particular persons aud subjects 
 so meutioned. Nothing was easier than 
 clearly to express in the 2}lan itself ,&& 
 Mr. Norton had requested, the intention 
 avowed by Mr. Gould in his letter of 
 July 14. Instead of conveying slander, 
 insult, or calumny, Mr. Norton had 
 merely asked for clearness of ex^jression 
 as to what was said to be intended by 
 the hand. 
 
 To Mr. Norton's " quibble " as to the 
 BOND REQUIRED of him, Mr. Gould said, 
 " you must be well aware that the legal 
 proceediugs referred to," (in the words, 
 all legal proceedings), " would, in the 
 very nature of things, be understood 
 as those relating to the question sub- 
 mitted to arbitration." 
 
 Yet Mr. Gould, in his sermon of 
 June 3rd, 1860, p. 15, says of the trus- 
 tees, other than Mr. Norton and Mr. 
 Wilkin, that " having agreed beforehand 
 to abide by the opinion, whatever it 
 [might] be," on the case laid before 
 Messrs. Bethell and Romilly, in 1 84 5, they 
 
 " have CONSISTENTLY REFUSED TO JOIN 
 
 Mr. Norton in hts subsequent proceed- 
 ings ;" and Mr. Wilkin aud Mr. Norton 
 are implied to have inconsistently de- 
 parted from that agreement. Appa- 
 rently the said bond of 1845, is " under- 
 stood "' by Mr-. Gould himself io relate, not 
 merely "to the question submitted' then, 
 but to every other question which has 
 arisen since, out of the actual exclusion 
 of Mr. Keif, in 1846, of ten others in 
 1847, aud out of the new innovations 
 since the beginuiug of 1857. Surely 
 Mr. Norton is thus justified in having 
 insisted that the bond proposed for his 
 acceptance, in 1 857, should be unequivocal 
 us to its extent. 
 
 ReSPECTIN<} THE BREACHES OF TRUST 
 WHICH HAD BEEN ACTUALLY ALLEGED, 
 
 up to Jan. 15th, 1858, when Mr. Gould 
 wrote, he said : "'All alleged breaches of 
 trust' are, as far as I know, compre- 
 hended in those words,"— communion at 
 the Lord's table, &c. ; " and if they are 
 not, I can only remind you that, up to 
 the present moment, they have not 
 been 'alleged' to me." Mr. Norton 
 took care to remove all objection of this 
 kind in his next letter. 
 
 Respecting the admission of members 
 OF Wesleyan SOCIETIES, as " members 
 of Christian churches," Mr. Gould, after 
 referring to his " most solemn con- 
 victions," said, "I am willing... to vin- 
 dicate their admission to the Lord's 
 table." 
 
 As to the objection that, since proof 
 of SAVING FAITH is not required, *• me 
 
 Wesleyans may lack such faith, he said, 
 " I dare not say that 'they are not re- 
 i/eiierute believers at all.' God has not 
 conferred upon me the awful jDower 
 requisite to search their hearts, and to 
 arrive at such a conclusion." "I shall 
 always be ready to receive any man who 
 professes to be 'a believer in the Lord 
 Jesus ' as one who professes to have 
 saving faith. I may receive him, be- 
 cause I am commanded so to do, but I 
 must not judge him." 
 
 Three startling things were thus 
 implied : first, that in the plan of arbi- 
 tration, the term "believers" was to 
 include all professed believers ; secondly, 
 that the missionary communion was 
 justified by Mr. Gould upon the ground 
 that all such persons ought to be admit- 
 ted to the Lord's Supjier ; and thirdly, 
 that he denied the lawfulness of /urfc/iAfgr 
 a professed believer, as to whether he 
 has saving faith or not. 
 
 For the same reasons he justified the 
 admission of those who do not hold 
 
 PARTICULAR REDEMPTION, " UUleSS," he 
 
 said, " it can be proved, which, thank 
 God, it never can be, that Arminian 
 doctrines damn all the souls that re- 
 ceive them as the truth of God." 
 
 Those Baptists who make particular 
 redemption a term of communion, do, 
 no doubt, in common with all who 
 hold that doctrine, think that Arminian 
 views indicate defective faith and ex- 
 perience, if they are held firmly. But 
 since Particular Baptists do not profess 
 to I'eceive all of whose salvation they 
 have a favourable hope, but only such 
 as make profession of faith in what God 
 has made the object of faith, and do what 
 God requires to be done, their conduct in 
 requiring faith in the doctrine of par- 
 ticular redemption, is a mere act of 
 obedience, and not a decision as to what 
 will be the state at the last, of those who 
 do not hold that doctrine. 
 
 But how, possibly, can all persons 
 
 WHO PROFESS TO BE BELIEVERS, and ALL 
 
 THE MEMBERS of all churches called 
 Christian, lawfully use for their wor- 
 ship a building put in trust for the sole 
 use and worship of a church limiting 
 communion to Particular Baptists ? 
 
 As to ARBITRATORS, Mr. Gould again 
 refused the Charity Commissioners. He 
 would not even " apply to them." 
 
 As to the QUESTION for arbitration, one 
 sentence gave a faint hope of willingness 
 to meet the objections made. It was this : 
 " I have no objection to agree to any 
 questions which fairly grow out of the 
 resolutions or acts of the church, and 
 
46 
 
 which might be deemed necessary ad- 
 juucta to such resolutions or acts, in 
 order to draw the attention of the arbi- 
 trator or arbitrators to the issue which is 
 joined by us." The hope jsroved to be 
 ill-founded. The issue to be joined was 
 never altered. 
 
 Jan. 16, 1858. Mr. Norton to Mr. 
 Gould. Exhibit, P. 4 : actual breaches 
 
 OP TRUST : ARBITRATION. 
 
 He said that he could not admit that 
 "the constitution of the church [was] un- 
 altered j" nor that the resolution of Jan. 
 26, 1857, did not ochnit E. Bayes " as a 
 member ; " for the expression " ' as a 
 member' [did] not mean 'simply as an 
 unhaptized believer,' but, ' as a member.' " 
 Nor that her actual reception could be 
 " ' in consequence' of that resolution," 
 and yet not be, " ' as a member,' "accord- 
 ing to its own language, " whether she 
 were formally stated to be [a member] 
 at that service, or not." 
 
 Respecting breaches op trust he al- 
 leged that the resolutio7i of Jan. 26, 1857, 
 resjjecting E. Bayes ; also her actual ad- 
 mission unbaptized ; also the invitation 
 "given to the members of all Christian 
 churches" and the "consequent actual com- 
 munion" in that chapel, of " the mem- 
 bers of one or more Christian bodies 
 which do not hold particular redemp- 
 tion, nor require proof of saving re- 
 pentance and faith, in order to member- 
 bership ;" were breaches of the trust. 
 
 He objected to Mr. Gould's plan of 
 arbitration, that there was at least room 
 for " question whether it" permitted the 
 case of E. Bayes to be considered, or 
 the reception to the Lord's Supper of 
 " all members" of such bodies as the 
 Church of England and the Wesleyan 
 body ; and that cases involving the 
 " admission of an unbaptized person as 
 a member, and cessation of the rule, 
 that proof oi saving faith ... .is necessary 
 to communion," were "some of the 
 most decided cases of breach of trust." 
 If all such members were admitted, 
 then some " unbelievers" would be so. 
 He objected also to the term " believer,''' 
 as being equivocal, and used by Mr. Gould 
 to include " any man who 2:irof esses to be 
 a believer;" he wished the words "all 
 legal proceedings," to be expressly limited 
 to the actual questions referred to arbi- 
 tration by sucil an addition as " there- 
 on," and requested Mr. Gould to " pro- 
 pose to the church.... at least some 
 statement which [would] meet the above 
 objections." He stipulated nothing as 
 to basis of arbitration, beyond the re- 
 movul of these. 
 
 As to the power of the Charity Com- 
 missioners "to act as arbitrators," he 
 said, "If you were only willing to arbi- 
 trate, you might soon find the truth, by 
 putting it to the test." 
 
 Jan. 18, 1858. Mr. Gould i^romised 
 to lay the above letter "before the 
 church at its next meeting for business." 
 
 Jan. 19, 1858. The Charity Commis- 
 sioners respecting the endowments: 
 their suggestion. Exhibit, M. 3. Their 
 secretary was directed to state that " ex- 
 emption from the operation of the Cha- 
 ritable Trusts' Act does not extend to 
 the endowments belonging to or con- 
 nected with the chapel ;'' and that the 
 Act " intrusts them with the power of 
 granting their certificate to enable pro- 
 per parties to ajjply to the ordinary 
 courts of justice." 
 
 " Adverting," he said, " to the opinions 
 which have been given by the Vice- 
 Chancellor Kindersley, and the Master 
 of the Rolls, when at the Bar, and by 
 the present Attorney-General, on the 
 points at issue, I am to suggest to you 
 that it is open to you to bring the matter 
 to the notice of the Attorney-General 
 ofiicially by a memorial praying him to 
 take such proceedings in the Court of 
 Chancery as to him, in the exercise of 
 his discretion, may seem fit." 
 
 The above letter did not relate at all 
 to arbitration founded on section 64 of 
 the Act, in cases exempted from its direct 
 operation. 
 
 Jan. 23, 1858. A memorial was pre- 
 sented to the Attorn ev-General, ac- 
 companied with the pamjihlet printed 
 by one of the trustees in 1847. It 
 prayed him to take such steps in Chan- 
 cery as to him might seem fit, and 
 tendered, at his request, " a detailed 
 statement of the more recent events 
 briefly referred to in this memorial." P. 1. 
 
 Jan. 30, 1858. Saturday. Arbitra- 
 tion. Mr. Norton to Mr. Gould. 
 Exhibit, P. 4. The monthly church- 
 meeting was to be held on Monday 
 Feb. 1. 
 
 As to the suBj ect of arbiti'ation he i^i-e- 
 sumed that his letter of Jan. 16, met Mr. 
 Gould's " wish that the acts and reso- 
 lutions of the church should be the sub- 
 ject of arbitration," and said that those 
 acts and resolutions were made so in his 
 " last pi'oposal" of Jan. 13th. 
 
 As to arbitrators, he said, " I am will- 
 ing to nominate the Solicitor-General, the 
 Master of the Rolls, and Vice-Chancellor 
 Sir R. Kindersley, or if three of them will 
 not, or cannot act, two of them, on the 
 same terms of fi'ee statement allowed 
 
47 
 
 to each side ; or else -with permission to 
 each, side to draw tlieir case, each case 
 being submitted to the other side before 
 it is laid before the arbitrators, and each 
 side being at liberty to present, in addi- 
 tion to its own statement of case, a 
 statement of objections to any points 
 deemed objectionable in the statement of 
 the opposite side. Also that if any in- 
 accuracy should appear as to matter of 
 fact in the award of the ai'bitrators, their 
 award shall not be final, till the case has 
 again been considered by them, after 
 such inaccuracy has been pointed out to 
 them." 
 
 This proposal was made hurriedly, 
 that it might arrive in time for the 
 church-meeting, and was intended to 
 prevent the supj^osition that Mr. Norton 
 would assent to no ai'bitrators but the 
 Charity Commissioners. 
 
 The opinion of the Solicitor-General 
 might have been taken, and an amicable 
 case then laid, at small cost, before one 
 of the judges referred to. The provision 
 as to '' inaccurac>/" related to "ant in- 
 accuracy" whether affecting or pointed 
 out by one side or the other. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1858. Church meeting. Ar- 
 bitration : THE FREE COMMUNION MEMBERS 
 TERMINATE THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Letters Ijetween the pastor and Sir. N. 
 from Dec. 28, 1857, to Jan. 30, 1858, 
 read ; also a statement of facts from 
 Dec. 1, 1856, when E. Bayes was pro- 
 posed for fellowship ; and a digest of the 
 whole correspondence. Mr. Gould then 
 made some remarks of like kind with 
 those contained in his letters, and enu- 
 merated the breaches of trust alleged 
 by Mr. N. in his letters of Aug. 3, 1857, 
 and Jan. 13 and 16, 1858. 
 
 He said of this church of Particular 
 Baptists, that it might invite others to 
 enjoy its accommodation ''just as a man 
 may have a house given him in trust for 
 the use of his family, without being en- 
 titled to debar their friends from shariug 
 their hospitality." Also that the com- 
 munion of those who are not members 
 " in no way interferes with the uses of 
 the building." But some of the mem- 
 bers were actually deprived of their cus- 
 tomary use of it on every first Sunday 
 of the month, at the least. And, as to 
 a house put in trust for a family : su2J- 
 pose that the husband should banish the 
 wife to a garret, and confer rights lie- 
 longing to her exdusiveh/, on a friend in 
 her stead; would this kind of "hospi- 
 tality," if such the husband should call 
 it, be right, even as to the use of that 
 building ? 
 
 Tt was at this meeting that Mr. N.'s 
 reference, on Jan. 16, to " i^roof of sarintj 
 faith" as havinr/ been "necessary to com- 
 munion" in this building, (p. 46, c. 1,) 
 was, according to the records, said to be 
 an " attempt to support a false charr/c, 
 by ascribing to the church a rule which 
 it has never recognized, and in the nature 
 of things never could have recognized.'' 
 
 Mr. Gould is recorded to have said that 
 Mr. N. had " ample means of knowing" 
 that some of the questions which he 
 ■wished them to submit to arbitration "are 
 at utter variance with our resolutions :" 
 also to have said that they contain 
 " misrepresentations of facts." 
 
 To the provision suggested by Mr. N., 
 in his letter of Jan. 30th, " if any inac- 
 curacy should appear," Mr. Gould is 
 said to have supplied the words, '• in his 
 judgment," as conveying the intended 
 meaning :— ' if any maccuracy should,' "in 
 /(ii- judgment, of course, 'appear?'" And 
 he is said to have remarked, " thus an 
 opening is left for a one-sided judgment 
 after all?" and also: "The fact that 
 Mr. N. should dare to propose such a 
 condition, puts him, in my opinion, ut- 
 terly beyond the circle of honourable men. 
 We cannot hope to settle terms of arbi- 
 tration with a man who thus proves him- 
 self insensible to justice, and we must 
 leave him to his own course as the dis- 
 turber of this church of God." — Ch. Bk. 
 
 Can these church records of what was 
 said, be accurate ? And yet if they had 
 not been so, they would surely have been 
 speedily altered by the majority. 
 
 A RESOLUTION was then passed, on the 
 motion of Mr. Fletcher and Mr. J. J. Col- 
 man, which stated that the resolution of 
 29th of June, ' * regarding the admission 
 of unbaptized believers to the Lord's table, 
 was communicated to Mr. Norton by 
 lettei', dated 30th June, and subse- 
 quently referred to and confirmed in let- 
 ters of 2nd and 14th of July, 1857, and 
 2nd, 9th, and 15th Jan., 1858, respec- 
 tively. That this offer [had] been dis- 
 tinctly refused by Mr. Norton four times, 
 viz., in letters of 1st, 4th, and 18th of 
 July, and 3rd of Aug. 1857 ;" and that his 
 " proposal to refer certain questions as 
 raised by him, to the Charity Commis- 
 sioners ; and his subsequent proposal of 
 the 30th ult., to refer the subject as pro- 
 vided for by clause 4th of his letter of 
 16th of January, to the arbitration of 
 the Solicitor-General and other parties 
 {reserving to himself the right of objec- 
 tion to the award if, in /us judgment, in- 
 accurate in any statement of matter of 
 fact), [were] proposals to which this 
 
48 
 
 church [could] not accede ;" that " the 
 correspondence" on arbitration had been 
 " without any satisfactory result," and 
 that it was " desirable that [it] should 
 cease." 
 
 Mr. Reuben Willis rose to object to 
 this motion, but Mr. Gould refused to 
 permit him.— OA. BL ; R. W., Feb. 3, 
 
 Willingness to arbitrate on equit- 
 able TERMS had now been thoroughly 
 PUT TO TEST. The result justified first 
 impressions. It was now evident that 
 one sole plan (the true nature of which 
 was more seen the more it was tested), 
 had all along, and even in Mr. G's letter 
 of Jan. 15th, been insisted on without 
 alteration ; and that no plan but this, 
 nor any alteration in this which would 
 meet Mr. Norton's objections to it, was 
 deemed by the free communion mem- 
 bers " satisfactory." They had also 
 alleged that Mr. Norton's last proposal 
 meant what was not in his words, nor 
 had entered his thoughts ; and it was 
 they who cut off all further communi- 
 cation. The memorial already presented 
 to the Attorney General, shows that no 
 vain hope had prevented preparation for 
 an appeal to Chancery. 
 
 Feb. 2, 1858. John P. Fearon, Esq. 
 requested, on behalf of the Attorney 
 General, " the detailed statement of 
 more recent events," referred to in the 
 memorial. Exhibit, P. 1. 
 
 Feb. 2, 1858. Mr. Gould forwarded 
 to Mr. Norton a copy of the above re- 
 solution, of Feb. 1st. 
 
 Feb. 3, 1858. Mr. Reuben Willis 
 AND Mr. Richard Spalding, after re- 
 ferring to the church meeting of Feb. 1, 
 said : " You see by this that things are 
 now come to a crisis. It appears to us 
 that the case must now be taken into 
 Chancery, or be entirely dropped, and 
 you and we be made the objects of ridi- 
 cule and scorn, by all the free com- 
 munionists in the kingdom." 
 
 Feb. 17th, 1858. The detailed 
 
 STATEMENT OF MORE RECENT EVENTS, 
 
 had required some time for its com- 
 pletion. It was forwarded to the 
 Attorney General to day. Exhibit. 
 P. 1. 
 
 Mar. 1, 1858. Church Meeting : 
 Proposed exclusion of the Dissenti- 
 ents. 
 
 The correspondence with Mr. Norton be- 
 ing nolo closed, the pastor said that " it 
 was his intention... to bring before the 
 church all ca.«es . . of absentees from the 
 fellowship of the church in breaking of 
 bread and in prayers, that they might 
 be duly con.sidered and dealt with by 
 
 the church," but expressed a desire that 
 they would " reconsider their conduct." 
 March 2, 1858. The Attorney Gene- 
 ral's REPLY TO THE MEMORIAL. Mr. 
 
 Fearon said : " The opinion of the 
 Attorney General is ..that if an Infer-" 
 rnation were presented, with a respon- 
 sible Relator, it would be the duty of 
 the Attorney General to sanction it." 
 Exhibit, M. 4. 
 Mar. 29th, 1858. Church meeting. 
 
 A list of THE ABSENTEES HAD BEEN 
 
 PREPARED by the deacons and pastor, 
 but the latter said that he was unwilling 
 to lay it before the church, till a final 
 effort had been made to induce the 
 absentees to abandon their schismatical 
 course. — Ch. Bk. 
 
 The final effort then resolved 
 ON was the appointment of " the after- 
 noon of the second Lord's day in each 
 month, for the celebration of the Lord's 
 Supper, by baptized believer's only," with 
 the understanding that it would only be 
 continued " to meet their conscientious 
 feelings ;" also the sending of a printed 
 circular to the members, informing 
 them that such a service would be held 
 " in accordance with the I'esolution of 
 30th March, 1857." For circular, see 
 Exhibit. P. 3. 
 
 Mr. Brock said in 1845 (Exhibit, K. 1, 
 p. 2), " Far from me be the desire to 
 tempt you to compromise your prin- 
 ciples ; or, failing that, to jjunish you 
 for holding those principles fa.st." The 
 acceptance of the above proposal would 
 have compromised their principles ; it 
 would have compromised their right to 
 attend all church meetings ; also their 
 duty to insist that none but baptized be- 
 lievers be received to communion, and 
 also to insist that converts who hold 
 Strict Baptist sentiments be not forbidden 
 to enter t'his church. On March 30, 1857, 
 the following questions are said to have 
 been put, and answers received. Q. Was 
 this to be considered the church ser- 
 vice ? A. It would 1)6 a church service. 
 Q. Would the ivhole church be expected 
 to meet on that day ? A. It would de- 
 pend on the sympathy felt with the strict 
 members. Q. Would it be at this ser- 
 vice that the right hand of fellowship 
 would be given to new members ? 
 A. No ; but at the mixed communion 
 service on the first Sunday of the 
 month. ( Willis, March 31, 1857 ; also 
 March 30, 1858). By letter of April 5, 
 1858, Mr. Norton was informed that two 
 of the deacons when reminded that no 
 convert who was a Strict Baptist could 
 join the church in futui-e, had replied, 
 
49 
 
 to the efl'ect, that it would be a good 
 thing that they Cuuld not ; so that this 
 was a well known result ; and to that 
 result the strict members would have 
 assented, by accepting this service. 
 
 April 26, 1858. Church-meeting. 
 Mr. Gould reported that the strict ser- 
 vice was held, but that NONE op most; 
 
 FOR WHOM IT WAS PROVIDED, ATTENDED. 
 
 On June 29, 1857, he had said, " if [the 
 absentees] see that with our convictions 
 of duty to Christ, it is impossible for ws 
 to refuse to receive those whom Christ 
 has received," &c. Exhibit, K. 41, p. 8. It 
 was still difficult for them to see this. 
 
 The names of about sixty members 
 were read, as those op absentees, and 
 messengers were arpointed to visit 
 
 THEM BEFORE EXCOMMUNICATION. This 
 
 motion was made by Mr. Fletcher and 
 Mr. Tillyard. 
 
 April 27, 1858. Mr. Willis to Mr. 
 Norton. After referring to the appoint- 
 ment of messengers, he said : — " The 
 friends in Norwich are very anxious to 
 know how the case is going on, and.. .if 
 you are making any progress." They 
 expected to be cut off at the next church 
 meeting. 
 
 May 13, 1858. Mr. Willis and Mr. 
 Spalding said that they had been 
 
 VISITED BV THE MESSENGERS. 
 
 May 13, 1858. Information and bill 
 FILED. Copies were soon afterwards 
 served on each of the defendants. 
 
 May 18, 1858. Effects produced. 
 Two members, writing to Mr. Norton, 
 said, that from all they could learu, the 
 free-communion membei-s had been taken 
 by surprise, and thrown into perfect 
 confusion; that they seemed to have 
 thought that a suit was not really in- 
 tended. A strict member, one of these 
 two writers, was himself taken by sur- 
 prise. He was present at St. Mary's on 
 Sunday morning, the 16th, unaware of 
 what had happened. At the close of the 
 sermon, the subject was said to have 
 been chosen to guard against over much 
 sorroio. Mr. Gould then referred to the 
 fact that St. Mary's was in Chancery. 
 This hearer did not think some of his 
 remarks inoffensire to the Strict Baptists, 
 but was glad to find that the threatened 
 excision of about sixty members, all without 
 fault, was arrested. 
 
 May 31, 1858. Chorch-meeting. 
 Some of themf.mbers who werk threat- 
 ened WITH exclusion WERE PRESENT. No 
 
 motion was made to exclude them from 
 membership ; but some urged them to 
 leave the meeting. The pastor declhied 
 to do even this, lest it should be turned 
 
 against him in tlic suit, and he dissolved 
 the meeting. — Oh. Bk. 
 
 July, 1858. A defence comhuttee, 
 including the names of "J. J. Colman, 
 John Culley, James King, James New- 
 begin, [and] J. D. Smith," all members 
 of this church, issued an advertisement, 
 in which they said, "the church, on 
 June 29, 1857, unanimously declared its 
 willingness to refer the rpiestions in dif- 
 ference to arbitration. This offer was 
 repeatedly made to Mr. Norton, and de- 
 clined by him." It has been supposed 
 ft'om this statement that what Mr. Nor- 
 ton declined was arbitration in itself, 
 and not merely the plan of arbitratio'i 
 proposed to him. Sufficient has been 
 said to show the truth on this point, 
 and also that "^/;e questions in differ- 
 ence" were not all included in the plan 
 proposed. 
 
 This committee stated that those of 
 the defendants who were trustees, de- 
 sii-ed " to submit themselves to the judg- 
 ment of the Court," and that the " chief 
 burden and risk of the suit [would] fall 
 on Mr. Gould," than which "nothing 
 [could] be conceived more iinjust." 
 They said that he had not " in any 
 manner encouraged this controver.sy," 
 and had " done nothing offensive or un- 
 kind to the plaintiffs or their party ;" 
 that " his conduct had approached as 
 nearly as possible to neutrality." The 
 committee wished "to assist in prevent- 
 ing the mischief which would a.ssuredly 
 ensue in a large numJier of churches simi- 
 liirhj circumstance I with that of St. 
 Mary's, were the plaintiffs in this suit to 
 succeed ;"and they were "sustained by the 
 assui'ance" that if they contended "for 
 principles and for such principles only 
 as lie at the very foundation of a true 
 church ; then this suit must result in a 
 triumph to I'eligious freedom." — Baptist 
 Magazine, July 1858. 
 
 If it be "freedom" to subvert "the 
 very foundation" of this Strict Baptist 
 church, its triumph will not be com- 
 plete till the unbaptized have full mem- 
 bership. In this suit it has been a plea 
 that the constitution of this church is 
 not touched ; that it is a Strict Baptist 
 church still. Must " pnnciples " bow 
 down to chapels? Can a Christian 
 give up God for the sake of a building ? 
 The defence committee have still to la- 
 ment that their " iirinciples" ai-e no part 
 of the "freedom" permitted in that place, 
 as to full chnrcli-mcmhership. 
 
 Jan. 21— Feb. 3, 1859. The Ctiup.cii- 
 BOOKS examined at intervals by authorit.y 
 obtained from the Court. 
 
50 
 
 Another VAIN ATTEMPT TOEpr-ECT amore 
 AMICABLE MODE OF PRocEDURF. was made 
 on the part of the plaintiffs, long after 
 the suit was begun. That suit was be- 
 gun with the utmost reluctance, the 
 strongest avei*sion. The same feeling 
 led to this new attempt. It was made 
 in April and May, 1859. And if posi- 
 tion, character, and likeness of sentiment 
 
 as to free communion, could possibly have 
 availed, success would doubtless have 
 followed. Assurance was received that 
 the attempt was vain and hopeless. It 
 was great satisfaction, howevei', to feel 
 that whatever could be done, had beeo 
 done, first to prevent, and then to re- 
 move the necessity for this suit. 
 
 PART III. -THE INFORMATION AND BILL, ANSWERS, AFFI- 
 DAVITS, AND DEPOSITIONS OF SOME OF THE PLAINTIFFS' 
 WITNESSES ON CROSS-EXAMINATION AND EE-EXAMI- 
 NATION. 
 
 Section I. The Information and Bill. 
 Filed May 13, 1858. 
 
 By this instrument, viewed as an In- 
 formation, Sir Fitzi-oy Kelly, Kut., the 
 Attorney-General, as Informant, on the 
 relation of persons thence called re- 
 lators, gave information to Baron 
 Chelmsford, as Lord Chancellor. By it 
 as a Bill of Complaint, the plaintiffs 
 showed to his Lordship the nature of 
 the comiDlaint by them made against the 
 DEFENDANTS. The Informant and Plain- 
 tiffs prcn/cd the court for relief. 
 
 The Relators and plaintiffs, (in this 
 suit the same persons) were: — William 
 Norton, Simon Wilkin, Recbun Willis 
 and Richard Spalding. The first two 
 were trustees, but not members ; the last 
 two, members of the chui-ch. Their com- 
 plaint was made " on behalf of them- 
 selves and all other persons interested 
 in the trust premises," except the de- 
 fendants. 
 
 The DEFENDANTS were : — the pastor, 
 George Gould, and the rest of the nine 
 trustees : namely, James Cozens, the 
 elder, James Cozens, the younger, Henry 
 UrtiNG CuLLEY, Josiah Fletchek, Ro- 
 bert Tillyard, Joseph Howse Allen, 
 and John Gooderson. 
 
 In answering the Information and Bill, 
 Mr. Gould, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Gooder- 
 son answered separately ; but the fire 
 whose names follow that of Mr. Gould, 
 answered jointly. Mr. Gould put in 
 three answers ; the five nest trustees, 
 two : the others, one each. 
 After the firiit and second answers were 
 
 put in, the Information and Bill was 
 amended, but the alterations made little 
 change as to the substance of it. The 
 following is an abstract of it as amended. 
 
 Abbreviations. — Expressions which 
 occur often will be sometimes given in 
 brief ; for pai'agraph, ph. : congregation, 
 cgn. ; particular, pr. ; general, gl. ; Bap- 
 tist, Bpt. ; redemption, redn. ; commu- 
 nion, cmn. ; confession of faith cfsn. ; 
 Lord's Supper, L's. Spr. ; plaintiff, pltf. ; 
 defendant, deft. The chief points in 
 each paragraph are here marked by 
 italics. 
 
 Ph. 1. Recites the trusts of the deed 
 poll of Nov. 24, 1746, which states that 
 " the money advanced and paid for the 
 purchase of" certain buildings and 
 ground " was raised and advanced by 
 the several members of the cgn. of Pr. 
 Bpts. within the said city of Norwich, 
 the said premises being purchased for, 
 and intended as, a place of public worship 
 for the said cgn. ;" that they " might at 
 all times thereafter be kept and preserved 
 for the use and benefit of the said cgn.," 
 and " be always held, used, and enjoyed, 
 as a place of public worship of Almighty 
 God, for the said cgn. for the time be- 
 ing, ...and to and for no other use, intent, 
 or purpose tvhatsoever." 
 
 2. This was then the only cgn. of Pr. 
 Bpts. in Norwich, and had " there existed 
 for upwards of half a century." 
 
 3. " Baxttist" meant one who had been 
 " wholly immersed" upon " satisfactory 
 proof" of reiientance and faith. The 
 faith required was " not mere assent to 
 a correct creed, but actual confidence 
 
51 
 
 reposed in Christ :" proof, Arts. 22 and 
 39 of Cfsn. of 7 London Churches, 1644. 
 " Particular," referred to " particular 
 or limited redemption," which " doctrine 
 then was that ' Christ by his death did 
 purchase salvation for the elect that God 
 gave unto him :' " proof, Art. 21, of above 
 cfsn. The term was opposed to general 
 redemption, or " the doctrine that Christ 
 purchased salvation for all men." '^Con- 
 gregation, denoted an oi-ganized body or 
 church of believers,... .not a promiscuous 
 assembly of divine woi-shippers." 
 
 4. " The cgn. of Pr. Bpts. tvithin the 
 city of Norwich," meant this cgn., "go- 
 verned by its own rules, holding its own 
 tenets, and following its own practice ;" 
 and also " composed wholly of Bpts.... 
 holding the doctrine of pi*, redn., who 
 had been admitted... as members there- 
 of, and whose names were" recorded in 
 the church books. 
 
 6. From earliest times to 1746, and 
 till a period to be mentioned, immersion 
 upon proof of repentance and faith had 
 been prerequisite " to the rights of full 
 ch.\xvch.-mcinbership." 
 
 6. The church books contain " the 
 names of all the members... .so from time 
 to time admitted." 
 
 7. This church " has also received to 
 occasional communion therewith in the 
 ....L's. Spr., Pr. Bpts. who [were] not.... 
 full members ;" but, till the said period, 
 " no persons have been allowed to cele- 
 brate" it, " or to take part in any business 
 pertaining to the church, without having 
 been first immersed.... a,s aforesaid." 
 
 8. " TJte entire independence of each 
 church" of "strictly congregational 
 polity, of which this. ..is one,'' and its 
 " distinct right to separate rules of faith, 
 government, and action, have.. ..been ex- 
 pressly recognized" by baptized and 
 other churches. 
 
 9. This cgn. " has altvays been wholly 
 independent of all other ...cgns., even of 
 like faith and practice." Other cgns. of 
 Pr. Bpts. have been formed in Norwich, 
 but " have never claimed to take any part 
 in the worship or business of this... cgn., 
 or to participate in the benefits of the 
 said trust." 
 
 10. Till the said period, this cgn. " has 
 both in faith and practice, constantly 
 maintained and adhered to what is gene- 
 rally termed....' <S'<ric< Communion,' that 
 is, has restricted communion" in "all acts 
 performed by it in its church capacity, of 
 which the L's. Spr. is a principal one, to 
 persons (being in full or occasional com- 
 munion with the said cgn.) immersed, 
 and... [being] Pr, Baptists," and "has 
 
 done so on the ground that such a course 
 is enjoined by Christ and is a permanent 
 and inviolable duty." 
 
 11. The books of this.. ..cgn. commence 
 in point of date some time before 1691. 
 
 12. "In the earliest" are "articles... 
 entitled ' The several Articles of our 
 Faith in which with one accord we 
 agree.' " 
 
 Art. 9. " By [it] a ' visible church' is 
 defined to be ' a cgn. [or] company of 
 
 faithful people, baptized believers who 
 
 voluntarily agi^ee to walk together in obe- 
 dience to Christ their head and lawgiver 
 in all the laws and ordinances of his louse. 
 ....And that Christ being the great pro- 
 phet that we are to have in all things, 
 and only to observe all things whatso- 
 ever he doth command, keeping the or- 
 dinances as they are delivered unto us, 
 we may not alter anything, but [must] do 
 all according to the pattern." 
 
 Art. 10. "By [it] the members... pro- 
 fess and declare as follows : — ' We lie- 
 lieve [that] unto this church is committed 
 the power of putting in operation all 
 church censures, admonitions, withdraw- 
 ing communion,' &c....We believe that 
 Christ has instituted several ordinances 
 and laivs delivered to the church, as that 
 ordinance of the L's. Spr., by which we 
 show forth his death till he come ; the 
 building up one another,' &c." 
 
 Art. 8. "By [it] it is declai-ed that 
 ' nothing is left to man's p)rudence in the 
 matters of religion; to which greater pro- 
 minence was afterwards given by being 
 re-inserted at length in the church 
 books." 
 
 13. "Such articles, so far as they 
 extend," were those of " this cgn. in, 
 and previously to,....1746, and no other 
 articles have been ever substituted for 
 them, although the same have been vio- 
 lated in practice as hereinafter men- 
 tioned." 
 
 1 4. " Other entries in the said church 
 books show t\x2A,none but Pr. Bpts. .. .were 
 ...admitted... as members. ..On May 30, 
 1714, this church agreed 'that if any 
 of the old members of the baptized 
 church at Pulham do offer themselves to 
 have communion with us the church of 
 Christ at Norwich, they shall be ad- 
 mitted only on condition... that they 
 agree with us in doctrine, worship, and 
 discipline." 
 
 15. " The usage and practice of this... 
 cgn." in, before, and after 1746, till the 
 time of the innovations, "have been 
 constant and uniform in allowing no par- 
 sons to communicate in the L's. ^}«•. at 
 the said chapel, but such as were Pr. 
 
 D 2 
 
52 
 
 Bpts.," and had been received to "fnU or 
 occasional comminiinnioUh the said ..cgn." 
 " The said church books show that 
 n^hen mcinhers hare fallen aivay fi-om the 
 doctrine or discipline aforesaid, as by 
 j)leading for or couvtcnaiicing infant hap- 
 tism, or (jeneral redemption, or receiving 
 the L's. Sjyr. toith the iin'baptized....t\ie 
 members of this church... have.... with- 
 drawn communion from them.'' 
 
 16. " The admission of individuals not 
 being baptized persons, to full member- 
 .ship or to fellowship with it in.... the 
 L's. SjDr., within the said chapel ..neces- 
 sarily involves the exclusion of those who 
 adhere to Strict Bapti:\t fellowship, and for 
 iohom, alone the said chajjel was exclusively 
 intended." 
 
 17. "In or about the year 1845, the 
 Rev. W. Erock, then being the minister 
 of the said. ..cgn., without the authority 
 thereof, instituted a second monthly 
 service in the said chapel, at which he 
 administered the L's. Spr. to persons 7wt 
 duly baptized as aforesaid." This was 
 "on the third Sunday in the month, the 
 service on the first... being still reserved 
 for bajstized persons only." 
 
 18. " In 1849 the defendant George 
 Gould was appointed minister,'' &c. 
 
 19. " No other material innovation... 
 until.. January 1857, when permission 
 was piu'ported to be given to Elizabeth 
 Bayes to be received at the L's. Spr. on 
 the first Sunday in the month as a mem- 
 ber,... on the ground of her willingness 
 to be thereafter baptized.'' 
 
 " And on the first Sunday in April, 
 1857, persons who were not Pi'. Bpis. 
 nor even Bpts. at all, were actuallj' ad- 
 mitted " to the L's. Spr. ; when " the 
 cgn. was assembled in its... church capa- 
 city." 
 
 20. The several innovations ....were 
 fi'om the first protested against.'' 
 
 ^' Their effect has been from time to 
 time to exclude from church communion 
 ...and from the benefits of the said 
 trusts, various members of the said... cgn. 
 of Pr. Bpts... meeting at the said chapel 
 ...for which cgn., as regulated and estab- 
 lished at the time, the same was so 
 exclusively... put in trust ;... and ... the 
 iuevitable tendency and result of them 
 is or must be to destroy the said... cgn. 
 as so established." 
 
 21. " The innovations and practices 
 last aforesaid, are iii direct violation of 
 the trusts of the said deed of 1746, and 
 tend to the manifest injury of the said 
 
 members; two of whom are the pltfs. 
 
 R. Willis and R. Spalding, who have 
 thereby been shut out from commuuiou 
 
 therein, and deprived of the benefit of 
 the said trusts." 
 
 22. Communications, to efi'ect an ami- 
 cable settlement, " have been made and 
 carried on throughout the whole period 
 from the commencement of such inno- 
 vations," but '• have ultimately proved 
 wholly unsuccessful." 
 
 23. "The present trustees ..are the 
 pltfs. W. Norton and S. Wilkin, and the 
 defts. other than the said G. Gould." 
 
 24. "At an alleged church meeting... 
 on April 26, 1858, the deft. G. Gould 
 reported the names of those members 
 who, on account of the innovations... 
 had been forced to absent themselves 
 from the communion," &c., and "the deft. 
 J. Fletcher... moved for the appointment 
 of a deputation to visit" them and re- 
 port. The deft. R. Tillyard seconded 
 the resolution, and together with defts. 
 G. Gould, and J. Cozens, the elder, 
 " threaten and intend, unless restrained 
 by this Honourable Coui't, to proceed to 
 expel and exclude from the said... cgn. 
 all those who still hold to strict comn., 
 and adhere to the principles and jirac- 
 tice of the authors or founders of the 
 said trust or chapel, and for whom the 
 benefits of the said trust were intended." 
 
 25. " The several defendants (except 
 the defendant John Gooderson)...havo 
 either inti'oduced, or actively promoted, 
 or sanctioned, or else have refused to 
 put a stop to, the innovations." " They 
 perseveriugly refuse,'' notwithstanding 
 " repeated applications, ...to cany into 
 execution the trusts of the said deed." 
 
 26. J. Gooderson declines to join as a 
 pltf. 
 
 27. " The said trust is a charitable trust 
 coming under the i^rotection of the 
 Crown," and is within the exemptions of 
 the Charitable Trusts' Act, 1853." 
 
 28. " The defts. have in their posses- 
 sion, custody, or j)ower, divers deeds, 
 documents," &c., " which they ought to 
 produce, but refuse so to do." 
 
 Prayer. 1. That the Court will de- 
 clare that " none but such as have been" 
 immersed after proof of repentance and 
 faith, and "who profess the doctrine of 
 limited or 'pi'- redn., are entitled to the 
 henefi.ts of the said trust," or " can be con- 
 sidered as full members or occasional 
 communicants of the said. ..cgn., or are 
 entitled to take part in the ordinances, 
 business, or affairs thereof." 
 
 2. " That the trusts of the said deed 
 ...maybe carried into execution," &c. 
 
 8. " That the deft. George Gould may 
 be restrained. ..from admitting to... any 
 act of church communion, and particvi- 
 
5S 
 
 larly from admiuisteriug the L's. Spr. 
 to any [but] Pr. Bpts." 
 
 4. " That the said defts. may be re- 
 strained. ...from allowing the said chapel 
 and premises to be used or enjoyed by 
 any persons not being... Pr. Bpts. ; and 
 also from taking" any step "tending 
 to the expulsion or exclusion from the 
 said...cgn., or the benefits of the said 
 trust, of any Particular Bajitists for 
 holding to sti-ict communion," or " for 
 temporarily absenting themselves," &c. 
 " by reason of the innovations ;" and also 
 from permitting the chapel to be used 
 " otherwise than for purposes consistent 
 with the said trust.'' 
 
 5. " That the deft. George Gould may 
 be removed from being the minister," 
 and " all proper directions given for 
 facilitating and ensuring the election' of 
 some " duly qualified person." 
 
 6. That the other defendants (with the 
 exception of J. Gooderson) "may be re- 
 moved from being trustees," and " other 
 persons duly qualified may be appointed 
 to be trustees." 
 
 7. That " all proper inquiries may be 
 made and directions given." 
 
 8. "That the Informant and Pltfs. 
 may have such further or other relief, 
 as the nature of the case may require." 
 
 Section II. — First Answer of 
 DEFT. G. Gould to the i\FORMATroN 
 and bill, as far as phs. 96 and 99. 
 Sworn and filed Nov. 17, 1858. 
 
 The length of this and of Mr. Gould's 
 third answer increased greatly the cost 
 of the suit. Phs. 1 to 96 are not in 
 direct reply to the bill. The following 
 abstract states briefly the principal con- 
 tents of these paragrajjhs, and quotes 
 sometimes the words used. The re- 
 ferences are by the editor. Those to 
 2}hs. merely, are to other phs. in this 
 answer. The names of Norton, Crisp, 
 &c., refer to affidavits made by them. 
 The name of Crisp denotes an affidavit 
 made by him and thirteen other leading 
 free-communion Baptists, though, for 
 brevity, he only is here named. The 
 numerals I, II, I'efer to Mr. Norton's fii-st 
 and second affidavits ; 1, 2, 3, &c., to 
 paragraphs. 
 
 Ph. 1. The Baptists; their views of bap- 
 tism.— /.'e/- Bill, ph. 3; Norton I.ll to 14. 
 
 2 to 9. — Persons liolding Baptist views 
 in England, and particularly in Norwich 
 and Norfolk, from 1174 to 1567. 
 
 10. — A.D. 1567. Nonconfurmixt sepa- 
 ration in lOorsMp from the Established 
 Cliurch, said to have commenced ; but 
 " separate societies " of Baptists not to 
 
 have been formed till shortly before 
 A.D. 1600. 
 
 11. Particular Baptists : the name 
 " derived from the doctrine called par- 
 ticular or limited redemption, held by the 
 Calviuists, to the efiect that our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, by his -perfect obedience and 
 sacrifice of himself, purchased salvation 
 for all those whom God hath given unto 
 him, that is, ybr the elect."— Ref In Mr. 
 Gould's Ans. III., phs. 2 to 8, the terms 
 
 particular and limited, which are here 
 applied to one and the same doctrine, 
 are applied to different doctrines ; and 
 the term redemption, instead of being 
 used of Christ's sacrifice, as here, is de- 
 fined to be ^'actual deliverance by the 
 
 appilication of Divine mercy, through 
 the atonement... made for the sins of the 
 whole world." — Ans. III., phs. 6, 7. 
 Compare Crisp, phs. 2, 21, 22. 
 
 12. A.D. 1600. "A few separate con- 
 gregations of Baptists in England." 
 Their early records lost. 
 
 13. A.D. 1622. "Samuel How, a Pr. 
 Bpt., was minister of a congregation of 
 Nonconformists. ..not wholly composed 
 of Baptists." — Ref. Crosby in Hist. v. I. 
 pp. 162 — 164, says, " It was not an 
 Anabaptist, but an Independent cgn." 
 
 14. A.D. 1633. Mr. Spilsbf.ry's 
 CHURCH : — " The first cgn. of Pr. Bpts. 
 in London was formed. ...by Mr. Spils- 
 bury." — Ref., phs. 20 and 23, end. Nor- 
 ton II., 2. Crisp, 11. 
 
 15. A.D. " 1646. There were in Lon- 
 don ABOVE forty-six CONS. OF Pk. 
 
 Bpts." — Ref. Like words in ph. 64. 
 Denied by W. Norton, II. 1. 
 
 16. But some Pr. Bpts. were still 
 " members of cgns. ^5;'ac?/si«r/ infant 
 baptism." John Canne mentioned. — Ref. 
 ph. 17 : Norton II. 3 ; Crisp, iLc, 3. 
 
 17. "Name of Congreg.ationalists : 
 under [it] were fi'equently included cgns. 
 of Pi-. Bpts., together with the cgns. of 
 Nonconformists practising infant bap- 
 tism ;" as alike holding that " each cgn. 
 is independent of all external control." 
 /I'e/. Coniiregatiouatist ; not so much the 
 name of Baptist ch urches.aa of their govern- 
 ment ; Bill, ph. 8; Norton I. 8, 9 ; II. 3. 
 
 18. "John ToMBEs...a Pr. Bpt,...iu 
 communion with the Church of England, 
 and with cgns. practising infant bap- 
 tism. ..in the middle of cent. 17." Also 
 an account of him. — Ref. phs. 27, 61 : 
 Norton I. 33 ; II. 3, 7. 
 
 19. " Qualification for civil office, [b}?] 
 receiving the L's. Spr. iu the Established 
 Church : the Pr. Bpts. always con- 
 denuK'd" it.— Ref. Ch. Bk., March 1, 
 1786. 
 
5i 
 
 20. Mr. Spilbery's cgn. "from the 
 time of their formation were in the 
 practice of open membership." " Soon 
 after 1633, a controversy arose," as to 
 open membership. Ref.,phs. 23, 26, 36, 
 66. Denied by W. Norton, II. 2. 
 
 21. " Open-membership [is] now fre- 
 quently used by Pr. Bpts., and [is] used 
 in this answer," for " admitting persons 
 who are not Baptists, but who make a 
 personal profession of faith... to be mem- 
 bers of cgns. of Pr. Bpts." Ref. Crisp, 
 4. Such a cgn. (lev led to be one of Pr. 
 Bpts., Norton, I. 32—33. 
 
 22. Open-membership cgns. " hare 
 always called themselves, and been 
 recognized as Pr. Bpts., and in [them] 
 baptism has been administered always 
 by immersion only, and to those persons 
 
 only who actually profess faith The 
 
 Pr. Bpts. adopting open membership 
 have generally considei-ed the practice 
 of [it] or of open cmn. to be a matter of 
 order or regulation, open to modifica- 
 tion from time to time, and not a 
 
 MATTER OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE." Ref. 
 
 Crisp, 5. The three statements denied, 
 Norton, afffc. I. 33. II. 3, 4. 
 
 23. " Opi:n-membership was adopted 
 BY [the following] cgns. of Pr. Bpta." — 
 Eef. Norton I. 32, 33 ; II. 3. 
 
 Mr. Spilsbery's from a.d. 1633. — 
 Ref. ph. 14 ; Crisp 11 : denied, Norton 
 II. 2. 
 
 Mr. Hy. Jessey's, "from the time of 
 their formation about the year 1635." — 
 Ref. His was the first Independent 
 church; and was formed in 1616, not 
 in 1635 ; Norton II. 3; was extinct be- 
 fore 1746 ; Norton I. 34. 
 
 Mr. J. Bunyan's, at Bedford. — Ref. 
 was called in 1672, not Baptist, but Con- 
 grer/ational, Norton II. 3. 
 
 Broadjiead, Bristol. Ref. : called in 
 1654 Independent; Norton II. 3; was 
 strict before 1746, Norton I. 34. 
 
 At HiTCHiN, Hexham, Tottlebank, 
 Olxey, and Gamlingay. — Ref. None 
 of these sent messengers to the assemblies 
 of messengers of Pr. Bpt. chs. in 1689 
 and 1692.— Ivimey's Hist. I. 503—511. 
 
 In Wales those " formed by Mr. 
 Vavasor Powell." — Ref. These were 
 at first composed wholly of Psedobap- 
 tists, and were denied by Joshua Thomas 
 in 1790 to be properly called Baptist 
 churches. Norton II. 3 ; I. 34. 
 
 Mr. Spilsbery " was well known as 
 
 an advocate of.. .open membership." 
 
 Ref. Denied, Norton II. 2. 
 
 " Mr. Spilsbery was referred to ... 
 in a treatise in defence of the lawful- 
 ness of baptizing infants, published in 
 
 1645, as differing from some of his own 
 way, who so held that baptism consti- 
 tutes or is the form of the church." — • 
 Ref. He did not advocate mixed mem- 
 bership, Norton II. 2.* 
 
 24. " A.D. 1646. A treatise entitled 
 Of Baptism, was published in defence 
 of the Pr. Bpts." At p. 402, it says, 
 that " a church state could be without 
 baptism." — Ref. Note* on ph. 23 ; views 
 of Mr. Spilsbery. 
 
 25. " A controvei'sy arose among the 
 Pr. Bpts," about the same time, as to the 
 lawfulness of " partaking of the L's. Spr. 
 with persons who were not Pr. Bpts." — 
 Ref, ph. 28. Norton II. 5. 
 
 Also as to "permitting persons to 
 preach among them who had not been" 
 immersed. — Ref. ph. 34. 
 
 26. Mr. Kiffin's church. No record 
 "of any separate cgn. of Pr. Bpts. de- 
 nying the lawfulness" of the acts men- 
 tioned in ph. 25, till, "in 1653, Mr. Wm. 
 Kiffin and other members" of Mr. Spils- 
 bery's cgn. withdrew, and founded one 
 " for the purpose of permitting only per- 
 sons" immersed "to preach among them, 
 or partake with them of the L's. Spr." — 
 
 * Tlie editor knows of no ground for the 
 assertion that Mr. Spilsbery advocated mixed 
 membership, in the sense of admitting be- 
 lievers ivho objected to be immersed, to the 
 rights of membership. What gave rise to the 
 remark above quoted seems to have been this : 
 that he held that persons intending to be im- 
 mersed as believers, miglit enter into a church 
 covenant, and, in respect of this preliminary 
 step, constitute a church before they were 
 actually immersed, and were united in visible 
 church order ; but he held that an in- 
 tention to be immersed was essential even 
 to this step, and that actual immersion 
 must follow immediately. In "A Treatise 
 concerning the Lawful Subject of Bap- 
 tism, 2nd ed. 1652," p. 67, he said, that 
 " the truth in the doctrine of baptism " is 
 " one branch of the covenant," and "to be 
 received as an essera^/a? truth.... for the consti- 
 tuting of the chm-ch, and no church, accord- 
 ing to the order of Christ's New Testament, 
 either without it or before it ;" but that " the 
 church is before the outward administration 
 of baptism, though not in her visible order" 
 also that this outward administration " ever 
 follows the saints' mutual faith and agree- 
 ment in the doctrine ;" and that " a church 
 is only so a church before" the administra- 
 tion of baptism, as tliat her union is "an 
 immediate proceeding to the joraetice of the 
 same truth she agreed upon by a free and 
 mutual consent in her conjunction ; whereof 
 baptism is one [part] ; for a people," he said, 
 ^^ nmaifr St agree upon truth in judgment, be- 
 fore they practise the same." No comment is 
 needed to show tlie difference between this and 
 open-membership. 
 
55 
 
 Ref. Not the first strict church. Com- 
 munion not cause of secession. Church 
 formed before 1644 ; Norton II. 2, 5. 
 
 27. Mr. J. ToMBES, in his Examen, 
 edn. of 1645, p. 31, writes :— " You say 
 [that Pr. Bpts.] take their proselytes 
 wholly off from... .all acts of Christian 
 communion, [except with] those that are 
 of their own opinion," &c. "You con- 
 fess some are otherwise minded," &c. 
 " About this what they hold, you may 
 have now the best satisfaction from the 
 confession of faith in the name of seven 
 churches of them, Art. 33, and others 
 following."— i2e/. ph. 18, 61. Norton II. 7. 
 
 28. Question 1 of ph. 25 is that of 
 open ctnn. as defined in ph. 29. 
 
 29. Open communion, "now generally 
 used by Pr. Bpts. and used in this Ans. 
 [for] admitting persons who are not 
 Baptists, but who make a personal pro- 
 fession of faith. ...to partake of the L's. 
 Spr. in communion with cgns. of Pr. 
 Bpts," — lief. " Open cmn." is used in 
 tbisAns.for openmembershlp also. Seephs. 
 39, 42, 43, 48 ; does not relate merely to 
 cmn.withcgnsofPr. Bpts. Norton 1. 31,33. 
 
 30. Open communion cgns. " have 
 always called themselves, and been re- 
 cognized as Pr. Bpts. ;" and " have gene- 
 rally considered it to be a practice de- 
 pending on the lawfulness of religious 
 
 communion with believers whether 
 
 baptized or unliaptized, and to be a 
 matter of Christian order open to modi- 
 fication according to the circumstances of 
 any individual, and not a matter of Chris- 
 tian faith." — Rcf Crisp, 7. Open cmn. 
 chs. in and before 1740, practised open 
 membership also. Norton I. 33. Such 
 chs. not "always" called Pr. Bpts., Nor- 
 ton II. 3. The practice not deemed 
 open to modification, II. 4. 
 
 31. Distinct : " The practice of open 
 cmn. [in L's. Spr.] is, and has always 
 been, considered ... .entirely distinct from 
 [that] of open membership." — Bef. phs. 
 32; 118; Crisp 8. Denied to have been 
 distinct. Norton I. 33 ; II. 4. 
 
 32. All open membership cgns , in- 
 cluding Mr. Spilsbery's, have "always 
 practised open cmn." in L's. Spr. — Ref. 
 Crisp 8. Therefore "always distinct'^ 
 in ph. 31, is not correct : Norton L 33. 
 
 33. Strict communion, "synonymous 
 with the rejection of the practice of open 
 cmn." in the L's. Spr. — Ref. ph. 122. 
 This definition not correct; strict cmn. 
 i.s the rejection of " open membership" 
 also; phs. 36, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49. Nor- 
 ton, I. 35, 37. The term " Strict Bap- 
 tists,'" not in use in 1746, ph. 43 ; 
 Norton, I, 35. 
 
 34. Preaching, prayer and praise, 
 "The Pr. Bpts. have always held" these 
 to be " Divine ordinances of the same 
 nature as baptism, and the L's. Spr.,... 
 and it was in accordance with these 
 opinions that the controversy mentioned 
 in i^h. 25 was raised,. ..respecting the 
 lawfulness of open communion [and] of 
 hearing the preaching of the Gospel, by 
 persons who were not Baptists," which 
 last question " was ultimately set at rest 
 in 1689, when. ..the assembly of Pr. 
 Bpts. cZdci(forf...infavour of the open side 
 of the question, using the word open 
 [as in] open communion... From the 
 time of this decision hitherto the prac- 
 tice of every cgn. of Pr. Bpts. has been 
 in accordance therewith." Ref. ph. 122, 
 Crisp 9, 19. The said ordinances were 
 not of precisely the same nature, Norton 
 I. 18, 19; the assembly had " no power 
 to impose anything.'' Norton, I. 8 ; 
 Ivimey's Hist. : I. 489. 
 
 35. An open question: "The ques- 
 tion between the practice of open... and 
 [that] of Strict Cmn. has been hitherto an 
 open one, expressly recognized as such 
 among Pr. Bpts. ; has been debated, .and 
 discussed.. and has produced frequent 
 fluctuations in practice among the con- 
 gregations of Pr. Bpts." — Ref. Crisp, 10. 
 Strict Ba^jtists have never recognised the 
 question of practice as open, but have 
 always held that it is fixed for all time 
 by God himself inviolably. Norton, I. 
 21, 38 : II. 6. Open Cmu. Bpts. also have 
 declared their practice to be made hind- 
 inr/ by God. Norton, I. 33 ; II. 6 : and 
 this pamphlet, pp. 16, 17. 
 
 36. Me. Spilsbery's cgn. turned from 
 open membership to strict cmn.— Tie/, 
 phs. 20, 23, 56; Crisp, 11. No change : 
 Norton IL 2. 
 
 Mr. Kiffin's Cgn., now meeting in 
 Devonshire-square, London, " the first 
 cgn... which practised strict cmn.,... now 
 practises open membership." — Ref. Crisp. 
 U. Was at first "one in communion " 
 with Mr. Spilsbei-y's : Norton, II. 5. 
 The change recent, and like tliat at Nor- 
 wich, see p. 26 of this pamphlet; " Mr. 
 Hinton." 
 
 37. " In North America, the Pi-. 
 Bpts. are exceedingly numerous ;" many 
 Pr. Bpt. works of 17 cent, have been 
 sent t'nere. From the titles of works not 
 " now accessible in this country. ..it 
 appears that many of them were in sup- 
 port oftlie practice of open cmn." 
 
 38. Mr. Hy. Jessey was a Pr. Bpt. and 
 advocate "of open cmn.". ..In 1635, he be- 
 came minister of a cgn. of Nonconfor- 
 mists ; and afterwards a Baptist. "Of 
 
56 
 
 the members of this cgn., a cgn. was 
 formed by him... of Pr. Bpts., in the 
 practice of open mcmbcrsbip." Crosby 
 quoted as saying, " He maintained the 
 same Christian love and charity to all 
 sauits as before... in respect of church 
 communion." — Ref. Advocated open 
 iiiembo'shij); no new church formed; nor 
 any recorded change in the old one, 
 whicli was founded by Mr. Jacob iu 
 1616 : Norton I. 33., II. 3. 
 
 39. Mr. Hy. Jessey published, in 
 1647, "A question about the warrant- 
 ableness of enjoying cmn. togetlier by 
 believers that differ about baptism." 
 Also in 1619, " Another letter, with 
 questions about such comn." Also an 
 exposition of Rom. xiv. 1, afterwards 
 printed in 1673, iu Bunyan's "Water 
 Baptism ;'' all in favour of "open com- 
 munion." — Bef. In favour of open 
 membership : Norton I. 33- 
 
 40. Daniel King in 1650 " aFr. Bpt. 
 minister of a cgn. of Pr. Bpts. at Coven- 
 try," in his 'Way in Zion,' said, at p. 144, 
 "the saints should break bread," &c. — - 
 i?t/. Ivimcifs Hist. II. 677. 
 
 41. Anthony Palmer, ' a Pr. Bpt. 
 minister of a cgn. of Pr. Bpts. at Bour- 
 tou-on-the-Water," published in 1654, a 
 " Scripture Rail to the Lord's Table." 
 Quotations made from pages 16, 46, and 
 74, none of which speak expressly of 
 communion with unbaptized pei'sons. — 
 Rcf. After 1660 he was ejected from the 
 Rectorij of Bourton : " Palmer's Memo- 
 rial," I. p. 532. He seems to have been 
 recfnr from 1649. Mr. Ivimey, in Hist. 
 II. 164, 165, says that afte?- his ejection 
 he was " pastor of the Baptist church." 
 Was he a Baptist at all in 1654 ? 
 
 42. Mr. John Bunyan, a.d. 1672 — 
 1674. The controver.sy " respecting open 
 communion," was continued by him, 
 and by " Messrs. Paul, Kiffin, and 
 D'Anvers," in favour of strict comn. — 
 Bef. ph. 23. Bunyan wrote in favour of 
 o])en membership : Norton I. 33; II. 3. 
 
 43. The controversy "then sub- 
 sided. ..till 1770." 
 
 "John Kyland and Daniel Turner, 
 Pr. Bpts., about 1770 [advocated] open 
 cmn." — Ref., open membership also : Nor- 
 ton I. 32, 33. 
 
 "RoBT. Robinson, a Pr. Bpt. minister 
 of a cgn. of Pr. Bpts. at Cambridge, 
 published in 1771,..' Principles of Tole- 
 ration,' " in favour of ft'ce communion. — 
 Mef. 1 later life a Sociuian ; chiu'ch 
 mixed ; advocated open membership : 
 Norton I. ,^>, 33. 
 
 Abraham Booth, an advocate of strict 
 emu., wrote about the same time. 
 
 " Strict Baptists," the term first 
 used.— 7?t/. Norton I. 35. 
 
 44. RoBT. Hall and Joseph King- 
 horn. After the above dates, "the con- 
 troversy was. ..again closed. ..until about 
 1815," when " R. Hall. ..and J. King- 
 horn, ..then minister of the cgn. of Pr. 
 Bpts. ..in Norwich. ..in question," de- 
 fended " open and strict, comn." respec- 
 tively.— A'e/. R. Hall, not a Pr. Bpt. 
 Advocated open membership : Norton I. 
 32, 33, 38. 
 
 45. " The controversy, .then again 
 SUSPENDED, and has not hitherto been 
 revived." 
 
 46. The arguments in this contro- 
 VER.SY have been "uniformly addressed 
 to all cgns. of Pr. Bpts. practising open 
 or strict comn." — lief. Crisp 1 2. A mixed 
 cgn. not one of Pr. Bpts. ; the arguments 
 relate to all believers: Norton I. 31, 
 32; II. 3. 
 
 47. 48. Associations of cgns. : 
 from 1653 hitherto, cgns. '"whether prac- 
 tising open or strict comn. have always 
 been accustomed to unite together in 
 assns. as Pr. Bpts." — Ref. Crisp, 13, 14. 
 Not always ; Cooper cross-exd. Cases 
 rare, up to 1746 ; Gould's afft. 1. 1 to 31 ; 
 Norton I. 34,37 ; II. 3. But each cgn. 
 absulutely independent, phs. 17, 1:^1 ; 
 Bill 9; Norton I. 8. 
 
 , 49. Pr. Bpt. Societies for missions, 
 &c., include Pr. Bpts., both open and 
 strict. — Ref. Crisp 15, 20; cgns. inde- 
 pendent, Norton I. 8. 
 
 50. Assemblies OF MESSENGERS. Open 
 cmn. cgns. said to have sent messengers 
 to them.— /I'e/. Crisp 16. No proof was 
 given that they did so to the assemblies 
 of 1677, 1689, and 1692. Sir H. Cairns, 
 when asked for instances by the Judge, 
 adduced Broadmead, Bristol, as to 1689 
 and 1G92, but could not prove that even 
 that one church was then open. Ivimey 
 says that these churches in 1692 made 
 baptism " essential to church fellow- 
 ship." Vol. I., p. 523. 
 
 51. A.D. 1677. "The confession of 
 assembly," so called iu this Ans., was 
 originally adopted at such an assembly 
 iu 1677 ; and fi-om shortly after that 
 time " hitherto, has always been and is 
 still considered by the Pr. Bpts , as a 
 body, to be a just exposition of their 
 faith and order." — Ref. Crisp 17. Not 
 a full exposition of it ; especially as to 
 points of difference as to comn. : N ortuu 
 I. S, especially the end. 
 
 52. The conflission of seven london 
 CGNS. was " adopted at an assembly held 
 in 1664." — Kif. Not so, but by the 
 cgns. themselves ; see its Preface. Cfsns., 
 
Hauserd Kuollys' Society, Esbt. VI. 
 p. I'i. 
 
 53. The above London Cfsn. of 1644 : 
 words quoted from end of Preface, 
 " And because it may be conceived," to 
 " seven chux'ches in Loudon ;" including 
 the statement that they were " all one 
 in communion." Two of the fifteen who 
 signed it were Spilsbery and Kiffin. — 
 lief. They signed as members of Hoo 
 distinct rhiurhcs. Rcbt. VI.* p. 17. 
 
 54. LoNDOxX Cfsn. Edn. IL, 1646. 
 Words from Preface, " Aud lest this 
 should be thought ;" up to " same judg- 
 ment," including the words, " we are 
 one in faith, fellowship, and comn." ^Of 
 the sixteen who signed it, were Spilsbery 
 and Kiffin. Ficf. Axkbt. VI. p. 23. 
 
 55. London Cfsn. Eds. III. and IV., 
 1651 aud 1652, signed "by appointment" 
 of the chui'ches, by fourteen persons, of 
 whom were Spilsbery aud Kiffin. The 
 3rd edn. was called " the 3rd impression 
 corrected." 
 
 56. Mr. Spilsbery's cgn. was one of 
 the above seven, and practised at said 
 time from 1644 to 1652, " open member- 
 ship and open comn." — Eef. phs. 14, 20, 
 23, 53, 54, 55, 60. Denied, Norton II. 2. 
 
 67. London Cfsn. :•" considerable al- 
 terations" made in 2nd and 3rd edns. ; 
 none in ith.—Ref. Ans. IIL 18 to 20. 
 
 58. London cfsn. Articles in ed. I. 
 53; IL52; III. 51. 
 
 69. London Cfsn., Article 33 quoted, 
 including words '' the church which 
 Christ hath pui-chased and redeemed... 
 as it is visible to us, is a company of 
 visible saints... being baptized," &c. This 
 article, said to have been retained in each 
 edition " without material variation." 
 
 60. London Cfsn. Art. 39. Baptism. 
 
 61. London Cfsn.' Ed. I.: J. Tombes, 
 as before mentioned, referred to 33rd 
 and following articles, " as evidence that 
 the Pi". Bpts., as a body, did not reject 
 open membership or open cmn." — lief. 
 ph. 27. Not as evidence of this : Norton 
 IL 7. 
 
 62. London Cfsn. Addition made to 
 Art. 39, ed. I., in eds. IL, III., IV. :— 
 after the words " to be baptized," of the 
 words, " and after to partake of the 
 Lord's Supper." 
 
 63. London Cfsn. "Considerable 
 DOCTRINAL VARIATIONS" are indicated 
 by alterations made in ed. II. In Art. 
 17, for *' reconcile his elect only," there 
 is in ed. II. "salvation of his elect;" 
 
 • Exbt. VI. is the volume of Confessions 
 pnbli.siied by the llanscrd Kuollvs Sociclv in 
 1854. 
 
 upon which alteration, Robert Baillie, 
 in his " Anabaptism the True Fountain," 
 &c., p. 93, said, "As if Christ by his 
 sacrifice had reconciled to God all man- 
 kind as well as the elect." — Jief. The 
 said ed. did not countenance universal 
 reconciliation : Norton II. 8. 
 
 In ed. IL are alterations also in ar- 
 ticles 19, 21, 28, 31, 49, 50.~Ref. Of 
 no importance. See Ed. 11.' Exhibit VI 
 pp. 34-47. 
 
 Eds. III. AND IV. differ from ed. II. 
 chiefly as to parts relating to " main- 
 tenance of ministers and as to the su- 
 preme magistracy of the kingdom." 
 
 64. London Cfsn. of seven cgns. ; 
 " not binding upon any other" of the 
 ^'FORTY-SIX cgns. of Pr. Bpts. in London 
 in 1646." The rest " did not generally 
 own" it. Robert Baillie in his said 
 treatise, p. 48, said, that " most of the 
 members, whether of these seven or of 
 their other thirty-nine cgns., are exceed- 
 ing far from making these articles the 
 rule of their belief;" and at p. 28 quotes 
 the belief of Marshal, who replied to 
 Tombes, tlmt thousands of the Anabap- 
 tists would be " far from owning," the 
 cfsn. — Bef. ph. 15. Baillie, who was 
 a Pasdobaptist, of Gla.sgow, was ill in- 
 formed, but did not suppose that the 
 forty-six cgns. were in London, but 
 " within and about" it. Dr. Featley, to 
 whom he referred, mentioned forty-seven 
 as the xvhole of the cgns. then existing 
 in the kingdom. There were only seven 
 or eight in Loudon. Norton II. 1. 
 
 65. The Somerset Cfsn., published 
 1656, "of the Faith of Several Chs." in 
 Somerset and adjacent counties, con- 
 tains no reference to open membership, 
 or to open or strict cmn. — Ref. Gould's 
 afft. \. 7 — 10. Strict communion is 
 implied in articles 24 — 26. Exhibit 
 VI. pp. 89—92. 
 
 66. The Confession, including an 
 Appendix, adopted in 1677, was so 
 adopted by an assembly of messengers 
 " of many of the cgns. of Pr. Bpts. in 
 Loudon and the country." — Eef. ph. 51 
 Crisp, 17, 18. 
 
 67. Cfsn. of 1677, entitled, "a cfsn. 
 . . put forth by the elders and brethren of 
 many cgns. of Christians baptized," &c. 
 Preface, half of it quoted : from words 
 " To the judicious and impartial reader," 
 as far as, " sentiments are different 
 from ours." Titles of chapters given. 
 Also chap. xxii. sectious 5, 6, on wor- 
 ship; xxiii. 1, "a lawful oath is a part 
 of religious worship;" xxvi. 1 to 15, in- 
 clusive, " Of the church ;" xsvii. 1, 2, 
 '• Of the coiumuuiuu of saints :" xxviii. 
 
58 
 
 1, 2, " Of baptism and the L's. Spr. ;" 
 xxix. 1,2, 3, 4, " Of baptism ;" xxx. 1 
 to 8, inclusive, " Of the L's. Spr."— Bf/. 
 phs. 51, 66; Crisp 17 ; Norton I. 8. 
 
 The Appendix. Two pages quoted 
 from first words, "Whosoever I'eads," to 
 "in this matter also." Exht.Yl. pp. 231 — 
 233. The authors say that they had in 
 the cfsn. tried to show their agreement 
 with other Christians "in the funda- 
 mental articles of Christianity ; " they 
 said also, as to preachers not of them- 
 selves, " we, as we have opportunity, par- 
 ticij>ate of [their] labours ;'' also that 
 they had not " a doubting conscience," 
 but were " fully persuaded that what 
 [they did was] agreeable to the will of 
 God." 
 
 Quotation of about two pages from 
 the end of the Appendix, from " these 
 things we have mentioned,'' to the end, 
 " best of our understanding," in which, 
 the authors said : — 
 
 " We are not insensible that as to the 
 oi'der of God's house, and entire comn. 
 therein, there are some things wherein 
 we (as well as others) are not at a full 
 accord among ourselves : as, for instance, 
 the known principle and state of the 
 consciences of divers of us, that have 
 agreed in this cfsn., is such, that we 
 cannot hold church communion with 
 any other than baptized believers and 
 churches constituted of such ; yet some 
 others of us have a greater liberty and 
 fi-eedom in our spirits that way, and 
 therefore we have purposely omitted the 
 mention of things of that nature, that 
 we might concur in giving this evidence 
 of our agreement, both among ourselves, 
 and with other good Christians, in those 
 important articles of the Christian re- 
 ligion, mainly insisted on by us." JExbt. 
 VI. pp. 2U—2i6.—Bcf. This passage 
 proves that those Pr. Bpts. who then 
 acted on the very principle on which 
 the church at Norwich has acted till 
 now, deemed those principles inviolahle, 
 and would have been excluded from com- 
 munion hy the admission to it of persons 
 xinhaptized. Norton I. 38. 
 
 68. Assembly of 1677 : records not 
 EXTANT. No doubt messeugcrs present 
 from all or some of the seven churches 
 which put forth London Confession ; 
 which was referred to in Preface of that 
 of 1677. Mr. Kiffin and " most of the 
 London pastors signed '' the circular- 
 letter proposing the assembly. 
 
 69, 70. The Cfsn. of 1677 was based 
 on two other cfsns. : that of the W"est- 
 minster Assembly of Divines, of 1643, 
 and that which the Independents found- 
 
 ed upon it in 1658 ; called the West- 
 minster, and the Savoy Cfsns. 
 
 71. Cfsn. of 1677 omits words of 
 Westminster Cfsn., chap. 28, stating that 
 bai^tism is "for admission.... into the 
 visible ch." 
 
 72. Messengers ofAssemblt op 1677. 
 Some of them, no doubt, from open 
 membership and open comn. cr/ns. — Bcf. 
 Crisp 18. Not proved; phs. 50, 68. 
 
 Differed among themselves on cmn., 
 as appears from their Appendix ; see 
 ph. 67. Their words might mean 
 the reverse. To we and us, they op- 
 pose "others — other good Christians;" 
 they compare (not that assembly merely,) 
 but all Vr. Bpts., considered individually, 
 with other Christians. So that the words 
 " divers of us, that have," &c. might 
 mean "divers of us [Pr. Bpts., those] that 
 have agreed in this cfsn.... cannot hold 
 ch. cmn. with any other than baptized 
 believers," &c. But if individuals in the 
 assembly could personcdly commune with 
 the unbaptized, this was not decisive 
 proof that the churches of which they 
 were then members received the unbap- 
 tized to cmn. with them. Dr. Wall in 
 his " Hist, of Infant Bap., 1707," p. 560, 
 said, " The Antipajdobaptists do not ad- 
 mit to the L's. Spr. ivhen it is adminis- 
 tered by themselres, any but what are 
 baptized in their way." Norton L 37, 
 towards end. 
 
 The question of cmn. "expressly 
 left undetermined." — Ref. The as- 
 sembly had no power to determine any- 
 thing for the chs. Norton I. 8. 
 
 73. Cfsn. of 1677 has never been super- 
 seded. — Ref. It is of no ch. authority, 
 unless a church adopted it by its own 
 act ; no record that this ch. ever did so. 
 
 74. 75. The "Orthodox Creed" of 
 1678, was agreed to in the name of many 
 cgns. of Pr. Bpts. — Ref. An error. 
 This was a General Baptist Cfsn. E.rbt. 
 VI. Introduction, p. xii. : Taylor's Hist. 
 L 225, 361. 
 
 75. The Somerset cfsn. of 1656 and 
 Orthodox creed of 1678 : accepted 
 only by the cgns. for which they were 
 adopted respectively ; and no record how 
 long accepted by these. 
 
 76. The " Orthodox creed " says 
 that " orderly none ought to be admitted 
 into the visible church of Christ, with- 
 out being first baptized," nor to the L's. 
 Spr. Articles 28 and 33. 
 
 77. The London, Somerset, Ortho- 
 dox, and all local cfsns. were " superseded 
 by" the cfsn. of 1677, when adopted by 
 the assembly of 16S9. — Rvf. They were 
 not superseded thereby ; nor deprived of 
 
59 
 
 value; were testimonies, which, instead 
 of opposmg, confirmed each other. The 
 cfsn. of 1677, 1689, spoke of continued 
 adherence to London cfsn. Norton II. 9. 
 
 78. Cfsn. of 1677 reprinted in 1688. 
 
 79. Assembly of 1689 of messengers 
 from more than 100 Pr. Bpt cgns. Hy. 
 AusTiNE, pastor, and Thomas Flatman, 
 minister, were present from this Nor- 
 wich cgn. 
 
 80. Second preliminary rule of 
 said assembly, quoted, " Wherein one 
 ch. difi"er3 from another ch. in their prin- 
 ciples or practices, in point of emu., that 
 we cannot, shall not impose upon any- 
 particular church therein, but leave eveiy 
 church to their own liberty, to walk to- 
 gether as they have received from the 
 Lord." — Ref. Points of difference as to 
 cmn., included laying on of hands after 
 baptism, singing, and Jewish sabbath. 
 Norton L 8. 
 
 Unbaptized preachers, Presbyterians 
 and Independents; the assembly thought 
 it lawful to hear them when Pr. Bpt. 
 preachers could not be heard. — Ref. phs. 
 25, 26, 34, and 67, the Appendix. 
 
 81. Assembly of 1689 adopted Cfsn. 
 and Appendix of 1677. — Ref. Mr. G. 
 Offor in his edn. of Bunyan's Works, 
 IL 593, col. 1, top, says, "In 1689.... 
 this appendix was omitted from the Bpt. 
 Cfsn. of Faith." 
 
 82. The assembled messengers in 
 1689, drew up a declaration owning said 
 Cfsn. as " containing the doctrine of 
 [their] faith and practice," and recom- 
 mending it to the members of their 
 churches. — Ref. This act was theirs 
 only, not that of their chs. Norton I. 8. 
 
 83. A similar assembly im 1692, 
 held in London. H. Austine present, as 
 " representative or messenger" of this 
 ch. at Norwich. — Ref. The messengers 
 were not representatives, in sense of act- 
 ing instead of the churches; they had 
 no ch. power. Norton I. 8. 
 
 Singing. " H. Austine was one of 
 seven arbitrators, appointed thereat to 
 determine a question ... whether the 
 praises of God should be sung in the 
 public assemblies. The question.... was 
 ultimately decided in favour of the prac- 
 tice of such singing.'' — Ref. They were 
 not appointed to decide this question ; had 
 no poictr to do so ; their decision did not 
 refer to it. Those who had written on 
 the subject, had cast reflections one on 
 another, and agreed " in order to the rc- 
 moviiuf of them, to do what the seven 
 should determine. It was stipulated 
 that "the matters to be.... determined 
 [were] only respecting reflections, and 
 
 matters of fact," " Ivimey's Hist." I. p. 
 520. The decision was that they ought 
 to desist from such " reflections and re- 
 proaches," and that the books containing 
 them be called in, &c., p. 522. 
 
 84. A similar assembly in 1693 also 
 " approved" of the Cfsn. adopted in 1689. 
 — Ref A "catechism" it directed to 
 be drawn up, which was afterwards called 
 "The Baptist Catechism," and was de- 
 clared to be " agreeable to the Cfsn. of 
 Faith." Norton I. 11. In it, Ans. 103, 
 "the proper subjects" of the L's. Spr. 
 were said to be "they who have been 
 baptized." 
 
 85. Many editions of Cfsn. of 1689. 
 
 86. 87. Changes in cgns , (called by 
 Mr. Gould " Cgns. of Pr. Bpts.") founded 
 before a.d. 1800. Whole number of 
 cgns. of that age, about 346. Statistics 
 of 208 ; 97 remain as at first ; 111 have 
 changed, as to cmn. ; 86 once, 16 twice, 
 8 thrice, and 1 four times. At first 
 strict, 158 ; 7iow so, 72 ; at first open 
 in L's. Spr., 31; now so, 105; at first 
 open in full membership, 1 9 ; now so, 
 31. The whole at first open, 50 ; now 
 open, 136. 
 
 88. This cgn. at Norwich " was 
 formed., as I believe, in or before 1669, 
 and certainly several yeai's before 1689." 
 — Ref. The church-covenant, inserted 
 between the articles and first list of 
 members, in the first church book, be- 
 gins thus : — " The covenant and agree- 
 ment that ioe do join together in. First, 
 we do Act'C... covenant and agree," &c. 
 Mr. Gould, ph, 91, and in his sermon of 
 June 3, 1860, p. 12, speaks of the "loss 
 of the first Ch. Bk. of this cgn." meaning 
 one of an earlier date than tliis ; but 
 the above record is evidence that the 
 first Ch. Bk. existing, is the first of all. 
 It does not give the date of the forma- 
 tion which it thus records, but shows that 
 it probably was not long before 1689. 
 
 89. The Articles "bound up" in 
 the first existing ch. bk. The 8th 
 quoted, including the words " nothing 
 is left to man's prudence in the matters 
 of religion." The 9th quoted ; it de- 
 fines "the visible ch." to be "a com- 
 pany of faithful i^eople, baptized be- 
 lievers — who voluntarily agree to walk 
 together... in all the laws and ordinances 
 of [Christ's] house ;" and has the words 
 — "We may not alter anything," &c. 
 The 10th quoted. It defines baptism; 
 says that the L's. Spr. is one of " several 
 ordinances and laws delivered to the 
 church;" and that "the power of put- 
 ting in execution all church censures," 
 &c., is " committed unto this church," 
 
60 
 
 &c. " These articles . . do not contain any 
 express reference to tlie practice whether 
 of open membership, or of open cmn., 
 or strict emu." — Eef. Tlie tcatermurk 
 and order of entries show that the 
 Articles are not merely "bound up," but 
 part of the original volume. The state- 
 ment as to no "express reference" is 
 not cori'ect ; nor that of sermon of 
 June 3, 1800, p. 13 : " for aught that 
 appears to the couti'ary, this cgn. may 
 have received into its membership, more 
 than a century ago unbaptized be- 
 lievers." The above articles limited 
 membership to "baptized believers," 
 which is strict inernbersh ip ; and they de- 
 clared the L's. Spr. to be an "ordinance 
 delivered to the church'' thus consti- 
 tuted, which excluded from the L's. Spi*. 
 all but members of churches of baptized 
 believers ; and this is strict communion in 
 the Lord's Spr. The articles precede the 
 dates of 1691 and other following years, 
 yet in the said sermon Mr. G. says, p. 13, 
 " a very strong probability exi.sts that 
 they were not drawn up before the year 
 1713." 
 
 90. " The entry next following 
 these articles," in said Ch. Bk., " is ' The 
 number of the names of the baptized 
 ch.,' kc, 'joined together, walking in 
 the fellowship and order of the gospel.' " 
 — R(f. Not correct. 'The church cove- 
 nant comes between the articles and the 
 names, and the members whose names 
 stand at the head of the list were evi- 
 dently those who spoke as " we " in the 
 articles and covenant. 
 
 91. Date of first minute in said book 
 "worn away;" that of the 2ud is Oct. 
 1, 1093. — lief. Over the names of mem- 
 bers on the iccond page of the list above 
 mentioned, (to which list names of new 
 members were added as they were ad- 
 mitted) is the date of " 1691." 
 
 "The records. ..between IC69 and 
 1689 are irrecoverably lost." — Ref. ph. 
 88. No pi'oof given that they ever ex- 
 isted. 
 
 92. "The said articles.. ..wei-e.... re- 
 nounced," except the 8th, on Feb. 12, 
 1775, by a resolution that the Sth art. 
 " be separated from the rest, and in- 
 serted at length, as a testimony of the 
 church's renouncing all sorts of creeds, 
 confessions, articles of faith, Kc, &c., 
 except what is or are contained in 
 the scripture," &c. — Ref. The date 
 of the trust deed is 1746. Its pro- 
 visions are not affected by what took 
 place (fterwards. 'I'he Sth article de- 
 clared the inspiration and the sufficiency 
 of scripture. Its reinsertion in 1775 
 
 showed that the church adhered to the 
 same sentiment on this point still. And 
 even if it were intended to expi'CKS ob- 
 jection to anj formal statement of faith 
 except in the words of scripture, this is 
 not proof that the church ceased to hold 
 the sentiments expressed in its original 
 articles. 
 
 93. Original trust-deed of Nov. 
 2i, 1746, recited. 
 
 94. Deed of Oct. 9, 1773, renewing 
 the trusts with the same provisions, re- 
 cited. 
 
 95. Deed of Mat 1, 1799, renewing 
 the trust, recited. It differs in pai-t from 
 the two preceding deeds. But the two 
 surviving trustees of that of 1773, de- 
 clared themselves in this " desirous that 
 the public worship of Almighty God as 
 it was then performed,... might still be, 
 and for ever continue to be, performed 
 therein;" and the new trustees were to 
 permit the building " to be set apart, and 
 appropriated, used, and enjoyed as and 
 for a meeting-house or place for Divine 
 worship as theretofore the same had been, 
 by and for the Protestant Dissenters 
 called Bajjtists, then living or residing in 
 or near to the city of iS'orwich." 
 
 96. Deed of Oct. 13, 1832, recited, be- 
 ing the latest i-enewal of the trust. Its 
 provisions the same as those of the deed 
 of 1799. 
 
 99. Deeds of 1799 and 1832, contain 
 " no reference" to those of 1746, and 
 1773. — Ref. the two suiwiving trustees 
 of the deed of 1773, conveyed the pro- 
 perty in 1799. 
 
 The trustees appointed in 1799 and 
 1832 lucre not cluosen by a meeting of the 
 minister and men members of the cgn. 
 — Ref. A member still living, says that 
 he M^as present when the names of the 
 trustees appointed in 1832 were read to 
 the members. J. B., Aj^ril 27, 1S60. 
 
 The deeds of 1799 and 1832 declared 
 to be in breach of those of 1746 and 
 1773. The persons appointed in 1832 
 "Ought to be declared" by the Court, 
 " not to be regularly constituted or en- 
 titled to act as trustees." 
 
 Submitted whether the chapel "is 
 not now vested," by the deed of 1799, in 
 "George Watson and William Dun-ant, 
 or their heirs," instead of the persons 
 appointed in 1832. — Ref. By the deed of 
 1799, the surviving trustees of that of 
 1773 did "sell and release" the premises 
 to the said Watson, Durrant, and their 
 heirs, "to hold the same unto" them, "to 
 the use of the new trustees, of whom 
 the said Watson and Durrant were two. 
 
 For the rest of 171 phs. sec next Sec. 
 
61 
 
 Section III. Answers of Defendants 
 TO THE Paragraphs of the Bill. 
 
 Explanations. — The paragraphs of 
 Bill staud first, thus ;— " Bill 1., II.. &c. 
 G., denotes Gould ; R, the five trustees 
 who answer jointly; A., Allen; Gn., 
 Gooderson. The numbers following 
 the letters G. and F. denote the para- 
 graphs in the answers. The paragraphs 
 in the answers of A. and Gn. all corre- 
 spond, as to the numbering, to those of 
 the Bill. The words "admit," "igno- 
 rant," &e., mean that defts. admit, or 
 are ignorant of, &c., the truth of the 
 statements made in the part of the Bill 
 so referred to. 
 
 Bill I. Deed of 1746, G. 97, F. 1, 
 A. and Gn., all admit. 
 
 Bill II. G. 98, F. 2, and A. admit 
 that this cgn. had existed for more than 
 50 yeai's before 1746; but ignorant 
 whether it was then the only one in 
 Norwich. F. and A. believe it had ex- 
 isted since 1669. Gn. never heard that 
 there was tlieii more than this one ; igno- 
 rant how long it had existed. 
 
 Bill III. G. 101, 102; F. 3.— G. F. 
 A. and Gn. admit substantially the de- 
 finition of Baptist ; also that of faith, 
 as actual confidence. Also that the 
 term " Particular" referred to '^ i^articM- 
 lar or limited redemption," and that this 
 doctrine then was that " Christ by his 
 death did purchase salvation for the elect 
 that God gave unto him ;" that it was 
 opposed to " the doctrine that [lie] pur- 
 chased salvation for all men ;" and was 
 held together with that of final perse- 
 verance. (Compai-e G. ph. 11 ; and G. 
 Ans. III. 2 to 8). They also admit that 
 congregation denoted in 1746 an or- 
 ganized body or church, not a promis- 
 cuous assembly. 
 
 But G., F., and A., say that there 
 were cgns. practising open membership, 
 or open cmn. at the L's Spr., which 
 were called cgns. of Pr. Bpts. 
 
 Bill IV. G. 103 to 110; F. 4.— G., 
 F., A., and Gn., all admit that the 
 words in the Deed — " cgn. of Pr. Bpts ," 
 referred to this church. Gn. admits 
 that the church was composed wlioibj of 
 baptized believers, publicly received and 
 enrolled as members in the church 
 books. But G. 110, F. and A., ignorant 
 as to these last points. 
 
 G. says, in ph. 104, I have examined 
 ch. bks. ; 105, till within 28 years they 
 " were irregularly kept, and contain no 
 records of the meetings and ^jroceedings' 
 of the church " during several long 
 
 periods of years." 106, "Oiiginally the 
 female incmhers... Cad not vote upon busi- 
 ness," and " did so for the first time in 
 1790, upon the question" of electing Mr. 
 Kinghorn as ministei-, and decided the 
 election in his favour ; but the ch. bks. 
 contain no " minute authorizing the 
 same, nor of the time when such female 
 members were admitted so to vote... 
 upon all questions " — Rcf. The ch. bks. 
 record that the invitation of Feb. 22, 
 1778, of Mr. David to become pastor, 
 was signed by 1.5 men and 7 ivomen ; also 
 that at a ch arch-meeting held Dec. 13, 
 1789, " it was agreed that in the choice 
 of a minister the women members... .had 
 on this occasion a right to vote." 
 
 In ph. 107, Mr. G. says, that this cgn. 
 has " alivays recognized''' cgns. practising 
 open cmn. in membership or the L's. 
 Spr., as " Pr. Bpt. cgns. and particularly 
 has admitted" Baptists to membership 
 " upon letters of dismission" from such 
 cgns., and sent letters dismissing mem- 
 bers to them. — {Hef. Not proved. In 
 1836, Mr. Brock introduced a practice of 
 this kind. Norton Afi't. I. 22.) 
 
 In ph. 108, Mr. G. admits that the ch. 
 books " contain no record" as to open cmn. 
 in membership or L's. Spr. fill 1833, and 
 alleges that there is none as to strict cmn, 
 till then. 
 
 In ph. 109, he says, Mr. Kinghorn, 
 pastor from 1790 to 1832, appears to 
 have had doubts as to open cmn. about 
 1790 ; about 1818 opposed Mr. Hall ; 
 the church for some time before 1818, 
 and certainly afterwards, till his death, 
 " practised strict cmn.," but " probably 
 the majority of the members were in 
 favpur of open emu.;" "the question 
 was frequently agitated by such mem- 
 bei's," and they refrained from bringing 
 it to an issue " only out of regard" to 
 Mr. Kinghorn, " particularly after his 
 said public controversy." — Ref. Several 
 witnesses deposed on oath that there 
 probably was such a majority. See Afi't. 
 of Cozens, ph. 12; Fletcher and Till- 
 yard, 9 ; Colman, 4 ; Brightwell, 4. Jt 
 is also alleged by Cozens, phs. 17, 18, 
 and by Fletcher and Tillyard, 11, 12, 
 that they believe the free cmn. mem- 
 bers did " not modify their opinions," 
 but that they " ab.stained from agita- 
 tion" of the subject, in Mr. Kinghorn's 
 time, "in deference" to 1dm. If this 
 was true, then what was the Chris- 
 tianity worth which could habitually 
 abstain from doing what God was be- 
 lieved to have made binding (March 11, 
 1857), out of deference to man? If 
 this was true, why, when Mr. Kinghorn 
 
62 
 
 was dead, did not this majority at once 
 introduce open communion ? Why, in- 
 stead of doing so did it insist that Mr. 
 Brock should not moot the question ? 
 This fact, and the fact that the church 
 continued strict till a large number of 
 new members had been added by a pas- 
 tor himself favourable to free commu- 
 nion, is evidence wholly opposed to the 
 probaiility so solemnly declared. Mr. 
 Edmund Hastings, one of those who 
 were members of the church at the time, 
 was cross-examined by defts. to bring 
 out something in their favour. He said 
 as to the number of members who then 
 advocated free-communion, " I believe 
 they were very few." Personally, he 
 knew only tiuo, Mr. Cozens and Mr. 
 Theobald ; the former of whom on one 
 occasion, when "Mr. Ringliorn was ab- 
 sent," proposed that a person who had 
 been baptized but was not a member of 
 that or a like church, " should be ad- 
 mitted to the L's. Spr. without being 
 admitted to the church ;" but " he was 
 refused communion.'' Two other mem- 
 bers have given evidence as to the same 
 fact. {Moore and others Afft. 5.) The 
 editor of this pamphlet heard of it at 
 the time when it happened. The evi- 
 dence, therefore, as to that pei'iod is con- 
 clusive against the probability alleged. 
 The majority, and to all appearance, a 
 large majority was strict, and adhered as 
 firmly to the rule that the L's. Spr. is a 
 privilege peculiar to church membership, 
 as to the rule that baptism -is prerequisite 
 to both. It has been peculiai-ly painful 
 in this suit to have to meet various 
 statements, resting on no better founda- 
 tion, and made upon solemn oath, for 
 such an end. 
 
 Bill V. G. Ill, F. 5.— G. F. admit 
 that from 1746 the recex>tion of p)ersons 
 to membership in this egn. has been " by 
 resolution ;' G. F. A. Gn., that persons 
 baptized after such resolution, have been 
 " admitted to the rights of membership 
 at the monthly celebration of the L's. 
 Spr. ;" G. Gn. add, " and not at other 
 times ;" G. F. A. Gn. say they were so 
 by gift of the right hand of fellowship 
 by the minister on behalf of the cgn. 
 
 Bill VI. G. 112. F. 6.— Gn. bdieves 
 that the ch. bks. contain the names of 
 all the members ; G. says that they con- 
 tain a " list purporting to be a list of 
 members ;" but he is iynorant whether 
 "of all," except during his own pas- 
 torate ; F. believe that they contain the 
 names "of many;" A. believer, "of 
 some." 
 
 Bill VII. G. 113—119 ; F. 7—13. 
 
 On. admits that, till the time of the 
 innovations "none but members" of this 
 cgn. were admitted to the L's. Spr., except 
 that, when " members of any other cgn. 
 of like faith and order happened to be 
 present," they were " for that special oc- 
 casion, admitted," but their names were 
 always publicly announced, and their 
 admission was by general acquiescence of 
 the regular and permanent members then 
 assembled. 
 
 G. F. and A. ignorant whether this 
 church practised open cmn. in member- 
 ship or in L's. Spr. or strict cmn., till 
 shortly before 1793 (G. 113 : F. 7), but 
 believe that from that time till time of 
 innovations it practised strict emu. (G. 
 114, F. 8). 
 
 Variations in puactice, they say, be- 
 fore said time, would probably " not be 
 recorded in ch. bks." they were " kept so 
 very irregularly," (G. 113, F. 7).—Bef. 
 Actual records are sufficient to disprove 
 any such variations. Noi-ton Afft. I. 
 17, 22. 
 
 Respect for Mr. Kinghokn is alleged 
 by F. 8, as reason why the question was 
 not brought to issue in his time. 
 
 An open question. — F. 7. and A. say 
 that " the question of open and strict 
 emu. has always ' ' been considered such 
 by Particular Baptists." — Ref. G. 35. 
 Disproved, Norton, Jfft. II 6 ; L 21, S3. 
 
 Baptized persons, being member8 
 of some cgn. practising open mem- 
 bership or one of " Independents or 
 Presbyterians," (F. add " or Episco- 
 palians") : — this cgn. is said by G. 115, 
 F. 9, and A. to have been "in the practice 
 of admitting, [them] to the L's. Sp." 
 during Mr. Kinghorn's time. — Ref. No 
 instance given. For contrary evidence 
 see AfFt. of Moore and others, and 
 Hastings' Cross-exmn. 
 
 The "private discretion" of the 
 minister, " subject to the general autho- 
 rity of the cgn ;"— G. 116, F. 10, and A. 
 say that the minister acted " entirely" 
 upon this, in admitting baptized persons to 
 the Us. Spr." but that he generally, 
 though "not always publicly,"anuounced 
 their names. 
 
 Transient membership. G. 117,118, 
 and F. 11, 12, deny that occasional com- 
 munion in the Lord's Supper has ever 
 been deemed by any cgn. of Pr. Bpts. to 
 be membership " for that special occa- 
 sion" A. does not knoAv. — Ref. The 
 words in the Bill which occasioned this 
 denial, were afterwards altered, to avoid 
 controversy, but the expression " tran- 
 sient member," meaning apparently, one 
 admitted to transient communion, occurs 
 
63 
 
 several times in the ch. bks. See Minute 
 of April 10, 1774, and the word " tran- 
 sient" opposite to some of the names of 
 members. In the list of May 6th, 1779, 
 it stands opposite to name 42 of the 
 men, and names 22 and 36 of the wo- 
 men ; the last is called " transient mem- 
 ber from EUingham ch. ;" also opposite 
 to name 41 of the women, in list be- 
 ginning at p. 18 of Bk. II. 
 
 The questions of cmn. and membership, 
 are alleged by G. 118 (as before at .31) and 
 by F. 12, to have " always been treated 
 by Pr. Bpts. as distinct." — Ref. Crisp 
 Afft. 8. Disproved, Norton, II. 4. 
 
 Business meetings of the cgn. G. 119, 
 F. 13, A. and Gn. all admit that none 
 but members of this cgn. have taken part 
 in them. 
 
 Bill VIII. G. 120, F. 14, and A. 
 admit that this cgn. is one of congrega- 
 tional pollti/, and that all such churches 
 have maintained the entire indepen- 
 dence OF EACH CHURCH in all matters 
 pertaining to it, spiritual and temporal. 
 
 Bill IX. G. 121, F. 15. A., and Gn., 
 all admit that this cgn. "has always 
 been wholly independent of all 
 OTHER cgns. [even] of like faith and prac- 
 tice." 
 
 Also that the other cgns. of Pr. Bpts. 
 formed in Norwich since 1746, have Merer 
 as cgns., " claimed to take any part in the 
 worship or business of [this] cgn., or to 
 participate in the benefits of the said 
 trust." 
 
 G. says that the independence of 
 this cgn. has been " in pursuance of the 
 cfsn. of assembly, since its adoption." — 
 Ref. The cfsn. was adojited by the as- 
 sembly ; and this cgn. could not have 
 been independent, if it had depended for 
 independence itself, upon an act of tliat 
 assemblif. Norton, Afft , I. 8. 
 
 Bill'X. G, 122, 123; F. 16, 17.— 
 Strict communion. Gn. admits that 
 this church, "in faith and practice, al- 
 ways maintained and adhered to" it, till 
 time of innovations ; G. F. A., save as 
 before appearing, do not know. — Ref. 
 Norton I. 39; Moore and others; Hast- 
 ings Cross-exd. 
 
 Gn. admits that this cgn. " restricted 
 all CHURCH ACTS and in particular the 
 L's Spr., to baptized persons, being 
 I'egular or occasional members of" it, 
 and did so on the " ground that such a 
 course is enjoined by Christ and is a 
 permanent and inviolable eluty." A. does 
 not know. 
 
 G. F. SAY that the terms " Strict 
 Cmn., have always, at least since" as- 
 sembly of 1689, " been considered by Pr. 
 
 Bpta. to relate exclusively to" the Ls. Spr., 
 and to the x-estriction of it " to persons 
 who are members of the cgn." or "Pr. 
 Bpts."— Ref. Crisp 19. Denied : "strict" 
 first commonly used about 1772, Norton 
 I. 35. Open emu. in and before 1746, 
 related to full membership as well as to 
 L's. Spr. Norton, I. 33. 
 
 Church acts : G. F. say that "public 
 worship," that is, "p}rayer, praise, and the 
 preaching of the gospjel," are, "according 
 to the doctrine of Pr. Baptists... entitled 
 to be called church acts in every sense 
 in which the cmn. of the L's. Spr. is so.'' 
 G. says that this cgn. did not restrict 
 " cmn. in and loith the ch., as respects all 
 church acts to baptized persons" even in 
 Mr. Kinghorn's time ; that then Tnde- 
 l^endents and Presbyterians " did preach 
 the gospel to, and conduct the public 
 worship of the cgn." — Ref. To avoid 
 possible misconstruction of what was 
 meant by "church acts," these words 
 were, in the Ame7icled Bill, altered to 
 " acts performed by it in its church capa- 
 city." But prayer and praise are not 
 church acts except when they are acts of 
 the church. Praise, when it is the act 
 of a family, or of a promiscuous assembly 
 is not a church act. Preaching the gospel 
 is an act of an individual merely. 
 Strictly speaking, those to whom the 
 gospel or news of salvation is to be 
 preached, are the ivorld, not the church. 
 An address to a promiscuous assembly, 
 is not even addressed to the church. Is 
 not such an oath of the most serious 
 import, viewed as an appeal to God? 
 
 Bill XI. G. 124; F. 18.— Date at 
 which chapel books commence. — F. A. 
 Gn. do not know. G. knows no more 
 than he has before stated. 
 
 Bill XII. G. 125, 126. F. 19.— Ex- 
 tracts FROM CHURCH AKTICLES. — G. F. 
 A. ADMIT the extracts to be correct. Gn. 
 does not know. 
 
 Bill XIII. G. 127, F. 20, 21.— F. A. 
 Gn. do not know whether said articles, 
 were held by this ch. in 1746, nor 
 whether any others have ever been sub- 
 stituted for them ; but Gn. believes that 
 they were then and are still the articles 
 held by it. 
 
 G., and F. 21, believe that no assent to 
 these or " any loritten articles" was ever 
 made "the condition of membership" 
 with this cgn. — Ref. Each person on 
 admission examined as to his faith. 
 Moore and others, 2; Hastings cross- 
 exd. 
 
 G. F. say that this cgn. by Austin and 
 Flatman " arfop^cd the confession" of the 
 assembly of 1689. G. therefore denies 
 
64 
 
 that the above-named articles were held 
 by this cgn. in \7iG.—Ref. G. 77. This 
 eh. did not adopt thai cfsn. Norton I. 8 : 
 II. 9. 
 
 G. F. say, that all but the 8th of the 
 aforesaid articles were cancelled in 1 775. 
 — Rcf. G. 92. This statement seems 
 to contradict the preceding one, that is, 
 that they were not the articles of the ch. 
 in 1746 ; for if they had been cancelled 
 since 1689, they could not have been 
 cancelled again in 1775. As to reso- 
 lution of 1775, see remarks on ph. 92, 
 p. 60, of this pamphlet. 
 
 Bill XIV. G. 128, 129, F. 22.— G. 
 
 F. A. admit resolution of 1714 as to 
 members of church at Pulham. Gn. 
 ignorant. 
 
 G. F. DENY that entries in bks. of this 
 cgn. "show that none but Pr>. Bpts." 
 were admitted to " cmn. and fellowship 
 as members thereof" — Rcf. Cozens 
 Afft. 5, 9 ; Fletcher, 5, 7 ; Brightwell 3. 
 Proof in Norton I. 17, 26, 27. 
 
 Bill XV. G. 130—137, F. 23, 24.— 
 Gn. admits that till time of innovations 
 this cgn. had uniformly allowed none 
 to commune in the L's. Spr. but Particular 
 Baptists who were members of it, or were 
 in occasional cmn. with it. G. F. A., 
 save as before appearing, do not know. — 
 Ref. Norton I. 17, 22, 27, 39. Moore 
 and others ; Hastings cross-exd. 
 
 As to the exclusion of members by 
 this cgn. ; G. 131, 134, and F. 24, admit 
 that members have been excluded when 
 they have fallen away into immorality, 
 or " in matters of doctrine unconnected 
 with" cmn., or have partaken of the L's. 
 Spr. in the Church of England to qualify 
 "for a place under the Crown:" but 
 
 G. 136 denies that they have been ex- 
 cluded "for countenaricinfj infant bap- 
 tism;" or "for any act affecting the 
 question" of cmn. Yet he admits (132) 
 the exclusion of Thomas Lamkin, on 
 Mar. 4, 1715-16, "for disorderly walking, 
 particularly Ids pleading for infants 
 baptism ; and likewise" for absence and 
 "excessive drinking." Also (133) that 
 of Sarah Taylor, because she (in the 
 words of the ch. bk.), "went from us to 
 Mr. Barron;" a minister holding "ge- 
 neral redemption," she having "joined 
 herself wi (It vs, disuwninf/ that principle." 
 Also (134) the exclusion of Joxatii-.n 
 Turner, m or about 1786, for "receiving 
 the L's. Spr." in the Church of England, 
 to qualify for place, one reason given for 
 the exclusion being, that to " return 
 back" to that church is "altogether in- 
 consistent with dissenting principles." — 
 Ref. Strict cmn., when practised by a 
 
 " cgn. of ^r. B])ts.,'' involves the limita- 
 tion of cmn. to those holding pr. re- 
 demption. Open cmn. on the contrary 
 requires the reception of those holding 
 f/enercd redemption : see p. 4.'>, column 2, 
 of this pamphlet. So that the case of 
 S. Taylor does affect the question of 
 cmn. ? Mr. G., it will be observed, after 
 quoting the declaration that T. Lamkin 
 ^cas excluded " particularli/, for pleading 
 for infants' baptism" (132), said (136) 
 " it does not appear by the ch. bks. . . .that 
 any person has ever been excluded. ...for 
 countenancing infant baptism." Proofs 
 in support of Bill, Norton I. 10, 17, 26. 
 
 Bill XVI. G. 138, F. 25.— Gn. admits 
 that the reception of persons "not bap- 
 tized, to fellowship in a church obser- 
 vance.... within the said chapel" does, 
 " in a moral sense, necessarily involve 
 THE exclusion of those for whom the 
 said chapel was exclusively intended." 
 lief. Persons necessarily excluded are in 
 the Amended Bill, stated to be "those 
 who adhere to strict Bpt. fellowship," 
 and they are there said to be so ex- 
 cluded by the admission of the unbap- 
 tized to " full membership or to fellow- 
 ship with this cgn in the L's. Spr." 
 
 G. and F. deny that the admission of 
 the unbaptized at all involves the exclu- 
 sion of said persons. A. submits the 
 point to the Court. — Itcf. Proof in sup- 
 port of Bill, Norton I. 38, &c. 
 
 Bill XVIL G. 139—143 ; F. 26-30. 
 The SERVICE commenced by Mr. Brock 
 in 1845 : G. 139, 142, F. 26, 29, A., Gn., 
 all ADMIT that it was then instituted. Gn. 
 says, " I believe without the due autho- 
 rity of the said church." A. ignorant 
 whether without it or not. — Rcf. p. 8 of 
 this pamphlet. 
 
 G. 140, and F. 27, say that on May 
 26, 1845, "it was determined that" the 
 protest, and the answer to it by Mr. 
 Brock, " be entered in the ch. bks... as a 
 final settlement of the matter." — Ref. : 
 p. 9 of this pamphlet. How could those 
 who, in their protest insisted that the 
 ])ractice tended "to alienate the build- 
 ing and endowments from" those whose 
 "exclusive rights" they were, intend, by 
 proposing that their protest be entered 
 on the minutes, that nothing aftericards 
 should be done to prevent such a result ? 
 How could the 20 members have deemed 
 this "a final settlement," who in Aug. 
 following ajopealed to the trustees to in- 
 terfere ? See ]). 10, column 1 of this 
 pamjihlet. Some, indeed, though not 
 all of the strict members, paid that they 
 would not brmg the subject again be- 
 fore THE cuuECii. Mr. Brewer, who pre- 
 
65 
 
 pared the Protest, was one who did so. 
 He felt that it would be useless. Writiug 
 May 27, 1845, the day after the ch.- 
 meeting, to Mr. Norton, the trustee, he 
 said that Mr. Brock, after reading Rom. 
 xiv., had stated the object of the meet- 
 ing to be " to ascertain whether those 
 who disa2:)proved of the second cran. ser- 
 vice, would forbear in love, what they 
 could not but think an error of judg- 
 ment ; and that they were asked neither 
 to consent nor assent, but to forbear — ^to 
 avoid disputation :" that after reading the 
 Protest and Answer, Mr. Brock " soli- 
 cited the opinions of all on the subject 
 generally ;" that " very many spoke in 
 perfectly good temper, and brought out 
 from Mr. Brock, but chiefly from his 
 friends .... declarations respecting their 
 ulterior designs ; it being often asserted 
 that they would on no account sanc- 
 tion THE INTRODUCTION OP THE UNBAP- 
 
 TizED INTO THE CHURCH. This," Mr. 
 Brewer said, "and the ohviom hopelessness 
 of further opposition, induced several of 
 
 the strict brethren to declare that they 
 
 would cease from active opposition ; my- 
 self being one of the number.. ..Frequent 
 reference was made to the Deed, Mr. 
 Brock and his friends assuming that to 
 commune at his second service was no 
 more a violation of it, than to join in 
 the general worship. I openly asserted 
 that the opinion of an eminent lawyer 
 [Mr. Kindersley] was against them... Br. 
 Hastuags moved 'that the church cen- 
 sures and condemns the new pi'actice.' 
 I told him that this was the substance of 
 the protest, and that with his permission 
 I would substitute — 'that the protest, 
 with the signatures, be entered among 
 the records of the church.' " The motion 
 was made, and was " adopted on the 
 condition that those who wished to 
 
 withdraw their names should do so 
 
 Such, dear William," he said, " are the 
 particulars. I grieve at the result. I 
 fear the consequences.. ..But I must have 
 ceased from all further active service in 
 this affair, had 1 not so declared. My 
 health, my life, my peace, imiDcratively 
 demand it. I am so worn out, and 
 so sick at heart with this strife, that I 
 
 cannot proceed. I always felt that 
 
 Mr. Brock's plan was so laid that we 
 could not touch him but through the 
 Deed. ...Were I a trustee, I should think 
 it my duty to look well to the Deed." — 
 Exhibit, P. 2.* 
 
 * May the writer briefly bear testiEiony 
 to the strength of love for Christ which ap- 
 peared iu sir. Brewer during this struggle. I 
 
 G. 141, F. 28, say that a majority 
 rejected the motion made May 30, 1846, 
 for the discontinuance of the service. — 
 Bef. p. 10 preceding. 
 
 G. 143, F. 30, say that the service of 
 
 1845 was regularly continued wn^7 1857. 
 
 Bill XVIII. G. i44, F.31, A. Gu. all 
 
 admit that Mr. Gould became minister 
 
 in 1849. 
 
 Bill XIX. G. 145—152, F. 32—35. 
 A. ignorant. G. 145, F. 32, and Gn. 
 ADMIT that no other alleged material in- 
 novation occurred till Jan. 1857. 
 
 G. 147, and Gn. admit that on Jan. 
 26, 1857, permission was purported to 
 be given (and G. says was in fact given) 
 by resolution to receive E. Bates "at 
 
 the L's. Spr as a member of this 
 
 church ; on the ground of her willing- 
 ness to be baptized as soon as the pro- 
 vidence of God allows." The of&ce-copy 
 of the answer of the Five, (32) omits 
 from the resolution the words "as a 
 member of this chttrch." It is piossible 
 that this is an accidental error. The 
 evidence in the Ch. Bk. and from other 
 sources proves that the words were iu the 
 resolution as purported to be passed. 
 
 G. 148, ADMITS that " /« pursuance of 
 this resolution the said E. Bayes was ad- 
 mitted" to the L's. Spr. unbaptized; but 
 he and the Five nevertheless deny that 
 she " was in fact a member before being 
 baptized.'' 
 
 The Five (33) deny that she " was ever 
 
 intended by the cgn. to be admi ,ed a 
 
 member." — Ref. To justify this state- 
 ment, made on oath, they must prove 
 either that the words " As a member of 
 this church," were not in the resolution ; 
 or that the majority which passed the 
 said resolution were capable of not in- 
 tending that E. Bayes should be received 
 as a member, even when resolving that 
 she be received as a member. 
 
 G. 149, and F. 33, say that E. Bayes 
 
 was baptized July 1, and " publicly 
 
 received into membership" on July 6, 
 
 1857. 
 
 G. 151, 152 ; and the F. 34, 35, admit 
 
 To him personally it was most painful. It 
 cost him feelings akin to anguish, and required 
 a devotion resembling that of a martyr. A 
 mhid so noble and generous, with emotions so 
 sensitive and deep, could not but suSer keenly, 
 from events such as ever attend the course he 
 had to pursue. At the peril of life, until life 
 could bear no more, and all further efforts of 
 his as a member, were, in his view, useless, he 
 bore witness for Christ. He rests in heaven. 
 But his witness hves here still, and indirectly 
 may have influence on eailh till Christ shall 
 come. — Ed. 
 
66 
 
 the resolutioa of March 11, 1857, and 
 the reception " iu pursuance" of it, of 
 persons, not being Baptists, to cmn. with 
 this church in the L's. Spr. on the first 
 L's. day in April, 1857. — Kef. p. 18, pre- 
 ceding. 
 
 Bill XX. G. 153, 154 ; F. 36, 37.— 
 Gn. believes that the innovations were 
 PROTESTKD AGAINST. G. 153, and F. 36, 
 deny that they wei'e so, except by the 
 Protest presented to Mr. Brock in 18-45, 
 by a Declaration signed by members and 
 delivered to Mr. Gould [June 29, 1857], 
 and by " various verbal discussions and 
 protests of the members." — Ref. As to 
 the above protests, pp. 9, 28, preceding ; 
 as to other protests, pip. 14, 19 under 
 date of AprU 11, and p. 46 under date of 
 Jan. 16, preceding. 
 
 A. admits that Mr. Norton asked him 
 to interfere. Says that he declined to 
 do so, because he was " ignorant of the 
 merits of the case." 
 
 Gn. admits that the effect of said in- 
 novations has been to exclude various 
 members from church-cmn. and fellow- 
 ship, and benefits of the trusts. A. can- 
 not say ; G. and F. deny that the effect 
 has been to exclude any therefrom. 
 
 Gn. admits that the inevitable re- 
 sult of the innovations, if carried out 
 or allowed to continue, must be to de- 
 stroy the church as regulated by the 
 trust-deed. A. submits this point to the 
 Court. G. 154, and F. 37, deny (save 
 as before appealing), that such would be 
 the result. 
 
 Bill XXI. G. 155—163 ; F. 38—46. 
 Gn. and A. submit to the Court the point 
 whether the innovations are a violation 
 OF THE trusts of 1746. Gn. believes 
 that they tend to the manifest injury 
 OF the uejibers. a. submits this to 
 the Court. G. 155, and F. 38, deny that 
 they are a violation of those trusts, or 
 any injury to the members. 
 
 Gn. admitted that Willis and Spald/ 
 ing were then members, and had, he 
 believed, been shut out from cmn. by 
 these innovations. G. 155, F. 39, and 
 A. admitted them to be members excejst 
 so far as their " acts of separation" had 
 " determined their membership ;'' but 
 G. and F. denied that they had been so 
 shut out. A. could not say. 
 
 G. 155, insists that, and the Five 39, 
 submit whether the j)'>'actice of open or 
 strict cmn. is by the said trusts " left to 
 THE discretion" of the cgn., so that the 
 alleged innovations are "in conformity" 
 with them. 
 
 G. 156, and F. 40, say that on March 
 30, 1857, a monthly strict service 
 
 was resolved on " TO meet the case of 
 the members who " might conscien- 
 tiously OEJKCT to the practice of open 
 cmn. adopted bv this cgn.," on March 11, 
 1857.— JSe/. For proof that it did not 
 meet their case, see p. 18, column 2 ; and 
 p. 48, c. 2 preceding. 
 
 G. 157, 158, and F. 41, 42, say that 
 the strict members " did not avail them- 
 selves of " the above resolution ; and 
 that "on the first Sunday.... oi April 
 1857, and thereafter, the greater number 
 of them, including" Willis and Spalding, 
 " absented themselves from public wor- 
 ship," and the L's. Spr., and " in other 
 respects separated themselves" and "occu- 
 pied a chapel called Tombland Chapel," 
 where they met " for public worship, and 
 the celebration of the L'8. Spr. on the 
 same days and hows as ...the St. Mary's 
 cgn." Yet " claimed to attend at the 
 meetings of the St, Mary's cgn. for busi- 
 ness."— Be/. See p. 23 ; 29, col. 2, sec. 
 vii. ; 39, c. 2, preceding. 
 
 G. 159, said that this "being a case 
 contemplated by the Confession of As- 
 sembly, ch. sxvi. ph. 15," he in June 
 1857, submitted it to Messrs. Angus, 
 Steane, Price, Noel, Brock, Hinton, Lan- 
 dells, and WooUacott, of London, of 
 whom Mr. WooUacott was a Strict Bpt. 
 He said that he was advised by them 
 unanimously that " the minority .. .ought 
 either to submit" to the ojjcn and strict 
 resolutions of March 11 and 30, 1857, or 
 "formally to withdraw from member- 
 ship," and that the cgn. " ought to exer- 
 cise discipline," if they did not " resume 
 a regular attendance," or request " a dis- 
 mission" to another church. He quoted 
 Mr. Woollacott's letter at length. It 
 sjioke of the " much forletirance a,nd kind- 
 ness" of the majority ! — lief-pTp. 25 to 27 
 preceding. For proof that the appeal 
 of Mr G for advice to these ministers 
 was totally diflerent from the proceed- 
 ings proposed by the Cfsn of 1689, see 
 Norton Afft. II. 10, and the Cfsn. 
 
 G. 160—163, and F. 43-46, say that 
 a STRICT service was offered on June 29, 
 1857, but rejected; also by resolution of 
 March 29, 1858, and that about March 
 31, 1858, a printed circular was sent to 
 the members," including " the mem- 
 bers or late 7nembers... who had separated 
 themselves," giving notice of Mr. G.'s 
 intention to hold such a service, which 
 was accordingly held on April 11, 1858; 
 but that none of the persons " sepa- 
 rating themselves" had attended. — Be/. 
 p. 29 preceding, sec. vii. ; and p. 48, 
 under March 29. 
 
 Bill XXII. G, 165; F. 48— G. and 
 
67 
 
 F. ADMITTED that numei'ousa ttempts at 
 
 an AMICABLE SETTLEMENT or REFERENCE 
 
 TO ARBITRATION " had been made, but 
 had proved wholly unsuccessful. A. 
 and Gn. believed that they had been 
 made; and Gn. that they had been un- 
 successful ; but this A. did not know. 
 —Ref. p. 9, col. 1, top ; p. 10, Aug. 30; 
 p. 13, Sep. 18; and 29 to 47, preceding. 
 
 G. says that the first overture for 
 arbitration proceeded from the church 
 at his instance) and was several times 
 repeated. 
 
 G. gives resolution of Feb. 1, 1858, 
 puttinr/ an end to correspondence on the 
 subject. — Ref. pp. 29, 47, preceding. 
 
 Bill XXIII. G. 99, 100, 166; F. 49 
 • — 64. A. and Gn. admit that the jDro- 
 perty is " legally vested" in present 
 TUUSTEF.s. G. had already (see jphs. 
 99 and 100) insisted that the present 
 trustees are not entitled to act as trus- 
 tees. The Five submit to the Court, 
 whether they are so. In phs. 50 to 5'2, 
 they recite the trust deeds of 1773, 1799, 
 and 1832, and submit whether the pi'o- 
 perty is not now vested in G. Watson 
 and W. Durrant, or their heirs. Com- 
 pare G. 99. 
 
 G. F. A. Gn. say that Mr. Gould is still 
 minister. 
 
 Bill XXIV. G. 164 ; F, 47.— G. and 
 
 F. admit that on April 26, 1858, Mr. 
 Gould reported the names of absentees, 
 and that defts. Fletcher and Tillyard 
 moved the appointment of visitors ; but 
 submit that the absentees had not " been 
 forced so to absent themselves on ac- 
 count of the alleged innovations," and 
 insist that the cgn. " is entitled to exer- 
 cise discijjline in respect of such de- 
 faulters." G. denies that defts. threaten 
 to expel from the cga. any ''on account 
 of their opinions on cnin.'' A. and Gn. 
 ignorant ; and have no intention to expel 
 such persons. Gn. had " ceased to at- 
 tend meetings of the ch. some time be- 
 fore April, 1858." 
 
 Bill XXV. G. 167, F. 55 — 69. 
 
 G. denies, except as he has before stated, 
 that he is " an Acxma or concurring 
 party in the alleged innovations." The 
 F. deny that they are so ' ' otherwise 
 than exclusively as members ;" and say 
 that as trustees they have " never in fact 
 acted otherwise than impartially and in- 
 differently between the parties." G. and 
 F. deny that, except as they have stated, 
 " any application has been made *' to 
 them to cause said innovations to cease. 
 A. denies that he is a concurring party ; 
 admits " one letter from Mr. Norton." 
 Gn. denies that he ia a concurring party, 
 
 but' believes that " the several defts. 
 except " himself are so ; that G. and 
 others have "actively promoted" said 
 innovations, and have refused to comply 
 with " repeated applications " to stop 
 them. 
 
 Bill XXVI. Gn. does decline to be a 
 jilaintifF. 
 
 Bill XXVII. G. 169, F. 61. G.F.A. 
 Gn. submit to the Court the question 
 whether this is a charitable trust ; and 
 one icithin the exemptions of the Chari- 
 table Trusts' Act. G. F. submit whether 
 the chapel is both registered, and bond 
 Jide used as a place of worship. A. does 
 not know if it is registered, but believes 
 it to be so used. Gn. believes it to ba 
 so registered and used. 
 
 Bill XXVIII. G. 170, F. 62.— G. ad- 
 mits possession of four church books; 
 that is, the one in ph. 89, said to be the 
 "earliest record extant," and three others 
 commencing May 6, 1799 ; Sept. 1, 1834 ; 
 and July 28, 1851 respectively. The F. 
 admit possession of " various deeds" re- 
 lating to the matters aforesaid, and give 
 as " a full list" of them, the trust-deeds 
 of 1746, 1773, 1799, and 1832. A. and 
 Gn. deny that they have the custody, 
 personally, of any such documents. 
 
 [Remark by the Ed. Ihe plaintiffs 
 did not authorize any statement to be 
 made nor continued in the Bill when 
 amended, which might imply that a 
 sight of the trust-deeds had been re- 
 fused. Mr. Norton personally had been 
 refused the sight of nothing but the 
 church-books.] 
 
 Gn. 29, declared that he was a Par- 
 ticular Baptist and an adherent to strict 
 cmn., a member of the church, a trustee 
 of the premises, and opposed to the said 
 innovations ; but that he was " desirous 
 of avoiding all disputes having reference 
 to matters connected with religion," and 
 thei-efore declined " to take any active 
 proceedings in this suit, and to be joined 
 as a plaintiff" in it. He said that he 
 had always performed the duties of a 
 trustee conscientiously, but being nearly 
 seventy, desired to retire from the office, 
 but he submitted himself, in all respects, 
 to the Court. 
 
 Mr. Gooderson has, since that time, 
 finished his course. Soon after the 
 judgment of the Court was given, he 
 entered a better world. 
 
 Section III. Further Answers of 
 Mr. Gould and the Five. 
 
 Bill XXIV. G. and the Five having 
 been required to make further answer 
 E 2 
 
68 
 
 to ph. XXIV. of the Bill, admitted the 
 iuteutiou of deft.s. Gould, Fletcher, aud 
 Tillyard, as miuister and members, to 
 propose or concur in a resolution that 
 the acts of those still persisting in 
 " such acts of separation, have ipso facto 
 determined [theii-] membership." Or 
 that they therefore " be excluded," or to 
 that effect. They admitted their intention 
 "to effectuate any such resolution;" but 
 said that " since the commencement of 
 this suit" they had not taken, and " pend- 
 ing this suit," did " not intend to take 
 any step towards any such proceeding." 
 
 Section IV. The Bill amended. 
 
 After the above Answers were filed, 
 the Bill was amended. The changes 
 made in it left the substance so much 
 the same, that it is needless to add any 
 thing to the notice taken of them in the 
 Abstract of the Bill ; pp. 50 — 53, pre- 
 ceding. 
 
 These amendments gave all the defts. 
 leave to answer again ; if they pleased. 
 
 Section V. The Answer of George 
 Gould to the amended Informa.- 
 TioN and Bill of Complaint. 
 
 Mr. Gould's is the only Answer to the 
 Amended Bill, aud this, though profess- 
 edly an answer to it, does not, it is be- 
 lieved, refer to even one amendment in it. 
 This answer is very long : has 83 phs., 
 many of which do not relate at all to this 
 cgn. It fills 112 pages of foolscap. The 
 present practice of Chancery, though 
 said to be improved, does not prevent 
 such a course as this. The answer re- 
 lates partli/ to BEDEMPTION, partly to 
 communion. 
 
 PI. and Df. refer to the affidavits for 
 plaintiffs and defendants. In the case 
 of joint affits. only the first name is, in 
 most cases, given. Cs.-exn. refers to 
 the cross-examination of plaintiff's' wit- 
 nesses. 
 
 Ph. 1, " The TERMS used in my first 
 answer,... whenever used in this answer, 
 are so used in the senses respectively in 
 which the same are defined and used in 
 my said first answer." 
 
 [Remarks by the Ed. In Mr. G.'s Ans. 
 1. 11, " particular or limited rdpn." is thus 
 defined: — "Christ by his perfect obedi- 
 ence and sacrifice of himself, purchased 
 salvation for all... .the elect ;" aud in ph. 
 101, thus : — " this doctrine then was 
 that Christ by his death did purchase 
 salvation for the elect." This definition 
 agrees with that of the Bill ; the words 
 of which were quoted from article 21 
 
 of the" London Cfsn. of 1646. But 
 in Ans. III. a new definition is given, 
 and the deft, in his Sermon of June 3, 
 1860, p. 19, said : " In the progress of 
 the suit, it was discovered that so idtra 
 were the views adopted by Mr. Norton as 
 to ' limited redemption,' and attempted 
 to be imposed by Mm upon this congrega- 
 tion that neither your late pastor Mr. 
 Kinghorn, nor Mr. Brock, nor Andrew 
 Fuller, nor Robert Hall, nor even Dr. 
 Owen himself (had he been a Baptist) 
 would have been admissible to member- 
 ship or communion with this church. 
 TJie cross-exaini nation of several of his 
 witnesses established this fact, and re- 
 vealed to all observers the true character 
 of the jn-occedings against us. This 2^ii'>'- 
 pose had, however, been anticijDated and 
 provided against. The history of the 
 doctrine of redemption, as held by Pro- 
 testants,... \!&.b compiled and laid before 
 the court : and, to the astonishment of 
 all who were present, in a very early 
 stage of the hearing, this part of the 
 case against us was formally abandoned. 
 Not a word could he said to stqqtort the 
 monstrous bigotry which had crawled into 
 the light of day." 
 
 The words here printed in italics, sug- 
 gest these inquiries : 1. Did Mr. Norton 
 " attempt to impose " his own views 1 
 
 2. Was not the view of " particular or 
 limited redemption," which was given in 
 the Bill, that of all the Particular Bap- 
 tist Confessions, and of Particular Bap- 
 tists in general at and before 1746 ? 
 
 3. Did not Mr. Gould, in his Ans. I., 
 ph. 101, admit that it appeared, and was 
 proved, by the confession of 1646, and 
 that of 1677 aud 1689, that the said 
 view was that which was held in 1746 ? 
 
 4. If Mr. Gould, in his third ans., wished 
 to make it appear that a view diffei-ent 
 fi'om that of the Bill and his first answer 
 was the view held in 1746, was it some- 
 thing in Mr. Norton, or was it this wish 
 in himself, which needed to be "pro- 
 vided" for by means of this third ans. ? 
 
 5. Is it true that Mr. Kinghorn and Dr. 
 Owen did not hold the doctrine set fui'th 
 in the bill? 6. What had the views 
 " held by Protestants" at large to do 
 with those of this cgn. ? 7. Is it true 
 that this part of the case was "formally 
 abandoned,''* or that '' not a word could 
 be said to supjjort" the allegations of the 
 
 * The plaintiffs had no intention to abandon 
 it. The instructions given related to the 
 whole case ; but counsel supposing this differ- 
 ence to be of little extent or importance, called 
 to it little attention. — Ed. 
 
69 
 
 Bill on this point? 8. If Mr. Gould 
 deems the view of particular redemption 
 actually held in 1746, to be "monstrous 
 bigotry," is be himself "admissible to 
 membership and comn.," and entitled 
 to preach in a place of worship put in 
 trust for those only who hold the view of 
 1746? 9. Thirteen leading free-cmn. Bap- 
 tists have deposed on oath, in this suit, 
 that those who have held the doctrine 
 defined to be " particular redemjition" in 
 this third ans. have ^^ hitherto included... 
 a majority of Particular Baptists." What 
 view does this give of their information 
 or credibility, and of the means resorted 
 to for the promotion of free commu- 
 nion ? 10. Are the doctrines of the gospel 
 safe under the iniiuence of a system not 
 only of such kind, but vising such means 
 for its support? — Ed.] 
 Phs. 2 — 8. Particular redemption 
 
 NEWLY DEFINED AND SAID TO DIFFER 
 FROM LIMITED REDEMPTION. 2. " The 
 
 terms ' jjarticular' and ' limited,' used 
 in [Bill, ph. III.] are not strictly synony- 
 mous, and in order to prevent misappre- 
 hension, the proper use thereof I'espec- 
 tively, is stated and defined" as follows. 
 3. " Particular rdpn. [was] first used 
 among Bpts. in contradistinction to.... 
 general rdpn. 4. " The terms ' limited 
 redemption have never been, nor are,... 
 in use among Baptists. ...Limited atone- 
 ment [is] sometimes used [for] the doc- 
 trine hereinafter :... called .... limited 
 redemption." 5. " Among Particular 
 Baptists... one party [holds]... particular 
 the other limited redn as herein- 
 after defined. 6. Atonement... is used 
 in this ans. [for] the satisfaction ... 
 made by... Christ,... providing for the 
 manifestation and application of Divine 
 mercy to man. Redemption, [for] 
 actual deliverance from sin and its con- 
 sequences by the application of Uivine 
 mercy through the atonement." 7. 
 "Particular redemption [as here] 
 used, [i.s] the doctrine that the atone- 
 ment,. ...in point of sufiiciency, was in- 
 finite, and made for the sins of the whole 
 world ;....but, in point of efficiency, will 
 only be applied, by way of redemption, 
 to the subjects of Divine predestination 
 to salvation." 8. " Limited redemption 
 [as here] used, is the doctrine that the 
 atonement, ...in point of sufficiency was 
 limited or defined, and made for the sins, 
 not of the whole world, but only of the 
 subjects of Divine predestination to sal- 
 vation ; to whom that atonement in point 
 of efficiency will be applied by way of 
 redemption." 
 
 [Remarks. — "Limited" was used in 
 
 the Bill in its true and common mean- 
 ing, to denote a redemption which is not 
 "general," but limited to particular per- 
 sons,- — the elect. The new definitions in- 
 volve great inaccuracy, confusion, and 
 self-contradiction. They are inaccurate. 
 
 Redemption, as held by Particular 
 Bpts. in 1746, is purchase, not " actual 
 deliverance ;" it relates to the death of 
 Christ ; not to the work of the Spirit. 
 Particular redemption denotes sal- 
 vation purchased for, and not merely 
 impyarted to particular persons. Re- 
 demption and atonement were viewed 
 as of like extent, and as two names 
 for the same thing, that is, for the 
 efficary of the death of Christ; viewed 
 in the one case as a price paid to re- 
 cover from bondage or alienation ; in 
 the other as a sacrifice in the room of, 
 and to arrest the doom of the con- 
 demned. But the greatest inaccuracy is 
 that what is here declared on oath to be 
 particular is general redemption ; for 
 particular and general relate to the per- 
 sons for whom Christ died as a ransom 
 and atonement ; and the doctrine that he 
 so died for the whole world is the docr 
 trine of general redemption. 
 
 The definitions are full of confusion. 
 Redemption, for instance, if " actual de- 
 liverance through the atonement," must 
 be distinct from the atonement, and can- 
 not include, as it is here said to do, views 
 of the atonement. The term particu- 
 lar also, does not, cannot convey the 
 meaning of " infiii'te," and " the ivhole 
 world ;" for in.stead of referring to what 
 is infinite and unirei'saf, it denotes spe- 
 ciality and limitation. Sufficiency does 
 not include purpose : it cannot be said 
 that " in point of sufiiciency" the atone- 
 ment " was made for " this person or 
 that. "Made for" denotes purpose, and 
 purpose is distinct irom. sufficiency. The 
 sufficiency of wealth to purchase an 
 estate, is wholly distinct from purpose 
 to do so. Sufficiency also is identical 
 with efficiency in whatever God in- 
 tends. The atonement cannot be suffi- 
 cient" and "made for the sins of the 
 whole world" without being " efficient" 
 also, to put them away ; and without 
 being applied also to those for whom it 
 was made. Neither is there room for 
 ANY question at all as to " the extent of 
 the sufficiency," or "efficiency of the 
 atonement ;" for actual atonement cannot 
 be distinct from sufficiency or efficiency. 
 The sole question i.s, For whom was 
 actual atonement made ? for the elect 
 or for the whole world ? If a per- 
 son's sins were actually atoned for, and 
 
70 
 
 put away by the Bacrifice of Chi'ist, it 
 must have been sufficient and efficient 
 to atone for them ; if they were not 
 atoned for, then there was no atonement 
 made ; and however sufficient Christ 
 may be in the dignity of his nature to 
 have made an atonement for all men, if 
 he had borne their sins in his body on 
 the tree, this possibility has nothing to 
 do with the fact as to actual atonement. 
 The deft, by these definitions wholly 
 CONTRADICTS his first answer, though 
 he in ph. 1 of this, professes to con- 
 firm it. Redemption, for instance, is 
 purchase thei-e ; merely application of 
 pui'chase hei-e ; particular and limited 
 EDPN. are the same there, they are dif- 
 ferent here ; particular related to the 
 elect there, here (in point of sufficiency) 
 to " the whole world." The definitions, 
 too, of this answer clash among them- 
 selves. If redemption be " actual de- 
 liverance from sin and its consequences," 
 then particular must be limited redemp- 
 tion also; for such deliverance is sal- 
 vation, and salvation is not universal. 
 
 lief PL Norton I. 24, 2t5 ; Cs.-exn. of 
 ■witnesses. Df. Crisp, and 13 others, 2, 
 21, 22. 
 
 Phs. 9, and 26— 30, relate to general 
 REDEMPTION, of whlch, as of particular, 
 a new definition is given, and the dis- 
 tinction between it and particular is 
 made to consist, not in pturchuse by 
 Christ, but in application by the Spirit. 
 The doctrine is said in Ans. I. 101, to be 
 that Christ " purchased salvation for all 
 men ;'' but here in ph. 2(3, it is said to 
 be that "the atonement made by... 
 Christ, not only in point of sufficiency 
 was made for the sins of the whole 
 world, but also in point of efficiency is 
 applied to all mankind, so far as to 
 procure for all of them Divine grace 
 enabling them to accept the Divine ofier 
 of salvation." In respect, therefore, of 
 Christ's death being a ransom or atone- 
 ment for the whole ivorld, both particular 
 and general redemption are made to agree, 
 although this is one point of essential 
 difference between them. Their differ- 
 ence is said to be one of application of the 
 atonement. The deft, denies the name 
 *' particular" to what is really particular 
 redemption, and calls by that name a 
 theory which is really general redemption, 
 associated ivith the belief of particular ap- 
 plication, or effectual grace. Ph. 28, quotes 
 Dr. Smith as saying that Arminians 
 i-egard redemption as " not rendering 
 certain the salvation of any, but making 
 possible the salvation of all (Theology, 
 
 p. 448). Phs. 29, 30, refer to the General 
 Bpt. Cfsns. of 1611 and 1660. The 
 "Orthodox Creed" of 1678, though a 
 Gl. Bpt. cfsn., is not named here, but 
 is wrongly mentioned in Ans. I. 75, as a 
 Pr. Bpt. Cfsn. The 18th article says, 
 " Christ died for all men, and there is a 
 sufficiency ill his death and merits for the 
 sins of the whole world." This was the 
 doctrine of general redemption then. 
 
 Phs. 10 — 25. " Varying... THEORIES 
 respecting ... redemption." — 11. "The 
 doctrine taught... by the Lutheran for- 
 mularies;" 12, by Calvin in his Insti- 
 tutes ; — 13, by the articles of Convo- 
 cation of 1552; 14, by those of "the 
 National Synod of the Scottish Re- 
 formers " in 1560;— 15, 16, by the 
 Synod of Dort, of 1618. 1619 ; and 17, 
 by the Westminster Assembly of 1643, 
 and the Independents, at the Savoy. 
 
 Ph. 18, says that the London Pk. Bpt. 
 Confession of 1644, 1646, 1651, 1652; 
 and that of the Pr. Bpt. Assemblies of 
 1677 and 1689, teach that atonement 
 was made for all. 
 
 Ph. 19, says that some alterations 
 made in the 2nd edition of the London 
 Confession indicate an apj^rehended 
 liability of the first edition to " miscon- 
 struction as teaching the doctrine of 
 limited rdpn," as here defined. 
 
 Ph. 20 compares the first three editions 
 as to articles 3, 5 or 6, 10, 12, 14, 17, 21, 
 and 25. [Ref. The alterations leave 
 the doctrine that Christ by his death 
 purchased salvation for the elect un- 
 touched. For instance, art. 21, in ed. 2 
 has the words, " Christ by his death did 
 purchase salvation for the elect that God 
 gave unto him. These only (1) have in- 
 terest in him ; to them alone (2) doth 
 
 God by his Spii'it apply this redemption, 
 as also the free gift of eternal life is 
 given to them, and none else." In ed. 3 
 "only" and ''alone," marked 1 and 2, 
 are omitted ; but notwithstanding these 
 omissions, the article teaches still that 
 Christ purchased salvation for the elect, 
 and not for the whole world. — Ed.] 
 
 in ph. 21, the said statements as to 
 the London Confession are said to be con- 
 firmed by the language of Paul Hobson, 
 who signed edns. I. and II. In the ex- 
 tract given, he says, " the end of God in 
 the act of Christ's coming was the jjur- 
 chasing of spirits into life and into love. 
 This was and is to some and not to all." 
 
 In ph. 22, the said statements are said 
 to be confirmed by the woi-ds of Ben- 
 jamin CoxE, who signed Edn. II. Hia 
 Appendix to Cfsn. of 1646 is quoted. 
 
71 
 
 [In art. 1 he says that " redemption 
 is a redemption from eternal miseiy and 
 torment." The second part of Mr. Spils- 
 bery's Treatise of 1646, entitled " God's 
 Ordinance," &c., is said, in the title-page, 
 " to be transcribed and somewhat en- 
 larged by Benj. Coxe," and the title says 
 that, in this second part, " it is proved 
 that Christ hath not pi-eseuted to his 
 Father's justice a satisfaction for the 
 sins of all men ; but only for the sins of 
 those that do or shall believe in him, 
 which are his elect only." In a preface 
 to this work Mr. Coxe states and affirms 
 the same doctrine. — Ed.] 
 
 In ph. 23 the doctrine taught by the 
 Pr. Bpt. Cfsn. of 1677, 1089, is said to 
 be what Mr. G. calls particular rdpn. — 
 that of atonement for all. He quotes 
 chap. iii. sees. 3, 6, including the words, 
 "they who are elected.... are redeemed 
 by Christ," &c., " neither are any other 
 redeemed by Christ ;" also vii. 2 ; viii. 
 6, 8 ; " to all those for whom Christ hath 
 obtained eternal redemption, he doth cer- 
 tainly and effectually apply and commu- 
 nicate the same ;" and x. ], xiv. 1. xx. 1. 
 
 In ph. 24 it is alleged that from a col- 
 lation of this cfsn. with those of West- 
 minster and Savoy on which it was 
 based, "it apjiears that [this] was care- 
 fully framed with the view of excluding 
 any inference in favour of the doctrine 
 of limited rdpn." — -lief. The extracts 
 in ph. 23 are sufficient to show that it 
 was not framed to prove that atonement 
 was made for all men. 
 
 25. Those who adopted cfsn. of 1689 
 were persons " denying Arminianism." 
 
 Phs. 31— 33, and 43— 52. This church 
 said to have " always hitherto" held the 
 doctrine called by deft. pr. rdpn., namely, 
 that Christ "made atonement for the 
 SINS of thk whole world." 
 
 Ph. 32, says that the earliest use 
 of " particular " to describe Ba2)ti8ts, 
 which deft, knew of, was at the establish- 
 ment of the Pr. Baptist Fund in 1717. — 
 Ref. Norton I. 24. 
 
 Ph. 33, says that the articles in the 
 first ch. bk. teach atonement for 
 ALL. Art. I. is quoted, stating that God 
 has revealed " a way for the redemption 
 and salvation of a certain 7imnbcr of man- 
 kind by Jesus Christ ;" and sent him " to 
 save his people from their sins ;" also 
 Art. II. stating that the new covenant 
 is "an absolute unconditional covenant, 
 being made with Christ our Head as in 
 relation to ?(s." Art. III. stating that 
 God did " predestinate a certain number 
 of persons who were chosen in Christ," 
 
 and " ordained to eternal life, and the 
 rest of mankind are left, on whom God 
 will show his wrath." Arts. IV. and V., 
 are quoted also. [The above extracts 
 are sufficient to show that the articles 
 give no countenance to the doctrine that 
 Christ died for the whole world. — Ed.] 
 
 Phs. 43—50. The hymn books used by it. 
 
 Ph. 43, says that it has long used 
 and still uses. Dr. Watts's hymns, and 
 for about seventy years, until 1838, a 
 collection by Drs. Ash and Evans, of 
 which Mr. Kinghorn edited and pub- 
 lished for its use a new edition in 1814, 
 and added a supplement; also in 1827 
 another edition. — 44. Both books said 
 to teach the doctrine of pr. rdpn., that is, 
 
 of UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT. 45. lu 
 
 hymn bks. used by cgns. holding definite 
 atonement, "all hymns and parts of hymns 
 considered to express or imply" what is 
 included under the "sufficiency of the 
 atonement" in Mr. Gould's definitions, 
 are said to be " excluded or altered." — - 
 46. One of these hymn books is " edited 
 by Mr. W. Gadsbt." The wish expressed 
 in its Preface to have a selection " free 
 from Arminianism" is said to mean "free 
 from the doctrine of irtarticular redemp- 
 tion," that is, in the deft.'s sense of an 
 " atonement made for the sins of tliexohole 
 loorld," which (so called) " doctrine of 
 jjr. rdpn.," the deft, says, the hymn bks. 
 of Watts, Rippon, and Hart, " are well 
 known asteaching." — 47. Another of these 
 is one " edited by Mr. John Stevens." 
 The words "Arminian dashes," in the 
 Preface, meant, the deft, says, " the doc- 
 trine of ■particular redemption." — 48. 
 Deft, finds on collating St. Mary's book 
 with those of Mr. Gads by and Mr. Stevens, 
 that many parts of hymns teaching 
 what he calls " the doctrine of particular 
 redemption," are " inserted with altera- 
 tions " in these latter books, or are 
 omitted. — 49. Among examples given of 
 omissions are these lines : — 
 
 " He comes from an abyss of woes, 
 
 To raise our ruined race." 
 " For sinners 'twas lie bled." 
 " A ransom for cm- wretched race." 
 One instance given of alteration is that 
 Mr. Gadsby had altered the words 
 
 " there may I," 
 to 
 
 " And there have /, as vile as he, 
 Washed all my sins away." 
 
 The following lines of the same hymn 
 are quoted as being in the St. Mary's 
 collection : 
 
 " Till all the ransomed chwch of God, 
 Be saved, to sin uo more.'' 
 
72 
 
 [Remarks.— The use by this cgn. of 
 the hymns laudtertd, iu which the above 
 lilies occur, is alleged as 'proof, it must 
 be remembered, that it held the doctrine 
 that Christ made atonement for the sins 
 of the whole world. But does " the 
 ransomed church" mean the ransomed 
 world ? May not the words " a ran- 
 som for our wretched race" have been 
 understood to mean for persons of that 
 race, just as the words "to raise our 
 ruined race," meant a purpose to raise 
 the elect of that race, and not the whole 
 race, to a state of bhss ? And who will 
 allege that Christ bled for any but 
 " sinners ?"—jRc/: PI. Norton I. 27. Df. 
 Cozens, eldei-, 3, 4 : Fletcher, 3, 4. 
 
 In phs. 50, ol, deft, states his belief 
 that " no ohjection was ever made," by 
 any member of this cgn., to the use of 
 the St. Mary's collection "on the ground 
 that [it] teaches... pr. rdpn. and does not 
 /cacA... limited redemption," used in the 
 senses of universal and " definite atone- 
 ment." He says that fi'om its formation 
 hitherto, it has taught and held the 
 former " exclusively of " the latter. But 
 in ph. 52, he says that its practice has 
 " never been to require any profession or 
 declaration of opinion on the subject," 
 from candidates for membership, nor 
 any profession but one of repentance, 
 faith, and obedience. — Ref. Afft. of 
 Mooi'e and others ; Hastings, cs. esd. 
 
 Pns. 34—41, Mr. Kinghorn's views 
 OF REDEMPTION. — 34. He is said to have 
 " undoubtedly held the doctrine of pr. 
 rdpn.," that is, of atonement made for 
 the whole world. 35. Alleged proof: 
 his Ordination Confession of May 20, 
 1790 ; Life by Wilkin, p. 176, lines 5—9, 
 15 — 19 ; also, p. 177, lines 8 — 16. 
 
 [The editor is unable to quote any thing 
 pertinent from these extracts; but the 
 following sentence is not quoted, p. 176, 
 last lines, " the Lord's Supper is a 
 commemoration of his [Christ's] suffer- 
 ings and death for the sins of hisjieople."^ 
 
 36. Further alleged proof: Edn. II. 
 1813 of his '■ Address to a Friend," the 
 words, " salvation is a gift.... founded ou 
 the atonement," &c.; also Edn. ill. 18".4; 
 '■ God sent his Son to become a sacri- 
 fice for the sins of those who should be- 
 lieve in him." ''He died for all who 
 believe in his name." [But those who 
 believe are the elect ; atonement for 
 them is not universal, but particular 
 atonement; see also, p. 8, 1824, the words, 
 " He died for them, that they should 
 not die eternally ; and his resurrection 
 was a proof that his sacrifice was ac- 
 
 cepted and the atonement he made was 
 complete." — Ed.] 
 
 Phs. 37—40. Alleqed proof from a let- 
 ter of Jan. 21, 1817, in Life, p, 360, 
 saying that he rejected " certain infer- 
 ences which Hyper Calvinists derive 
 from the [Calvmistic] system;" also 
 from one of Feb. 8, 1817, in Life, p. 362, 
 to the effect that even under the law of 
 woi'ks, men were " under a dispensation 
 of grace." Also from one of Feb. 19, 
 1821, in Life, p. 376, stating that those 
 who " accept not the new covenant ; live 
 under it" as " a dispensation," or " plan 
 of Providence. ' ' [The editor is unable to 
 give anything from the above paragraphs 
 which seems to relate to the subject.] 
 
 Ph. 41. Further aUe</ed proof from a 
 letter of May 11, 1826, in Life, p. 416. 
 This letter was used in cross-examuiing 
 some of plaintiffs' witnesses, in order to 
 draw from them a denial that Mr. King- 
 horn held the doctrine of particular re- 
 demption, as defined by them, to he that 
 Christ died to atone e.cchisivehi for the sins 
 of the elect. Mr. Kinghorn says in the ex- 
 tracts given: '" Do the Scriptures... lead 
 us to conclude that, suppose the number 
 of the elect was greater than it is. the 
 atonement made by the death of Christ 
 would be insuflicieut for their salvation?" 
 [His question relates to a su}')position ; to 
 the supposed power of Christ's death, 
 considered in itself, to hare saved not 
 merely the elect whom it actually saves, 
 but more elect ^:>e>'sons, if God had 
 j)leased to use it for that end. The 
 atonement, properly so called, is a fact ; 
 it is the actual puttintj aieai/ of sins; 
 and Mr. Kinghorn must be admitted to 
 have misapplied the term, when he called 
 the possible power of Christ's death to 
 save, " atonement." This gives to a 
 part of these extracts the appearance of 
 admitting that Christ actually died for 
 the sins of more than the elect. But 
 another part of them denies this. 
 
 " How can you prove," said Mr. 
 Kinghorn, "that there was so much 
 atonement made for sinners precisely, 
 and no more?" The reason he assigns 
 why this cannot be proved shows, as the 
 question does, that by " so much atone- 
 ment " he meant so much suffering. Sec, 
 not so many 2Jersons atoned for. The 
 reason he gives is this. " Since it 
 was the character of the Sufferer that 
 gave weight to both his obedience and 
 suffei'ing, how are we to throw a line 
 round infinity, and measure that which 
 is beyond measure?" The infinite 
 weight of Christ's obedience and suffer- 
 ing docs leave it possible for it to 
 
73 
 
 have been actually used by God to 
 expiate only the sins of the elect; but 
 it makes it impossible for us to prove 
 that Christ's death would have been un- 
 equal in power, if God had pleased to 
 use it for that end, to atone for and put 
 away the sins of more than the elect. 
 
 Mr. Kiughorn, speaks of limited redn. 
 in connection with atonement, thus : 
 " What then, you may ask, limits the 
 EEDEMPTION OF SINNERS ; and draws the 
 line of distinction between that general 
 idea of redemption, which, by taking in 
 everybody, makes it especially appli- 
 cable to nobody ; and the oi:)inion of the 
 highest Calviuists, viz., so much atone- 
 ment and no more ?" He assumes that 
 redemption is limited, but denies that it 
 is limited by " so much atonement, and no 
 more," that is, by the want of power, 
 or capability, in Christ's " obedience and 
 suffering" to have made atonement for 
 more than the elect. To his question 
 " What limits redemption ?'' he says, '' I 
 reply, the election of grace : so that the 
 Lord came to fulfil a plan ; making an 
 atonement, which in point of power, 
 would have saved more had more been 
 included in the plan, but in point of de- 
 sign, and ultimately in point of appli- 
 cation, WAS MADE FOR THOSE WHO WERE 
 
 GIVEN HIM." The words " would have 
 saved, &c.," show still more clearly that 
 Mr. K. had been referring to a supposed 
 case. He then refers to the actual 
 " plan" of atonement and redemption ; 
 and speaks of both redemption and 
 atonement as limited by jilan and desif/n 
 to those c/iven to Christ, and as actually 
 "made for," as well as ultimately ap- 
 •plied to, them only ; which is the doctrine 
 of plaintiifs' witnesses, that Christ died 
 exclusively for the redemption of the elect. 
 Ed.] — Ref. Cs. exmn. 
 
 Ph. 42. Mr. Andrew Fuller's opinions 
 said to be "identical with" Mr. King- 
 horn's, as expressed in the above letter. 
 Mr. K.'s admission of some agreement 
 with him in his " general ideas of truth," 
 but not "in all his speculations," (Life. 
 p. 317) quoted. " Mr. Fuller's words in 
 Conversations on pr. rdpn." (works, v. II. 
 p. 520) quoted. "The particularity of 
 redemption consists in the sovereign 
 pleasure of God with regard to tlie ap- 
 plication of the atonement ; that is with 
 regard to the persons to whom it shall 
 be applied." Also Mr. F.'s quotation 
 with approval (vol. II. p. 522) of a pas- 
 sage from Dr. Owen's "Death of Death" 
 (works by Goold, v. X., p. 295), " Suffi- 
 cient, we say, was the sacrifice of Christ 
 
 for the redemption of the whole world," 
 &c. " This is its own true internal per- 
 fection and sufficiency. That it should 
 be APPLIED unto any, made a price for 
 them,... is external to it, doth not arise 
 from it, but merely depends upon the in- 
 tention and will of God." 
 
 [Remarks. — This passage from Dr. 
 Owen was used in the cross-examination 
 of some of plaintiffs' witnesses, in order 
 to show that they differed fi-om Dr. 
 Owen as to what is particular redemp- 
 tion. Their definition of it however agrees 
 with that of Dr. Owen ; that of Mr. 
 Fuller does not. The word " applied," 
 as used by Dr. Owen, in the above ex- 
 tract, does not refer to the application 
 hy the Holy Spirit of an atonement 
 already made, but to the application of 
 Christ's death to make an atonement. Mr. 
 Fuller speaks of redemption as " deli- 
 verance," and as an "effect of atonement," 
 (II. 5'li), Dr. Owen views it as a pur- 
 chase hy price, effected, like atonement, by 
 Christ's death. In the very words which 
 immediately follow those quoted by Mr. 
 Fuller, he says : "It [the sacrifice of 
 Christ] was in itself of infinite value 
 and sufficiency to have been made A price 
 to have bought and purchased all and 
 every man in the world. That it did 
 formally become a jJ'i'icc for any, is solely 
 to be ascribed to the purpose of God, 
 intending their purchase and redempdion 
 by it. The intention of the offerer and 
 accepter, that it should be for such, some, 
 or any, is that which gives the formality 
 of a 'price to it." Mr. Fuller's theory 
 resembles one which Dr. Owen called 
 "that old distinction of the schoolmen, 
 ....that Christ died for all in respect of 
 the sufficiency of the ransom he paid, but 
 not in respect of the efficacy of its appdi- 
 cation:'" and of this Dr. Owen says: — 
 " It is denied that the blood of Christ was 
 a sufficient price and ransom for all and 
 every one, not because it was not suffi- 
 cient,'' that is to have been made a ran- 
 som, "but because ^Z is not a ransom." 
 To say that Christ died for all, " holds 
 out," he says, the intention of our Saviour, 
 in the laying down of the price, to have 
 been their re lemption ; which we deny, 
 and affirm that then .. .they must be made 
 actual partakers of the eternal redemption 
 purchased for them." Dr. Owen defines 
 what he calls "particular effectual re- 
 demption (X. p. 410, 414), to be that 
 " Christ died for the elect only," and 
 " by his death purchased all saving 
 grace fn* them." The above extract 
 quoted by Mr. Fuller, appeared to mean 
 what it did not. — Ed. 
 
74 
 
 Communion, phs. 53 — 82. 
 
 Ph. 53. This cgn. has never required 
 a professiou of opinion as to communion 
 from candidates for membership. — 54. 
 At church meeting held Oct. 27, 1834, 
 "several members .. .refused to receive a.nj 
 statement" as to whether Euz. Kitton 
 was in favour of strict cmn. 
 
 55. Deft. Allen elected deacon in 
 1835. A deacon as well as the pastor, 
 might then be one who held opinions in 
 favour of open cmn. 
 
 5G. Pk. redpn. and cmn. in L's. Spr. : 
 this cgn. said not to have required from 
 non members, any profession as to pr. 
 redn. in order to such cmn., and to have 
 " never refused admission " to it, to 
 Baptists holding general atonement, or 
 general redemption. — Hef. No proof 
 given. See AfFt., Moore and others. 
 
 57, 58. Cmn. between Pr. and other 
 Bpts. : Mr. Kinghorn said to have held 
 that the principle of strict cmn. per- 
 mitted such cmn. His letter of April 
 20, ] 818, Life, p. 408, quoted. Mr. Hall 
 had said that " the principle of strict 
 cmn. required agreement in doctrine," 
 so that with Arminians, Arminianism, 
 and with Calvinists, Calvinism, " must 
 be a term of cmn." Mr. K. said, " both 
 these parties may in perfect consistency 
 with their jn'inciijle of strict cmn., unite 
 at the L's table." — lief. Afterwards 
 Mr. K. in his Defence, 1820, p. 75, said 
 that he who regards Calvinism as "es- 
 sential to faith in Christ, must make [it] 
 a term of cmn. ;" and in " Arguments," 
 1827, p. 14, objected to Mr. Hall's system 
 that the oneness it advocated was one of 
 " many faith.?," instead of "one faith." 
 But it is not a question of Mr. K.'s pri- 
 vate opinion. The founders at and be- 
 fore the date of the trust-deed did limit 
 cmn. to those who agreed with it in 
 doctrine, and the trust itself is for Pr. 
 Bpts., and for them only. Bill, phs. 1, 8 ; 
 Norton L 26, 27. 
 
 59. This cgn. said to have " never re- 
 fused'' cmn. in "L's Spr. to any Bap- 
 tist, whether advocating... open... or strict 
 cmn." 
 
 60, 61. Mere opinions in favour 
 OF OPEN CMN. no bar, in Mr. K.'s view, 
 to membershiji, or to cmn. in L's Spr. 
 Quotation from his " Baj^tism a Term," 
 &c., 1816, p. 172 ; in which he says that 
 what Christ required in church members 
 is agreement in "practice" as to " com- 
 mands," not in "inferences from," or 
 " speculations" upon them. — lief. Nor- 
 ton I. 23. 
 
 62, 63. Alleged probability of a 
 majority holding opinions in favour of 
 
 open cmn., for seventy years past. — Ref. 
 Remarks on Gould, Ans. I. ph. 109, at 
 p. 61, col. 2, preceding. 
 
 64 — 71. Mr. KixGHORN : 64, unde- 
 cided in opinion till 1690; — 65. His 
 ordination- cfsn. said to be silent on the 
 point, Life, p. 176. — 66. In 1794 he said 
 (Life, p. 236), "I am apprehensive we 
 shall have the question about mixed 
 cmn. agitated in our church," &c. — 67. 
 Afterwards, in same year (Life, p. 237), 
 said it was " not mentioned yet," and 
 that he was "undecided." — 68. On April 
 8, 1694 (Life, p. 238), said "the contro- 
 versy about mixed cmn. is stUl on hand. 
 
 That which is called the liberal plan, 
 
 if followed up close, will lead to the 
 reception of every moral man one step 
 above an infidel," &c. — 69. He is said to 
 show " in the successive editions of [his] 
 ' Address to a Friend,' the modifica- 
 tions of the doctrine taught by him" on 
 cmn., and to have been in the practice of 
 giving this pamphlet " to candidates for 
 admission, as a formal statement of the 
 doctrines and usages held and practised 
 by [this] cgn." (Life, p. 459).— 70. Edns. 
 L 1803, II. 1813, and III. 1824, all said : 
 " Baptism ought not to be considered as 
 the condition by which you become a 
 member of a [or the] Christian church, 
 but as the evidence of faith in Jesus," 
 &c. In edn. HI. he said also that at 
 first no one was, and that 9iow no 
 one ought to be " received into Chris- 
 tian fellowship " until baptized. — 71. 
 In his Appendix to Edn. II. he said: 
 " The Baptists, in common with Chris- 
 tians in general, conceive that baptism 
 ought to precede ch.-cmn. ;" and in App. 
 to Edn. III. gave as a reason the uniform 
 practice of the first churches, and the 
 want of " any direction to admit" others. 
 [The words "Baptism ought not to be 
 considered," &c. were inserted in each 
 edition ; and therefore clearly meant no 
 more than that though baptism is a con- 
 dition, of membershij), a candidate is not 
 to consider it chiefly in that light. — Ed.] 
 
 72. While this chapel was being 
 ENLARGED in 1797, this cgn. joined in 
 worship for nine weeks with two Inde- 
 pendent cgns. : "no record" that then 
 " it celebrated the L's Spr. apai't." 
 
 When the chapel was rebuilt in 1811 
 Mr. K. declined an invitation given to it 
 by the Independent ch. at the Old Meet- 
 ing to unite with it in the L's. Spr. ; at 
 which refusal " considerable surprise was 
 exjn-essed by several members" of this 
 cgn. favourable to open cmn. 
 
 73. CosTt)F REBUILDING IT in 1811 : 
 about three-fourths said to have been 
 
75 
 
 given by members and others holding 
 opinions in favour of open emu. 
 
 74, 75. In 1812 " many members of 
 [this] cgn. felt a strong desire" for open 
 cmn. ; and a conference was held be- 
 tween deft. J. Cozens, the elder, Messrs. 
 Brewer, Johnson, and T. Theobald, in 
 favour of open, and Messrs. Kinghorn, 
 CuUey, W. Bear, and Playford, in favour 
 of strict cmn., " with reference particu- 
 larly to. ..Messrs. Brightwell and Piggin," 
 but "no conclusion ...was adopted." — 
 Bef. See Mr. Brightwell's Afft. on the 
 part of defts. in this suit. 
 
 76. Open cmn. frequently agitated 
 at ch. meetings for business till 1816 ; 
 but during the i-emainder of Mr. K.'s 
 ministry, the members in favour of it 
 " abstained from such agitation in defer- 
 ence to" him, and lest he should "resign." 
 
 77. "But such members... did not... 
 MODIFY THEIR OPINIONS in favour of such 
 practice." Mr. Brewer published two 
 pamphlets, one in favour of open, and an- 
 other afterwards in favour ofstrict cmn. 
 
 78. The Pltf. S. Wilkin, from Oct. 12 
 1808, till "some time after" Mr. K.'s 
 death, was "a zealous advocate of... 
 open cmn." — Ref. Not coirect : Afft. 
 S. Wilkin. 
 
 79. The chapel enlarged in 1838 : 
 about two-thirds of cost said to be contri- 
 buted by persons in favour of open cmn. 
 
 80 — 82. The L's. Spr. was orserved 
 "without the presence of any minis- 
 ter," for the first time in 1798 : this is 
 adduced as "evidence of the changes... 
 introduced ... without any formal re- 
 cord." Mr. K. approved of it. Life, 
 pp. 286, 289. 
 
 83. Leave asked to refer to books, &c., 
 as part of this answer. 
 
 Section VI. Affidavits on behalf 
 OF plaintiffs. 
 
 Afft. 1 for pltfs. W. Norton's first Afft. 
 
 Explanations. — The books referred 
 to in this afft. {Exhibits 1 — 52), ai'e the 
 following; — Exbt. 1. Bagster's English 
 Hesapla, 1841. — 2. Thomas Grantham's 
 Christianismus Primitivus,1678.— 3. Vol. 
 II. of Bunyan's works, by Offor. — 4. T. 
 Edwardij' Gangra-na, 1646. — 5. Dr. Feat- 
 ley's Dippers' Dipt, 1647. — 6. Baptist 
 Cfsns., Edn. of Hanserd Knollys Society, 
 1854.— 7. The Broadmead Records.— 8. 
 Pilgrim's Progress, Offor's edn. — 9. Dr. 
 Wall's Hist, of Infant Baptism, 2nd edn., 
 1707.— 10. Dr. Gale's Reply to Dr. 
 Wall, edn. of 1820.— 11, 12. Vols. 3, 4, 
 of works of Robt. Robinson of Cams. — 
 13. Rippon's Register, 1790.— 14. Dr. 
 John Owen's Death of Death. — 15. vol. 
 
 10 of Dr. Owen's Works, by Goold. — 
 16, 17. Dr. Gill's Cause of God and 
 Truth, edn. of 1814.— 18. J. Brine's 
 Vindication of some Truths, 1746. — 19 
 — 21. D. Keal's Hist, of the Puritans, 
 3 vols. Tegg. 1837.— 22— 25. T. Crosby's 
 Hist, of the Eng. Bpts., 4 vols., 1738— 
 1740.— 26. A. Booth's Apology for the 
 Bpts., 1778.-27—30. Walter Wilson's 
 Dissenting Churches in London, &c., 
 1808-1814.-31-34. Joseph Ivimey's 
 Hist, of the Eng. Bpts., 4 vols., 1811— 
 1830.-35. Rt. Hall's Terms of Com- 
 munion, 4th edn., 1820; and "Short 
 Statement," 1826. — 36. Jos. Kinghorn's 
 Baptism a Term of Commiiniou, 1816 ; 
 and his Defence of it, 1820.-37. Rt. 
 Hall's Rei^ly to J. Kn., 1818.— 38. J. 
 Kinghorn's Arguments against Mixed 
 Cmn., 1827.-39. Life of J. Kinghorn, 
 by S. Wilkin, 1855.— 40. Life of Hall, 
 by Gregory, Bohn, 1856.-41. Dr. W. 
 Richards' Welsh Biography. — 42, 43. 
 Dr. T. Price's Protestant Nonconformity, 
 1836— 8.— 44. Baptist Manual, 1859.— 
 45. J. G. Fuller's Dissent in Bristol, 
 1840.— 46. R. 13. C. Howell on Cmn.— 
 
 47. Dr. T. F. Curtis on Cmn., 1850.— 
 
 48. St. Mary's Collection of Hymns, by 
 Drs. Ash and Evans. — 49. Dr. Watts' 
 Psalms and Hymns. — 50. Articles of 
 Ch. of Ellas Keach, and his Glory and 
 Ornament of a True Gospel-constituted 
 Ch., 1697. — 51. Original Copy of Lon- 
 don Cfsn, edn. of 1652.— 52. B. Han- 
 bury's Historial Memorials, vol. I. . — 
 
 When the name of one of these authors 
 is mentioned, without naming any work, 
 in the following abstract, the work 
 referred to is that of the above list. 
 The suhstance only of these affidavits is 
 given, except where words stand between 
 commas of quotation. References are 
 made to places in the Bill, and in other 
 afl'ts., in which the same subject is men- 
 tioned. 
 
 1. Sources of deponent's informa- 
 tion : " particular attention and study, 
 ...books and documents hereinafter men- 
 tioned," and " personal knowledge so far 
 as [he has] been individually concerned." 
 
 2. Terms used : the church and 
 chapel in question are called ?/(/*• church, 
 &c. ; its books and minutes, tlie books, 
 &c. ; believers " immersed after a credible 
 profesfsion of their faith," are meant by 
 " baptized believers." 
 
 3. This was the only cgn. of Pr. 
 Bpts. in Norwich in 1746. — Proof 1, no 
 other in 1753 and 1763; list in Ivimey 
 IV. p. 13. — 2. No reference to any other 
 in minutes of this ch., or any where, so far 
 
76 
 
 as W. N. knows. — R(f. Bill, ph. 2, and 
 Answers to it. 
 
 4. This CgU. ItXISTED MORf. THAN 
 FIFTY YEARS BEFORE 1744. Vroof : 1. 
 
 Messrs. Austin and Flatman, of this 
 chm-ch, formed part of the Loudon As- 
 sembly of Messengers in 1689, Ivimey I. 
 508. — 2. Their names are inserted im- 
 mediately after the church-articles and 
 covenant at the beginning of the first 
 church-book, in a list of the members. — 
 3. The first minvte is a request that Mr. 
 Flatman " would assist in preaching." 
 Its date is partly worn away, but seems 
 to be 87 or 89, that is, 1687 or 1689. 
 The next minute, dated 1693, shows that 
 the ch. had then existed at least for 
 several years." — Ref. Bill, ph. 2, and 
 Ansrs. to it. 
 
 5. This cgn. "consisted of members 
 AND TRANSIENT MEMBERS, the latter being 
 members of other churches admitted to 
 ti-ansient cmn. with this church." — 
 Proof: 1. A vilmd.e of April 10, 1774, 
 mentions the " transient members." — 2. 
 There are sic lists of members from the 
 beginning of ch. bk. to 1832 ; and of the 
 women members, the 22ud and 36th in 
 a list beginning May 6, 1779, and the 
 41st in that beginning on p. 18, of bk. 
 II. are said to be "transient;" the se- 
 cond was "from Ellingham church." — 3. 
 Mr. E. Keach, in his " Glory," &;c., pp. 
 35, 36, says a church may receive " to 
 transient cmn. an orderly member of a 
 church of the same faith." — 4. The mes- 
 sengers of the Kent and Sussex Pr. Bpt. 
 churches in 1792, (letter bound up in 
 Exbt. 13, Rippon,) recommended " tran- 
 sient viembers to join tlie respective 
 churches where they dwell, when it is 
 not convenient to fill uj, their places in 
 their own churches. ' — lief. Bill, ph. 4, 
 and Ansrs. 
 
 6. This cgn. used churoh and con- 
 gregation in THE SAME SENSE. — PrOof : 
 
 1, Art. 9, in first ch. bk. " The visible... 
 cA....is a particidar Cf/n." — 2. The minute 
 of Aug. 5, 1744, states that "the church" 
 appointed the trustees of the deed of 
 1746, which deed calls the church "the 
 said cfin." — Ref. Bill, ph 3, and ansrs. 
 
 7. This CGN. " was an organized so- 
 ciety ... and NOT A PROMISCUOUS AS- 
 SEMBLY of public worshipj)ers." — -Proof : 
 Tyndale and Cranmer's translations have 
 commonly, and the Geneva has, in some 
 places, cyn. where ch. is used in present 
 common version. Hexapla, Acts xiv. 
 23; viii. 1, 3. — 2. Baptist use: title of 
 London Cfsn. of 1646 ; second title of 
 Somerset Cfsn. of 1656 ; chap. 26, sees. 
 
 2, 3, 5, of Cfsn. of 1677 and 1689 ; 
 
 Crosby's Hist., A.D. 1733—1740, I. 194, 
 215, 354, 358 ; 1V.3, 4, 155, 156, 169, 183> 
 &c. — Ref. Bill, ph. 3, and Ansrs. thereto. 
 8. This cgn. was " independent" of all 
 others. Some Pr. Bpt. cgns. differed 
 FROM OTHERS " in their constitution and 
 rules." Ministers and messengers when 
 met in Assemblies, had no "church- 
 power." or AUTHORITY WHATEVER; their 
 act in adopting a cfsn. in 1689, "was 
 THEIRS ONLY, and not that of their re- 
 spective chs There is no record that 
 
 [that cfsn.] was ever adopted by any act 
 
 OF THIS CH It was neither a law to the 
 
 churches, nor a representation of every 
 THING which some of those chs. deemed 
 necessary TO CMN." Reference must be 
 made to "the acts of each individual 
 
 CH. IN order to show WHAT IT HELD AND 
 
 practised." — Proof, 1. Art. 9, in ch. bk. : 
 " a particular cgn." — 2. This ch. would 
 not, in 1714, receive members from that 
 at Pulham unless they agreed icith itself. 
 3. Mr. Bampfield's church insisted on 
 
 THE observance OF THE JEWISH SaB- 
 
 bath: Wall, p. 446; Wilson, II. 585, 
 608. — 4. The churches of Mr. Benjamin 
 and Mr. Elias Keach held that " laying 
 on of hands upon baptized believers 
 ...ought to be submitted unto by all 
 such persons that [as] are admitted to 
 partake of the L's. Spr. :" Art. 23, 1697, 
 in Exbt. 50 ; and Int., p. xiv. of Exbt. 
 VI. — 5. There were also differences as 
 to SINGING IN PUBLIC WORSHIP : Ivimey I. 
 520 — 6. The preliminary rules 1, 2, 4, 
 of Assembly of 1689 disowned all 
 " 2"iower," limited its action to " counsel 
 and advice," and said that no decision 
 by it was " binding" on any church un- 
 less its members should " conclude the 
 same among themselves : " Ivimey I. 
 489, 490,-7. The messengers of 1689, 
 and not their chs., owned the Cfsn. 
 —8. Sees. 7 and 15, of chap. 26, of 
 Cfsn. of 1689, deny that messengers 
 so met, have " any ch. power." — 9. 
 The Savoy Cfsn. of the Independents 
 denies it also : Price II. 621, 622. — 10. 
 The messengers of 1691 said to their 
 churches, " we can impose nothing upon 
 you:" Ivimey I. 511, 512.— 11. The 
 Association Letter on Independence, 
 Rippon, p. 37, speaks to the same efi'ect. 
 — 12. B, Keach's ch. sent messengers to 
 the Assembly of 1689, (Iv. I. 508) and 
 joined in its cfsn., [though in this there 
 WS.S "sot}iethinr/ material wanting.... some- 
 thing lacking according to [its] faith and 
 practice, respecting imposition of hands 
 ...singing of God's praises," &c. :] E. 
 Keach, Exbt. 50, p. viii. ; [Exbt. vi., p. 
 xiv.] — Fef. Bill 9, and answers thereto. 
 
77 
 
 9. "Church government and dis- 
 cipline, in this cgn. [were what is] called 
 Congregational." The membeks, in ch - 
 meeting, and not the ch.- officers, had 
 " the power of receiving to, and exclud- 
 ing from ch.-cmn." They were "the 
 ADMINISTRATIVE body to Carry out the 
 
 FUNDAMENTAL AND INVIOLABLE RULES 
 
 AND LAWS OP THIS CH. ;" they '• were 
 BOUND by its rules.... to admonish and 
 CENSURE those who adoj^ted and coun- 
 tenanced... false doctrine and worship; 
 and, if these means were without effect, 
 to EXPEL SUCH MEMBERS FROM IT." An- 
 other use of the term " Congregational" 
 was to denote " certain churches,'' 
 called also Independent churches, and 
 which admitted to membership both 
 Psedobaptists and Baptists ; Crosby III. 
 44, 45; Edwards, p. 14. "A Pr. Bpt. 
 church was not a Congregational church, 
 though it had a congregational form of 
 ch. government." — Proof 1. As to what 
 is congregational govt.; Hanbury I. title, 
 and p. 292, as to its being deemed " un- 
 changeable by men everywhere and for 
 ever," pp. 227, 228, 302.— 2. Govt, of i!/us 
 cIl.; its 9th art. says, " unto this ch." of 
 baptized believers, &c. : and " we may 
 NOT ALTER ANYTHING." — 3. In the Ori- 
 ginal ch. -covenant, the members agreed 
 to "keep [themselves] from all cor- 
 ruptions and pollutions in the worship 
 of God." — 4. Two minutes in ch. bks., 
 dated Feb. 1, and March 29, 1753, de- 
 clared it " unlawful for any so to attend 
 upon the meetings of the Methodists, or 
 to join in any worship which is contrary 
 to the doctrines and ordinances of our 
 Lord Jesus, as that, without partiality, 
 it may be construed to be giving coun- 
 tenance to them.'' — 5. On July 17 of the 
 same year, 1753, the church admonished 
 Ml'. Keymer, among other things, for 
 encouraging " false doctrine:" [and on 
 Aug. 30, 1753, "separated him from the 
 body."] — 6. As to admission of mem- 
 bers : minute of May 30, 1714, as to 
 Pulham members ; and of Sept. 13, 1765, 
 as to " Mary Beard." — 7. As to exclusion^ 
 " various minutes." — Ref. Bill, 8, and 
 Ansrs. thereto. As to Congregational 
 chs., Gould, Ans. I. 17 ; p. 53, col. 2, 
 preceding. 
 
 10. This cgn. " did actually exclude 
 from itself members who fell away 
 
 FROM the ordinances AND DOCTRINES 
 
 herein set forth as those held by it." — 
 Proof. Minutes of exclusion ; 1. March 
 4, 1715-6, of Thomas Lamkin "par- 
 ticularly [for] his pleading for infants' 
 baptism." — 2. Jan. 6, 1722-3, of An- 
 thony Wright, for holding " erroneous 
 
 opinions." — 3. Dec. 6, 1724, of Sarah 
 Taylor, who had joined this church 
 " disowning general redemption,'' for 
 going to the Gl. Bpt. minister " again." — 
 4. July 30, 1747, of Jonathan Watts, 
 for crimes increased by desire to charge 
 " the doctrine of the saints' final perse- 
 verance with them," — 5. Aug. 30. 1753, 
 of Mr. Keymer, partly, for " encou- 
 raging false doctrine," as before said. — 
 6. Jan. 4, 1778, of six peusons for 
 bringing charges against this ch. "with 
 respect to sentiment and church dis- 
 cipline."— 7. Aug. 29, 1782, of Mrs. 
 Sexton, in part for "declaring herself 
 more happy in hearing the Newtonian 
 doctrine than" that of this ch. — lief. 
 Bill 8, 15, and Ansrs. thereto. 
 
 11 — 14. Baptism. 
 
 11. With this cgn. it has been "total 
 IMMERSION. ..AH Baptists were" agreed in 
 " 1746, as they are now, that as to mode 
 nothing is baptism but immersion." — 
 Proof I. Cfsn. 1689, chap. 29, sec. 4. 2. 
 The Baptist Catechism, Ans. 100 : Exbt. 
 VI. p. 267 ; also p. xv. ; and Ivimey I. 
 533, 535.-3. Mr. T. Crosby, IV. 165.— 
 4. Robt. Hall in " Terms of Cmn.," 
 p. 9.— Riff. Bill 3, and Ansrs. 
 
 12. " This cgn.... held, in common with 
 all Baptists, that such baptism ought 
 to be administered to those only who 
 
 HAVE previously GIVEN SATISFACIORY 
 PROOF OF REPENTANCE ... AND FAITH,.... 
 AND SDCH PERSONS.. ONLY WERE DEEMED 
 
 BAPTIZED PERSONS."— P/'oo/ I. Art. 10, in 
 first ch. bk. says it should " be adminis- 
 tered to none but believers." — 2. Mem- 
 bers added to this church are described, 
 for example, a little after the dates of 
 Nov. 13, 1729. and July 1767, as bap- 
 tized " after the profession of," and " on 
 a confession of, their faith." — Rcf. Bill 3. 
 
 13. "The... FAITH,. ...deemed by this 
 cgn. . . pre-requisite to baptism, was not 
 merely assent to certain doctrines, but, 
 in addition, ...actual trust in Christ, 
 wrought si^ecially by God," and which 
 Pr. Bpts., because they believe it " to 
 have promise of cei'tain salvation, some- 
 times call 'saving faith.'" — Proof 1. 
 Art. 4, in first ch. bk. says of those 
 " whom God calls, so that they believe, 
 
 they shall never perish." — '2. Chap. 
 
 14 of Cfsn. of 1689, is entitled, " Of saving 
 faith ;" and sees. 1 and 3, speak of true 
 faith as a saving grace, as the work of 
 the Spirit, and as increased by means of 
 " the administration of baptism." 
 
 14. This cgn. " required satisfactory 
 proof [of] repentance and faith." — Proof. 
 Minute as to A. Wright, Jan. 6, 1722-3 ; 
 
78 
 
 E. Jervis, May 3, 1724 ; B. Hardingham, 
 Dec. 21, 1743; J. Burrell, Dec, 1748; 
 and Maiy Beard, Aug. 8, 1765, stating 
 that she " related her exjierieuce before 
 the ch.," and that it agreed " there was 
 a work of grace." 
 
 15—22. Communion. 
 None hut Baptists loere received by this 
 cgn. to memhcrship or the L.'s Spr. 
 
 15. This cgn., in and after 1746, was 
 
 " WHOLLY COMPOSED OF BAPTISTS, that is, 
 
 of persons... immersed," &c. — Proof. It 
 often called itself a *' baptized ch." 
 Did so in first list of members ; in that 
 following Jan. 6, 1722-3 ; in that of 
 May 6, 1779, at p. 18, bk. II.; also in 
 minute of Nov. 14, 1 836 ; and in letter of 
 June 26, 1837, Exit. K. \Z.—Ref. Bill, 
 phs. 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14. 
 
 16. The term " baptized chs." in, be- 
 fore, and after 1746, denoted "chs. com- 
 posed WHOLLY OF Bpts., and holding 
 CMN. WITH NONE BUT BpTS. ; and was 
 used even by open cmn. Baptists, to 
 DISTINGUISH such CHS. from open cmn. 
 and other chs. — Proof 1. T. Grantham, 
 a Gl. Bpt., said, about 1678, that the 
 " baptized chs.," both Gl. and Pr., 
 maintained such "separation :" Book III. 
 pp. 33, 34; Bk. IV. pp. 171, 173, 175, 
 177. In vindicating them, he said " none 
 unbaptized may be admitted to the table 
 of the Lord, and consequently not to 
 ch.-cmn., of which that is a special pai't :" 
 Bk. IV. 178. -2. Mr. J. Buntan in 1672 
 and 1673, spoke of his open cmn. senti- 
 ments as "singular ;" II. 618, col. 1 ; 642, 
 col. 1 ; and of separation in membership 
 and the L,'s Spr., as maintained by all 
 whom he called "the brethren of the 
 baptized tvay :" II. 613, col. 2; 616, col. 
 
 2, bottom; 628, col. 1. He called de- 
 nominational names, such as " Anabap- 
 tists" [i.e. Baptists], " factious" titles. 
 
 3. INIi'. John Brown, quoted by Mr. W. 
 Buttfield, in 1778, condemned the 
 "baptized chs." for making immersion 
 " essentially necessary for constituting 
 a true ch.," and " refusing fellowship 
 with all who do not practise immersion." 
 Buttfield's " Free Cmn. an Innovation :" 
 Exbt. K. 2, pp. 39, il.—Ref Bill, 4, 
 5,7. 
 
 17. At said times, "this ch. declined 
 
 to " ADMIT TO CHURCH-CMN. persons 
 
 " who were not Baptists, or who even 
 
 COUNTENANCED WHAT WAS CONTRARY TO 
 
 Baptist sentiments." — Proof 1. Minute 
 of Sept. 22, 1689, excluding J. and M. 
 Watling partly for " a-isembling ... 
 among the.. .Quakers ;" that of May 30, 
 1714, making agreement in " worship,'' 
 
 (which included baptism), a term of 
 cmn.; the exclusion, on March 4, 1715-6 
 of T. Lamkin, partly for pleading for 
 infants' baptism ; also, on Aug. 30, 1753, 
 of Ml". Keymer partly for "encouraging 
 false doctrine:" and on Oct. 2, 1760, of 
 Mrs. SiMSON in part for "going fre- 
 quently to false worship." — 2. The 
 min. of Aug. 8, 1765, as to Mary Beard, 
 speaks of her bapti.sm as constituting part 
 of her fitness to " be taken in." — 3. W. N. 
 has " met with no evidence" in ch. bks 
 or elsewhere, to the contrary. — 4. Min. 
 7, of June 28, 1847 says that both Mr. 
 Brock and the ch. admitted that it 
 had "always"' practised "strict cmn." 
 —Ref. Bill, phs. 10, 14, 15. 
 
 18. In, before, and after 1746, this 
 cgn. " held the Lord's Supper to be 
 
 WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY A CH.-OR- 
 DINANCE;...A PART OF.. AND PECULIAR 
 
 TO CH.-CMN... Its iniles of fitness for" 
 membership and the L's. Spr. were the 
 same. — Proof 1. Art. 10. in first ch. bk. 
 says that Christ " delivered the L's. Spr. 
 to the chu7-ch," defined by ai*t. 10, to 
 consist of " baptized believers." — 2. 
 Min. of May 3, 1724, speaks of the L's 
 Spr. as " the ordinance of Christ in the 
 church." — 3. Cfsn. of 1689, chap. 30, seel, 
 says, it was " instituted by Christ to be 
 observed in his chs." — Ref. Bill, ph. 15. 
 
 19. " Singing, prayer, and preach- 
 ing. ...were not. ..peculiar TO this ch. 
 IN ITS ch. capacity ;" and, in this re- 
 spect they " DIFFERED FROM THE L's. 
 
 Spr." — Proof 1. Singing: this ch. called 
 it an " ordinance," but it was observed 
 " every L's day," in public worship ; 
 minutes of Jan. 4, 1749-50, and Feb. 1, 
 1753 : the L's. Spr. was observed once a 
 month ; Min. of Sept. 5, 1773. Persons 
 excluded fi'om " the L's. Spr. might still 
 ...join in the singing" at public worship. 
 2. Preaching and prayer : Mr. A. Booth 
 in 1778, p. 116, said, " pn-caching ia not 
 coH^KficZ to persons in a ch. state,... but 
 the L's. Spr. is a ch. ordinance," &c. At 
 p. 120, he said the same of prayer. 3. 
 Mr. Kinghorn in " Baptism a Term," 
 pp. 174, 175, said '^ prayer and praise 
 are not exclusively ordinances of the 
 Christian church," as the L's. Spr. is, 
 p. 173. 4. Mr. Wheeler, at Mr. Gould's 
 ORDixATiON, noticed the fact that the 
 promiscuous assembly is excluded from 
 the L's. Spr., but joins in the singing of 
 hymns: Exbt. K. 29, pp. 7, S.—Eef. 
 Bill, 10. 
 
 20. This cgn. applied the term "Com- 
 munion.. .to THE full cmn. of MEMBER- 
 SHIP," and to the L's. Spr. as " one part 
 of ch.-cmn." — Proof. Minutes dated 
 
79 
 
 Oct. 1, 1693; Sept. 22, 1698; June 3, 
 1703; Oct. 27, and Dec. 1, 1717; Nov. 
 1718; May 3, 1724; Aug. 16, 1724, and 
 several others. — Ref. BiU, ph. 10. 
 
 21. The two rules, 1st, that the L's. 
 Spr. is *' PECULIAR TO CH.-ciix.," and 
 2nd, that baptism is pee-bequisite to 
 WHATEVER IS SO, Were deemed by this 
 
 Ch. to be "FUNDAilEKTAL A^"D ESSENTIAL 
 TO ITS COXSTITCTION AS A CH. OF 
 
 Christ;" and to be "laws absolute, 
 
 INVIOLABLE, AND XTXCHAXGEABLE." 
 
 Proof 1. The words " baptized be- 
 lievers," in art. 9, in ch. bk. ; as to bap- 
 tism being uecessaiy to ch. -membership. 
 2. The words in art. 10, "delivered to 
 the ch.," and " by which ice show forth 
 his death till he come ;" as to the per- 
 manent observance of the L's. Spr. by 
 the ch. exchisively. 3. The words " we 
 may not alter anything," &c., art. 9. 4. 
 Unlawfulness of countenancing false wor- 
 ship : minutes i: eb. 1, and March 29, 
 1753, (see abovf , ph. 17.) 5. Minutes 
 already quoted in phs. IS, 19. 6. Dr. 
 Wall said : '' Many of 'em hold it nC' 
 cessary to renounce cran. with all Chris- 
 tians that are not of their way," p. 431 ; 
 also p. 560. 7. Mr. Kinghoen spoke of 
 baptism ''as one of the essentials of,*' 
 and of the admission of unbaptized per- 
 sons to the L's. Spr. as " a change in the 
 constitution of, a Christian ch. :" Bap- 
 tism, pp. 28, 162, 163, 167 ; and 4, 9, 58, 
 68.—Bef BHl, ph. 10. 
 
 22 This cgn. had uniformly "held 
 and maintained.... the necessity of bap- 
 tism to ch. cmn. in the L's. Spr., and in 
 full ch. -membership," till the innovations 
 began. — Proof 1. In continuation of 
 phs. 15 — 17. 1. Still called a "baptized 
 ch." in 1779, ch. bk. II. p. 18; in 1804, 
 Kinghorn's Life, p. 307 ; in 1836 and 
 1837, ch. bk. Nov. 14, 1836, and Letter 
 of June, 26, 1837, £x. K. 13. 2. In 
 1836 it did not recognize a mixed ch. at 
 Langham to be a baptized ch. : ch. bk. 
 Nov. 14, 1836. 3. Its books contain no 
 record of open cmn. 4. Some agitation 
 merely in its favour was expected in 1 794 : 
 Kmghorn's Life, pp. 236, 238. 5. Con- 
 cessions were made hy all the defts. ex- 
 cept Gould and Allen, Aug. 1845, and 
 by Ml-. Brock and this ch. June 28, 1847, 
 that it had " always" declined cmn. with 
 persons not baptized. 6. Deft. James 
 Cozens, the elder, one of those who did 
 BO, became a member in 1804, at which 
 time he could probably ascertain from 
 persons then alive, that the ch. had been 
 strict at least as far back as 1746. 7. 
 At Mr. Gould's ordination, in 1849, the 
 ch. was said to have been so " for many 
 
 years : " Ordination Services, p. 21, of 
 £x. K. 29.— Ref Bill, 5, 7. 
 
 23. Mere opinions in favour of open 
 cmn. were compatible with membership 
 in this church, so long as the members 
 practised sti:ict cmn. — Proof. Mr. 
 Kinghorn said that any endeavour to 
 alter its rules of cmn., would, if suc- 
 cessful, crpcl the members who adhered 
 to strict cmn./ would "rob [them] of 
 \their'\ privileges and [their] propei-ty ;' 
 would be "disingenuous ;" and he asked 
 " how will it look at the bar of Jesus 
 Christ r But he said that the ch. was 
 not bound to exclude members on ac- 
 count of ^^speculations" or "private 
 opinions " in favour of open cmn. — 
 Proof. "Baptism a Term," p. 173; 
 "Arguments," &c, 1827, pp. 51 — 54. 
 Ref Bill, 5, 7. 
 
 24 — 27. Particular redemption. 
 
 24. " Particular," in the Deed of 
 1746, " referred to the doctrine of 
 Particular redemption, and denoted 
 that this cgn. was wholly composed 
 OF persons who. ..professed to hold 
 [it]." — Proof 1. Dr. Wall, A. D. 
 1707, p. 447, said, those of the An- 
 tipsedobaptists who are " Calvinists, 
 they call the Particular men, as hold- 
 ing a particular and absolute redemp- 
 tion of some particvleir persons." — 2. 
 Mr. T. Crosby, 1738, Hist. I. 173, to 
 the like effect. He said also that the 
 Gl. and Pr. Bpts. in England, had, from 
 " the beginning of the Reformation," 
 formed " distinct communities." 3. 
 Definition of Pr. Bpts. in the original 
 rules of the " Baptist Fund," founded 
 1717 : Exht. K. 3. 
 
 25. " The doctrine of Particular re- 
 demption, AS DEFINED. ..by Dr. John 
 Owen, an Independent, by Dr. John 
 Gill, and Mr. John Bkihe, Baptists ;" 
 three of " its most distinguished advo- 
 cates from 1650 to 1750," and by the 
 Cfsn. of 1689, was this, — " that Christ 
 
 DIED TO redeem, PUKCHASE, OR RANSOM, 
 
 particular PERSONS, viz., the elect, and 
 that he secured absoli:tely their sal- 
 vation, AND THEIRS ONLY, BY BEARING 
 
 ON THE CROSS THEIR SINS, as their Repre- 
 sentative, Head, or Substitute ; and it ex- 
 pressly LIMITED RED.N". to thosc who are 
 CHOSEN by God through Christ to sal- 
 vation." The purchase or ransom was 
 supposed by the advocates of Gl. Rn. to 
 render the salvation of all possible ; 
 by the advocates of Pr. Redn. to render 
 the salvation of -particular, chosen 
 PERSONS certain. "The abstract ques- 
 tion whether there was a sufficiency of 
 
80 
 
 woi'tli and value in the blood of Christ 
 to have saved more than the elect, if he 
 had been "the representatirc of more, 
 and his blood a random for more than the 
 elect, did not affect the doctrine of Pr. 
 Redn., which merely related to the redn. 
 •which God has actually accomplished by 
 Christ's death, as a price XKiicl for, and 
 which, hy its sufficiency for that end, did 
 secure the salvation of the elect." — Proof 
 1. Dr. Owen called this doctrine " Par- 
 ticular Effectual Redn. :" Death of Death, 
 Bk. IV. chap. 7, sees. 8 and 13 ; Works by 
 Goold, X. 410, 414 : " Christ died for the 
 elect only. All those /■//•whom Christ 
 died are certainly saved." Also pp. 415 
 —419. 2. Dr. Gill 1735—1738, " Cause 
 of God," edn. of 1814, I. 307, 311, to 
 like effect. 3. Mr. Brine also, in 1746, 
 "Vindication," pp. 267, 268, 288, to 
 like effect. He held too that " uni- 
 formity of sentiments in relation to Chris- 
 tian doctrines, is necessary to Christian 
 cmn.," in opposition to Dr. James Foster, 
 a Baptist and an advocate of free cmn., 
 who held that Arminians, Cidvinists, 
 Baxterians, Socinians, and others, should 
 unite in ch.-felloivship : pp. 100 — 102. 
 Mr. Brine was a man "of great weight 
 in the denomination :" Ivimey III. 367. 
 4. The Cfsn. of the Assembly of 1689, 
 at which two members of this ch. were 
 present, agrees with the above defini- 
 tions : chap. III. sec. 6; chap. Vlll.secs. 
 1, 5, 6, 8 ; chap. XI. sec. 3. 
 
 26. "This cgn. actually held [this] 
 doctrine, in, before, and after 174'3.'' — 
 Proof 1. Its articles : art. 1, the words : 
 " It pleased God. ..to reveal a way. ..for 
 the redemption and salvation of a certain 
 numher of mankind by Jesus Christ/' 
 and other words of like import. Art. 2. 
 " The new" is " an absolute unconditional 
 covenant, being made with Christ our 
 Bead," &c. Also arts. 3, 4, 5. 2. The 
 exclusion of Sarah Tatlor, Dec. 6, 
 1724, on account of gl. redn., as before 
 mentioned. 3. Minute of Feb. 1, 1753, 
 stating that it is '^ unlawful... to attend 
 upon the meetings of the Methodists," so 
 as to "countenance docti-ines contrary" 
 to those of Christ. 4. By the original 
 ch.-c.orenant the first members expressly, 
 and those who were afterwards added to 
 the ch. so constituted, did at least by 
 implication, agree to maintain its doc- 
 trines. By sees. 3 and 4, of that cove- 
 nant, the members pledged themselves 
 to " bear a faithful testimony to,"' and 
 " edify one another in," tlieiu. Refer- 
 ences to a like kind of covenant, en- 
 gagement, or promise, made by other 
 members on admission, occur Aug. 30, 
 
 1759; ch. bk. II. p. 25; Oct. 28, 1785, 
 and Feb. 1, 1786 ; also in Reach's 
 " Glory," pp. 5, 7, 40, 41. 5. This ch. 
 required, May 30, 1714, that the Pulham 
 members should ayree ivith it in doc- 
 trine ; and received from Mr. Burgoyne, 
 on his admi.ssion some time before 1782, 
 " the most cordial approbation of [its] 
 doctrine :" ch. bk., Aug. 29, 1782.— Pief. 
 Bill, 1, 3, 4. 
 
 27. This ch. "has uniformly pro- 
 fessed" the said doctrine from 1746 to 
 the time of the innovations. — Proof 1. 
 This ch. was inserted, A.D. 1790, in a 
 list of Pr. Bpt. chs. : Rippon, Rrbt. 13. 
 
 2. Api-il 14, 1789 : its members were said 
 to be "unanimous in [doctiinal] senti- 
 ment ;" and Mr. Kn. agreed with them in 
 this respect "pretty well :" Life, pp. 142, 
 143. On May 20, 1790, Mr. Kn. spoke of 
 Christ's "death for the sins of his 
 people :" pp. 173, 176 ; in 1811, said of 
 the "views of truth" in the oi'iginal 
 articles of the ch. "we cannot iniproie" 
 on them : p. 157, top. 3. Various letters 
 from Pr. Bpt. chs. addressed this as 
 a Pr. Bpt. ch., from 1809 to 1823 : Exbt. 
 K. 18. 4. Mr. Kiughorn on May 11, 
 
 1826, said that " the atonement made" by 
 Christ, though " in point of poiver, [it] 
 loould have saved more, had more been in- 
 cluded in the ptlan," yet " in point of de- 
 sign... 'wa.s made for those tcJio were given 
 him." 5. Parts of hymns by Dr. Watts, 
 and in the collection of Ash and Evans, 
 cited, which express this doctrine. 6. 
 Mr. Kinghornin his "Arguments," p. 14, 
 
 1827, said that Mr. Hall's system had 
 " many faiths, and no baptism," instead 
 of " one faith and one baptism." 
 
 28, 29. " CoNGBEGATION OF PARTICU- 
 LAR Baptists. 
 
 28. This and similar expressions were 
 " CUSTOMARILY USED to denote a body 
 
 LIMITING CHURCn-COMMUNlON TO Pu. BpTS. 
 
 Proof 1. Riiles of Baptist Fund in 1717. 
 Exbt. K. 3. 2. The trust-deed of the 
 Baptist Chapel in Keppel-street, Middle- 
 sex, dated June 7, 1796, described that 
 strict ch. as one of " Protestant Dis- 
 senters called Pr. or Calvinistical Bpts." 
 
 3. The Deed of Zion Chapel, Chatham, 
 dated Aug. 19, 1785, describes thatch, 
 as " a society or cgn. of Pr. or Calviu- 
 istic Bpts." 4. The model deed of the 
 " Baptist Building Fund," (founded 
 1824), in the case of a ch. limiting cmn. 
 to Pr. Bpts., recommends the use, in a 
 trust-deed, of the words — "the society of 
 Protestant Dissenters called Particular 
 or Calvinistic Bpts." Bcf. p. 25 ; but a 
 note at p. 26, says that " where it is de- 
 
81 
 
 sired that unbapt'ized persons shall be 
 admitted to cmn. and memhersldp, or 
 either of them, a clause should be intro- 
 duced to that effect ;" and that " it will 
 be necessary... that the clause... c/ear/^ 
 express the intention." 5. The Model 
 Deed recommended by the Baptist 
 Union in 1849, whose secretaries Dr. 
 Steane and Mr. Hiuton " are known [to 
 W. N.] to be most active in promoting 
 ...free cum.," recommends that deeds for 
 what are there called " Baptist meeting- 
 houses" should put them in trust for 
 " the Society of Protestant Dissenters now 
 meeting for Divine worship therein," 
 thus permitting the reception of "^jer- 
 sons of all descriptions, provided they are 
 dissenters;" a form which is "suitable 
 for chs. admitting believers of all denomi- 
 nations, accoi'ding to the principles of 
 free cmn." — Bif. Bill, 1. 
 
 29. The words "for Congregational 
 Protestant Dissenters of the denomina- 
 tion of Baptists," were deemed in 1808, 
 sufficient to secure the Baptist chapel, in 
 Little Alie-street, London, to a ch. limit- 
 ing membership and cmn., to Baptists. 
 The trust-deed is Exbt. K. i.—Ref. 
 Bill, L 
 
 30 — 39. The trust-deed compared with 
 the principle and practice of free-cmn. 
 
 30. "The innovations... are founded 
 
 ON THE PRINCIPLE... OF OPE^?, FREE, OR 
 
 MIXED CMN." — Proof. 1. Ml". Bi-Qck's 
 printed letter of 1845, Exbt. K. 1. — 
 2. Minutes in ch. bk. of Jan. 29, 1849; 
 June 29, and July 13, 1857. 3. Deft. TiU- 
 yard's pamphlet, 1857, p. 16. Exbt.K. 30. 
 
 31. "Open cmn. has no relation to 
 one class ofjrue believers more than 
 TO ANOTHER." It is " a mere circumstance, 
 and not a result arising from the prin- 
 ciple itself, if most of" its advocates are 
 Baptists ; or " if in a church adopting 
 it there are more BapAists than Pcedo- 
 haptisti ;' Congregational ists than Epis- 
 copalians or Presbyterians, &c. The 
 constitution of such a ch. is not al- 
 tered IF IT HAS NOT ONE Pr. BpT. IN IT. 
 
 Proof. I. The natui-e of the pi-incijile 
 itself. 2. R. Hall, " Terms," pp. iv., v., 
 10 ; defines it to be that nothing is a 
 "condition of cmn." which is "not en- 
 joined as a condition of .salvation ;" says 
 that the case between Baptists and Pscdo- 
 baptists is only the application of this 
 principle to a particular instance, and 
 that the controversy involves topics " in 
 which the Christian world are not less in- 
 terested than the Baptists." 3. A pam- 
 phlet entitled " The Cmn. of Saints," 
 1857, Sxbt. K. 31, p. 27, says, that the 
 
 " inevitable logical result of open cmn." 
 is, that " all diversities of belief and prac- 
 tice compatible ivith the mutual acknow- 
 ledgment of each other's Christiaiuty must 
 worship in one assembly" or "church." — 
 Ref Bill, 10. 
 
 32. " A ch,., regulated upon the prin- 
 ciple of free-cmn., is ESSENTIALLY DIF- 
 FERENT FROM A ' CGN. OF Pr. BPTS.' " 
 
 Proof. 1. The advocates of free emu. 
 differ " as to what is fundamental to 
 salvation." A. Booth say.s that Faustus 
 SociNUS, from whom Socinianism takes 
 its name, was its first advocate, Apology, 
 p. 24, note, and p. 83. Some free-cmn. 
 Bpts. have been Socinians : but other 
 free-cmn. Bpts. do not recognize their 
 chs. as " chs. of Christ," Booth, p. 25, 
 note 1. 2. Its chief advocates in 
 England have been, in cent. 17, Tombes, 
 Jessey, Bunyan : in cent. 18, Foster, 
 Ryland, Turner, Brown, and Robinson : 
 in cent. 19, E. Hall. Of these, Mr. 
 Hall avowedly held general redn., Life, 
 p. 160. Mr. RoBiN,soN, was in " tha 
 latter pai-t of his career" a Socinian. 
 Dr. Foster advocated cmn. with Avians, 
 Pelagians, Socinians, &c. : Brine, p. 101. 
 Mr. Bunyan had in his ch. those who 
 denied the obligation of bapAism alto- 
 gether (OfTor's P. Progress, Int., p. Ixii.) ; 
 and he was willing to receive even Ro- 
 man Catholics, if he deemed them to lie 
 saints : Works, II. 615, col. 2, top. Mr. 
 John Ryland and Mr. Daniel Turner 
 advocated the admission of " believers of 
 all denominatiijns," (Booth, pp. 41, 42 ; 
 and 131, 56) and Mr. Booth speaks of 
 them as acting on this principle in re- 
 spect of full membersldp, pp. 143, 144. 
 Mr. Brown advocated mixed member- 
 ship : Buttfield's Reply, Exbt. K. 2, pp. 
 5, 7, 22. 3. The resolution of members 
 of this ch. on March 11, 1857 (see p. 16 
 preceding) ' ' that Christians are bound 
 to receive one another as believers," re- 
 quires the reception of unbaptized be- 
 lievers, " to all privileges which. ..belong 
 to any Christian." — Rcf. ph. 23, and 
 Bill 10. 
 
 33. Free cmn. "involves the ex- 
 tinction of all.., sects," and the de- 
 struction of every thing "distinctive 
 [as to] doctrine, rites, and cnuRCH 
 government." The "few free-cmn. 
 chs. which existed in 1746, did all, 
 so far as [W. N. knows] admit [unbap- 
 tized] believers, not merely to the L's. 
 Spr., but to FULL church cmn ;" and 
 " the above ...advoc.vtes oj" free-cmn. 
 assert or imply, that [this practice] is 
 an absolute duty, made incumbent by 
 ...Christ;" and one "not left open 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 TO HUMAN DISCRETION." — PrOof. 1. Mr. 
 
 John Tombes, who, though a Baptist, 
 remained a member of the (Jh. of England, 
 and was so even after the Restoration of 
 Charles II. ; objected to separation for 
 dififereuces "even on clear truths," if not 
 "fundamental," Wall, p. 554; Crosby I. 
 285—294. 2. Mr. Henry Jessey, 1645, 
 received the unbaptized to full member- 
 ship, Crosby I. 312 ; and said " there is a 
 command" to do so ; Buuyan's Works, II. 
 p. 642, col. 2 ; 643, col. 1 ; 645, col. 2. 
 
 3. Mr. John Buny'an, 1672, did so too, 
 and said that ' ' we are strictly commanded 
 to hold cmn. with " them ; also that 
 "the L's. Spr. is for the ch., as a ch. :" 
 Works, II. p. 610, col. 1 ; 630, col. 1. 
 
 4. Dr. James Foster was in doctrine a 
 Socinian; and held that Arians, So- 
 cinians, Calvinists, &c-, baptized and un- 
 baptized, " ought to unite in Christian 
 fellowship :" Brine, pp. 100, 101 ; Ro- 
 binson's Works, III. 145. 5. Mr. Robt. 
 RoBi^'SON continued after he became a 
 Socinian, pastor of the mixed cmn. ch. 
 at Cambridge : Ivimey IV. 52, 456, 457. 
 He received to full memhership all who 
 " held inviolably the perfection of Scrip- 
 ture :" Ivimey, IV. p. 52. Tn his treatise 
 on " Toleration," 1781, speaking of the 
 "express laws of ch. fellowship" given 
 by God, he said that the L's. Spr. is a 
 " cA. duty,'' and that "a suj^reme love 
 to ti'uth and virtue," is " all-sufficient 
 for the duties. ..of ch. cmn. ;" Works III. 
 162, 181, 177. He names Jessey, Buny an, 
 Foster, Bulkley, Turner, Ryland, and 
 Brown, as chief advocates of free cmn., 
 before that time ; pp. 142 — 145. 6. Mr. 
 J. Ryland and Mr. D. Turner pleaded 
 Rom. xiv. 1, 3, &c. as commanding free- 
 cmn. ; and Mr. Booth spoke of them as 
 pleading for and practising mixed mem- 
 bership : Apology, pp. 78, 143, 144. 7. 
 Mr. Brown ; see ph. 32. 8. Mr. Robt. 
 Hall advocated mixed membership as a 
 command of God; Terms, 96, 116 ; Short 
 Statement, p. iQ.—Ref. Bill, 10. 
 
 34. Strict cmn. was, in 1746, the 
 practice of " the whole Christian 
 WORLD :" — of the English " national 
 CH." of "all P.«:dobaptist chs. in these 
 KINGDOMS [and] upon earth," and of 
 all " individual Baptists, [except a] 
 few:" — Proof. I. Booth's Apology, 
 pp. 13, 14, 24—27. 2. "Some of the 
 few free-cmn. churches" of the 1 7th 
 cent, had ceased either to be, or to be such, 
 Jessey'shad been long extinct, Wilson I. 
 50 ; and Broadmead, Bristol, had been 
 strict from 1733. [Part of its previous 
 history is unknown.]. Fuller's Dissent, 
 pp. 185, 186. 3. Mr. Bunyan's church 
 
 had then a Pcedoiaptist pastor, and from 
 1688 to \112; Kinghorn's Defence, pref. 
 XV.; Iv. II. 45. The chs. founded by Mr. 
 Vavasor Powell, in Wales, had declined, 
 and the strict chs. there had greatly in- 
 creased ; Dr. Richards, pp. 182, 183. 
 
 35. The name of "Strict Baptists... 
 WAS first given about 1772,... by some 
 of the FEW'' free-cmn. Bpts. then existing, 
 and " about 26 years after the founding 
 of this trust." — Proof. Booth, pp. 138, 
 140 ; Ivimey IV. B5.—Eef Bill, 10. 
 
 36. Those who were called Strict Bap- 
 tists in 1772, "required as terms op 
 ch. cmn., not only general evidence" of 
 saving faith, but " as a further divinely 
 imposed test of [a] person's state as- 
 sent to the doctrines," and submission 
 to "the rites,... ch. government, and 
 ...precepts which in [their] judgment 
 were clearly revealed and enjoined by 
 God." The term strict, in its broadest 
 meaning, denoted all these points of 
 difference between their chs. and " chs. 
 composed of all classes of believers ;" 
 but from the mere circumstance that 
 free-cmn. has been chiefly practised by 
 those who differ little except as to bap- 
 tism, it is often used to denote merely 
 " the non admission to cmn. of persona 
 deemed by Baptists unbaptized/' — Proof. 
 1. Mr. Booth said in his Defence of the 
 Strict Bpts., " it is not every one" of 
 whose salvation they hare hope, "who is 
 entitled to cmn. at [Christ's] table, but 
 such, and only such, as revere his au- 
 thority, submit to his ordinances, and 
 obey the laivs of his house/' Apology, pp. 
 SO, 117. Also that these rules of cmn. 
 are not " discretional," but " fixed by" 
 Christ, 23, 24. 2. Dr. T. F. Curtis, p. 
 166, says, when defending strict cmn., 
 " According to [Mr. Hall's] theory no 
 one of our chs. could be distinctively 
 Calvinistic, unless we were prepared to 
 say that Arminianism necessarily excludes 
 men from being of the number Christ 
 has received." — Bcf. Bill 10. 
 
 37. " The Baptists," or a like term, 
 was in, and before 1746, and after- 
 wards, used as the " proper and dis- 
 tinctive name" of those who " about 
 1772 were first called Strict Baptists." 
 " Almost all the baptized believers in 
 England," in 1746, were of that class. — 
 Proof. 1. In 1673, Mr. Bunyan called 
 such Baptists " The Baptists," Works II. 
 616, Title ; and also " the brethren of 
 the baptized way," 616, col. 2, 633, col, 
 1. He called his own chapel " Congre- 
 gational /' Ofi'or's P. Prog., Int. pp. 61, 
 62. 2. Dr. Wall, 1707, called them 
 " the Antipcedohaptists," p. 560. 3. Dr. 
 
83 
 
 Gale, 1705, did so also, pp. 63, 67. 4. 
 
 Mr. Daniel Neal, 1731—1738, called 
 such Baptists " the Anabaptists," II. 278, 
 280. 5. Mr. T. Crosby, 1740, called 
 them " the Baptists;" Hist. III. 44. 6. 
 Mr. Booth entitled his Defence of their 
 pi-actice "An Apology for the Baptists ;" 
 and Mr. R. Hall in Reply to K. in 1818, 
 pref. p. 12, said that the reason for his 
 doing so was that strict cmn. " had 
 gained so firm a footing previously to 
 Mr. Booth's writing." Also that " the 
 few churches who ventured to depart 
 from the established usage, were very 
 equivocally acknowledged to belong to 
 the general body." Mr. B. in his 
 Apology, said that free-cmn. Baptists 
 were neither " consistent Baptists" nor 
 "Pfedobaptists," but " a heterogeneous 
 mixture of both," p. 146 ; also 19, 30. 
 7. Mr. Kinghorn in his pamphlet " An 
 Address," Exbt. K. 11, 1824, p. 33, 
 called Strict Baptists " the Baptists."- — 
 Eef. Bill, 10. 
 
 38. "According to the principles... 
 ALWAYS HELD by thosc.now called 
 Strict Baptist.?, the admission of un- 
 baptized believers to cmn. with this ch., 
 whether as full-members, or at the L's. 
 
 Spr., NECESSARILY EXCLUDES ALL ITS 
 MEMBERS WHO CONSISTENTLY ADHERE TO 
 
 THOSE PRINCIPLES ;" which make it a 
 
 duty " IMPERATIVE UPON THEM, NEITHER 
 
 TO COMMUNE WITH the unbaptizcd, nor 
 
 BY THEIR ACTS AS CH. MEMBERS, TO 
 
 SANCTION cmn. with them." — Proof. 1. 
 Appendix to Cfsn. 1677, " We cannot 
 hold ch.-cmn. with any other than bap- 
 tized believers, and churches constituted 
 of such;" Ex. VI. p. 244. 2. Bunyan 
 said that his opponents made baptism 
 "essential to ch.-cmn.," Works, II. 633, 
 col. 1. 3. W. Kiffin, one of them, said 
 "we dare not break this rule," &c. 
 Ivimey, III. 315, 316. 4. Mr. Booth 
 said, baptism is " indispensably necessary," 
 p. 8 ; and that it is wrong to connive at 
 the neglect of a divine rule; pp. 50, 53, 
 117, 137. 5. Mr. Kinghorn said that 
 baptism is " one of the essentials of a 
 Chnstian ch.;" Baptism, pp. 28, 162, 
 163, &c.: that without " union with others 
 in our obe'dience to Christ," there is 
 " no New Testament ch. ;" pp. 94, 95. 
 He repeatedly said that Strict Baptists 
 are expelled from membership by the 
 adoi5tion of free cmn. by a ch. pre- 
 viously Strict; Baptism, p. 108. In 
 " Arguments," 1827, he said that strict 
 members would be "expelled from 
 [their] HOME," and "robbed of [their] 
 privileges," by precisely such events 
 as have occurred in this ch., and com- 
 
 pared such a course with that of the 
 Socinianized Presbyterians who DROVE 
 "away" those who held the faith of their 
 fathers, and kept possession of their 
 property, pp. 51 — 54. Other remarks 
 quoted from his Defence, 1820, pp. 129, 
 130, 186. 6. Mr. Brock, in his printed 
 letter, when commencing the innovations 
 in 1845, admitted that the strict members 
 " could not consent to the admission of 
 the unbaptized " to emu. %vith the ch., 
 and would be thus compelled, "at the 
 imperative dictate of conscience [to] go 
 away." Exbt. K. 1. 7. The resolution 
 of free-cmn. members of this ch. on 
 March 30, 1857, proposing a separate 
 strict service, admitted that the strict 
 members could not commune "consci- 
 entiously with unbaptized believers," 
 and that they would, notwithstanding 
 the separate service, be stUl excluded 
 from part of their right, as members, to 
 meet with the ch, at all times. — Sef. 
 Bill, 10. 
 
 39. It has bf-en admitted that this 
 cgn. " had always been a strict bap- 
 TIST CH. prior to the time of the inno- 
 vations," and that the members who 
 have OPPOSED them are Strict Bap- 
 tists. — Proof. 1. Min. 7 of June 28, 
 1847, states that the ch. acknowledged 
 that it had always been a strict ch. 2. 
 Mr. Brock, in printed letter of 1845, 
 p. 2, Exbt. K. 1, spoke of the opposing 
 members as " strict communionist " 
 brethren. They are called strict in 
 min. 1 of April 30, 1 849 ; and in Mr. 
 Gould's address to the ch. on June 29, 
 1859. 
 
 40 — 56. Breaches of trust, trustees, d;c. 
 
 40. The SERVICE instituted by Mr. 
 Brock in 1845, " violated the right use 
 of the building as defined by the trust- 
 deed ;" and also the rules of the ch. in 
 four particulars : 1. "that the L's. Spr. is 
 exclusively a ch. ordinance," (ph. 18 of 
 this afFt.) ; 2. that the ch. " has sole 
 right to admit to...ch. cmn.'' (ph. 9) ; 3. 
 "that immersion after... faith is absolutely 
 ptre-requisite to ch. cmn." (ph. 21) ; and 
 4. that church members must "walk to- 
 gcther in all laws and ordinances," &c. 
 (art. 9 ) The Protest by 42 members. 
 The opinion of Mr. Kindersley. The 
 motion of Mr. Spalding and Mr. Nash, 
 March 30, 1846. The protest sent by 
 W. Norton to pastor and members, after 
 opinions given by Mr. Romilly and Mr. 
 Bethell, 1847; exclusion of T. Keif and 
 ten other members in 1S46 and 1847. 
 This service in 1849 was spoken of as oiio 
 of " the ordinances of the ch." licf. Tho 
 
 F 2 
 
84 
 
 details are given in pp. 8 — 10, 12 and 14, 
 preceding. Bill 17, 20; afft. Moore and 
 others. 
 
 41. Resolution to admit E. Bayes 
 AS A member; her ADMISSION: this 
 compelled the strict members to be ab- 
 sent from the L's. Spr. (ph. 38.)—Bef. 
 Bill 19, -^0. 
 
 42. A MORE PERMANENT BREACH OF 
 
 trust: the res. of March 11, 1857, and 
 the actual admissiun of unbajrtized be- 
 lievers to cmn. with, this ch. Mi*. Till- 
 yard's motion on March 30, 1857, as to 
 the uubajjtized vpho had attended Mr. 
 Brock's service. The admission of two 
 Presbyterians and an Independent in 
 Dec. 1858, with the special approbation 
 of Mr. Gould and Mr. Tilly ard.—i2e/. 
 See pp. 16 — 19, preceding. Bill 19. 
 
 43. Missionary communion; the ad- 
 mission of members of Wesleyan societies, 
 as such ; want of evidence that all such 
 members are believers in the Baptist 
 sense : Mr. Gould as " the result of most 
 solemn convictions'' said on July 15, 
 1858, " I am commanded to receive any 
 
 MAN WHO PROFESSES TO BE A BELIEVER," 
 
 8tC. "I must not judge him." — Eef. See 
 pp. 19, 45, preceding. Bill 20. 
 
 44. "DtcLARATioN signed in 1857. ..by 
 85 [strict] members was placed in [W. 
 N.'s] hands." Exbt. K. 23.— Eef. See 
 p. 28, preceding. Bill 20. 
 
 45. A "Declaration also signed at 
 about the same time by 30 members,... 
 favourable in their private opinions to 
 free-cmn." — jRef. See p. 28 preceding. 
 Bill 20. 
 
 46. Other breaches have occurred 
 and been prutested against. — Eef. Afit. 
 of Willis and others. 
 
 47. Defts. Gould, Cozens, the elder, 
 Tillyard and Fletcher, as afipeai-s in 
 ch.-bk. min. 2. ..of March 1, and min. 14, 
 of March 29, 1858, declared their "in- 
 tention to take steps to secure the en- 
 tike exclusion of those members whose 
 absence from the L's. Spr. [had] been 
 occasioned by the admission to it of per- 
 Bons" unbaptized. — Eef See p. 48, pre- 
 ceding. Bill 24 ; and Ansrs. II. of said 
 defts. 
 
 48. 49. The defts. w^ere requested 
 in April 1857 and March 1858, by W. N. 
 as a trustee, but (except Mr. Gooderson) 
 refused, to cause these innovations to 
 be discontinued. — Eef. See -p. 19. Bill 
 20, 25; afft. of Willis and Thouless ; 
 Exbt. K. 25. 
 
 50. Leave to inspect the ch. books 
 in order to see if they justified the 
 filing of a Bill in Chancery, was asked 
 by deponent, and kefused by Mr. 
 
 Gould, and by a majority of the ch. 
 July 13, 1857 ; nor could he " obtain all 
 the information [he] required, until [he] 
 examined the ch.-bks. by th'j authority 
 of this Honourable Court." — Eef. See 
 pp. 21, 30, 49, preceding. Bill 2S. 
 
 51. Arbitration: communications on 
 the subject were ineffectual ; partly be- 
 cause leave to inspect the ch.-bks. " was 
 refused' ' to W. N . and he had not such 
 information as [he] needed ; partly be- 
 cause Mr. G. and others refused " to put 
 the case fully and fairly" for considera- 
 tion ; and refused " to correspond any 
 further on the subject." — Eef. See pp. 
 30 — 48, preceding. Bill 22 ; mins. in ch.- 
 bk., from June 29, 1857 to Feb. 1, 1858. 
 
 52. Mr. Wilkin and Mr. Norton, had 
 been recognized as trustees, by tliis 
 church, and the other trustees. Proofs 
 from ch.-bks., &c., ^c.—Eef. Bill 23. 
 
 63. The Registrar-general's certi- 
 ficate adduced, proving that this ylace 
 is registered as a place of worship. — Eef. 
 Bill 27 ; Exbt. K. 28. 
 
 54. The four trust-deeds were seen 
 by Mr. N. in the custody of Messrs. Pat- 
 tison and Wigg, deft. Gould's solicitors. 
 
 55. Exhibits referred to in this afft. 
 (besides those marked K. 1 to K. 44, 
 and M. 1 to M. 4), are books numbered 
 from 1 to 52. There are also Exhibits 
 of books and of packets of papers, not 
 referred to in this afl't., but " which it 
 may be desirable to refer to for evidence," 
 marked 0. 1, to 0. 17, and P. 1, to P. 4. 
 
 50. This suit justified. The various 
 counsel appealed to by pltfs. were 
 unanimous in their opinion as to a breach 
 of trust ; the advice given by the Charity 
 Commissioners was acted upon, and the 
 Memorial recommended by them to be 
 made to the Attorney-General, resulted 
 in this suit.— Eef. See pp. 9, 11, 40, 48, 
 preceding. Exbt. M. 4. 
 
 Jfft. II.: for pltfs. Second hy W. 
 Norton. Disproof of statements hy defts. 
 Filed Nov. 8, 1859. 
 
 1. Believes that " it is not the fact 
 that in 1646 there were in London 
 above 46 CGNS. OF Pr. Baptists :" 
 [Gould Ans. I, phs. 15, U.'\— Proof. 
 1. R. Baillie, in his " Anabaptism," 
 ch. iii. said, "before [1644] this sect was 
 said to be grown into no less than 46 
 chs. {A.), and that, as I take it, within 
 and about London." 2. Dr. Featley, 
 to whose "Dippers Dipt," (p. x. in edn. 
 1647) the note (A) referred, said " the 
 Anabaptists boast in secret of 47 chs." 
 3. Mr. D. Neal in his " Puritans," 
 1731-2, 11. 279, said "there were no 
 
85 
 
 less than 47 cgns. in the country and 
 seven in London," in 1644. 4. The seven 
 CHURCHES, which issued the Cfsn. of 
 1644, spoke of themselves in their pref. 
 as " the poor despised chs. of God in 
 London," Exbt. VI. p. 12. 5. The 
 Cfsn. of 1652 was entitled that of "the 
 several cr/ns in London. ...un^uatlj call- 
 ed Anabaptists." The i^reface has "only 
 14 names." 6. A note in Grantham's 
 Christianismus Primitivus, Bk. III. p. 10, 
 calls the London cfsn. the cfsn. " of 
 those chs. in London which are.. .unjustly 
 called Anabaptists." 7. The whole of 
 the chs. in London, Middlesex, and 
 Southwark, which gent messengers to the 
 Pr. Bpt. Assembly of 1689, were only 
 11 ; to that of 1692, only 12. 8. The 
 whole number in London about 150 
 years after 1644, that is, in 1790 (see 
 list in Rippon), was only 15. 9. Mr. 
 Ivimey, IV. pp. 13, 38, gives a Ust of 
 ONLY 13 such chs. in the whole of Lon- 
 don and Middlesex about 1750 or 1760. 
 " The difference between 7.. .and above 
 46 such cgns. is great, and evidence 
 that the latter number is incorrect is 
 accessible to any one desirous of ascer- 
 taining whether" it is so or not. 
 
 2. Believes that "it is not the fact" 
 that Mr. Spilsbery's cgn., from its for- 
 mation IN 1633, was " IN the practice 
 of open membership,'' though it may 
 have held that persons could coccnant, 
 when unbaptized, to form a ch. and be 
 baptized. [Gould Ans. I. phs. 20, 23, 
 2(3, 36, 56, and p. 54, preceding]. — Proof. 
 
 1. It was one of the 7 ch.s. of the Cfsn. 
 of 1646, in which it is declared, art. 33, 
 that a ch. is " a company of visible 
 saints, being haptized," &c. ; and art. 39, 
 that disciples " ought to be baptized, 
 and after to partake of the L's. Spr." 
 
 2. Mr. Cox, who joined in that Cfsn., 
 said of all the 7 chs., in an Appendix 
 issued that same year, " we do not ad- 
 mit any to the use of the Spr., nor 
 communicate with any in [it] but dis- 
 ciples baptized." 3. The preface to 
 Cfsn. of 1G46 says that these churches 
 were "one in faith... and emu. ;" and Mr. 
 Gould admits that one of them, Mr. 
 Kiffin's, was strict. 4. Mr. Spilsbeky 
 joined in reissuing an Epistle in 1652, 
 which speaks of " the Scriptui-e" as " no- 
 where approving any other churches,... 
 but the true chs. of Jesus Christ, profess- 
 ing the faith of Chri.st, and being bap- 
 tized in his name." Cfsn, 1652, original 
 edn. Exbt. 51, pp. 1, 3, 18. 5. Mr. T. 
 Crosdv speaks of Mr. Spilsbery's as the 
 first of the "distinct societies" of Bap- 
 tists, they having been till that time 
 
 "intermixed among other Protestant Dis- 
 senters." L 147, 148. 6. Mr. Ivimry, 
 III. 314, says of Mr. Spilsbery's ch. 
 "no evidence can he jwoduced that [?'<] 
 ever practised mixed cmn." 
 
 3. "It is Nor the fact that cgns. 
 consisting partly of Pe. Bpts.," and 
 partly of other professed believers, 
 
 "'HAVE ALWAYS CALLED THEMSI:lvP,S 
 
 and bf.en recognized as, cgns. of Pb. 
 Bpts., nor that in [them], baptism has 
 BEEN ADMINISTERED ALWAYS by immer- 
 sion ONLY," and to those only who pro- 
 fess faith. [Gould, Ans. I. phs. 22, 30.] 
 The Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and other 
 churches, which have consisted partly of 
 Baptists, have not called themselves, nor 
 been called Particular Baptist churches. 
 Proof 1. That the Episcopal church con- 
 sisted partly of Baptists ; J. Tombes was a 
 member of it, Ci-osby 1. 291. Dr. Wall said 
 in 1707, pp. 429, 430, that at first Bap- 
 tists "did not all of 'em proceed to separa- 
 tion from the Established Ch.," and that 
 though they "all or almost all," did so 
 afterwards, it was their own act. 2. The 
 Presbyterians. Mr. Baxter tried to 
 persiiade Baptists not to separate. Wall, 
 p. 554. 3. The Independent chs. Mr. 
 T. Edwards, in his Gangrtena, 1646, p. 
 1 4, si^oke of them as " admitting of, and 
 continuing Anabaptists to be members." 
 4. Mr. Jessey's ch. is spoken of by Mr. 
 B. Hanbury, in his Memorials of the In- 
 dependents, as the first formed Inde- 
 pendent ch. He says that most of its 
 members were "firm for infant baptism," 
 I. 293, note c. Compare Crosby I. 311, 
 312 ; Ivimey II. 420. The editor of the 
 Records of the Ch. at Hexham, (Exbt. 0. 
 3, p. 348, note 1,) says that Mr. Jegsey, 
 "although pastor of a Pcedobaptist ch., 
 did not I'eliuquish his ofBce when his 
 sentiments on baptism were changed, 
 but continued for 25 years to minister to 
 them." 5. Mr. Bunyan's ch. was called 
 in 1672, " Congregational," and not Bap- 
 tist. (Offer's P. Prog., Int., p. 62). Mr. 
 OfFor, a friend of free cmn., says, " it 
 could not fairly be called" BaptLst, p. 
 62. Mr. Ivimey, in 1830, said that "it 
 should never have been reckoned as of 
 the Baptist denomination," iv. 13 ; he 
 called such a ch. a "congregational ch." 
 ii. 83, 84. 6. The ch. at Bkoadmead, 
 Bristol, seems at first to have been com- 
 posed wholly of PiedobapAists. It was 
 called an Independent ch. as to its de- 
 nomination, after some of its members be- 
 came Baptists ; Records, pp. 41 — 47, and 
 notes. 7. Baptist advocates of mixed 
 membership, have objected to the tei-m 
 Baptist or baptized as an improper 
 
86 
 
 name in itself, and have admitted that 
 mixed churches are not, according to the 
 stnct vicaning of the term, Baptist 
 cuuRCiiES. Mr. BuNYAN said : " As for 
 those factious titles of Anabaptists, In- 
 dependents, Presbyterians, or the Hke, 
 I conclude that they came neither from 
 Jerusalem nor Antioch, but rather from 
 Hell and Babylon." Works II. p. 649, 
 col. 1. Mr. Brown, as quoted by Mr. 
 Buttfield, in " Free Cmn. an Innovation," 
 Exbt. K. 2, p. 41, said, "Your adopting 
 that unscx'iptural pa?'^2/ 113'™^ and distinc- 
 tion of the baptized churches of Christ, 
 and refusing fellowship, with all who 
 do not pi'actise the same," &c. Mr. B. 
 Hall admitted that if mixed cmn, were 
 to prevail, " the appellation of Baptist 
 might be found not so properly appli- 
 cable to churches as to individuals," 
 Short Statement, p. 46. Dr. Jos. Angus 
 Baid in 1846 (Primitive Ch. Mag., pp. 13, 
 14 ; Exbt. M. 5,) of a mixed membership 
 eh., " a Baptist ch. it is not. In a Baptist 
 ch., baptism (as we understand the term) 
 is essential to membership." Mr. Joshua 
 Thomas, in a Hist, of the Association in 
 Wales from 1650 to 1790 (Rippon, Exbt. 
 13, p. 5,) said that the chs. in Wales 
 which consisted of " Psedobaptists and 
 Baptists iinited together in a mixed 
 emu.," were not "proper Baptist chs. ;" 
 that the first Baptist ch. there, was 
 formed at Ilston, and that Mr. John 
 Myles, its pastor, " seems to have been 
 the first Baptist minister in Wales who 
 defended and maintained unmixed cmn. 
 among the Baptists in the principality, 
 in a public, open way." 
 
 4. Believes that " IT IS NOT a pact" 
 that those who have adopted the prac- 
 tice of open cmn, whether as to the L's. 
 Spr. only, or as to full membership, have 
 
 generally CONSIDERED IT OPEN TO MODI- 
 FICATION, according to the circumstances 
 of any individual ; nor a fact that 
 those who have adopted it as to the L's. 
 Spr., " have always considered [this 
 practice] entirely distinct from the 
 practice of open membership." [Gould 
 Ans, I. phs. 22, 30, 31, 32.]— Pre/, ph. 
 33 of W. N.'s first afFt. ; appealed to as 
 showing that the advocates of free cmn. 
 have i/enerally maintained that to re- 
 ceive all believers to f^^ll ch.-cmn. is " a 
 duty made inciimhcnt by the will of 
 OhriKt, and that if in practice" they have 
 received them to the L's. Spr. only, they 
 have done so in opposition to their own 
 ai'guments. 
 
 5. Inaccurate statements as to Mr. 
 Kiffin. [Gould Ans. I. phs. 20, 23, 
 25, 20, 28, 34].— Pro./, that Mr. K.'s 
 
 ch. was formed before 1644 ; his signa- 
 ture to Pref. of Cfsn. of that date, as 
 member of a ch. distinct from Mr. 
 Spilsbei-y's. 2. That his ch. and Mr. 
 Spilsbery's had the same rules of cmn. ; 
 ph. 2 of this aflft., the words " One in 
 cmn." 3. That before 1653, and as early 
 as 1633, Pr. Baptists limited cmn. to Pr. 
 Bpts. ; Crosby III. 8, 4 ; Ivimey II. 297 ; 
 III. 314, 315; Broadmead Records, p. 
 31, note 3. — Be/ ph. 2 of this afPt., and 
 p. 54 preceding. 
 
 6. It is NOT THE FACT that the question 
 whether the vmbaptized should partake 
 of the L'e. Spr. with Pr. Bpts, " has been 
 
 an OPEN QUESTION, EXPRESSLY RECOG- 
 NIZED as such, among Pr. Bpts," [Gould, 
 Ans. I. phs. 29— 32, ZS].— Proof. Phs. 33 
 and 38, in AV. N.'s first afft., refei'red to 
 as showing that both strict and free 
 commimionists have deemed the course 
 they advocated, to be 7nade incumbent by 
 the luill of God, and not left open to the 
 discretion and pleasure of men. 
 
 7. Mr. J. ToMBES referred to the Cfsn. 
 of 1644, not as proof that the Pr. Bpts. 
 
 AS A BODY DID NOT REJECT OPEN CMN., 
 
 but simply to show what they held. 
 (Gould Ans. I. ph. 61). — Proof. Extract 
 from Tombes, in Wall, p. 554. 
 
 8. The London Cfsn. of 1646, does not 
 COUNTENANCE the doctrine that " Christ 
 by his sacrifice reconciled to God all 
 MANKIND." [Gould Aus. I. ph. 63]. — 
 Proof. Ai"t. 21 of said cfsn. says that 
 " Christ by his death, did purchase sal- 
 vation for the elect... These only have 
 interest in him," &c. 
 
 9. The Cfsn. of 1689 did not supersede, 
 but CONFIRMED the testimony given by 
 the London Cfsn. of 1644— 1652. [Gould 
 Ans. I. ph. 77.] Proof. Intro, to Cfsn. 
 of 1689, said that it was "a testimony 
 of [their] firm adhering" to the London 
 Cfsn., and that "the substance" of that 
 of 1689 was "the same." 
 
 10. Mr. Gould's appeal TO several 
 London ministers for advice in or about 
 June 1857, did not bear any resemblance 
 to a meeting of ch. messengers such as 
 that mentioned in ch. 26, sec. 15, of Cfsn. 
 of 1689. [Gould, Ans. I. ph. 159.] 
 
 Ajft. III. for pltfs.—Afft. of Simon 
 Wilkin, pltf. and trustee. Filed Nov. 2, 
 1859. 
 
 1. " Never was," as deft. Gould al- 
 leges, Ans. III. ph. 78, " ' a zealous ad- 
 vocate' of... open cmn. For some time 
 before" Mr. Kiughorn's death, "and ever 
 since [has been] an advocate of strict 
 emu." 
 
 2. "At no time. ..an advocate of,. ..but 
 
87 
 
 always opposed to the introduction of 
 open cmn." into this ch., "as inconsistent 
 with the fundamental constitution of 
 the ch." 
 
 Afft. IV. for pUfs.—Afft. of George 
 Moore, Wm. Press, Wm. Alexander, 
 Ebmund Hastings, and John Spalding, 
 respecting the practice of this ch. in the 
 time of Mr. Kinghom. Filed Nov. 2, 
 1859. 
 
 1. " Were for many years," while " Mr. 
 Jos. Kinghom was pastor of [this ch.], 
 memlers thereof." 
 
 2. " During those years " one ob- 
 ject for which this ch. " appointed 
 messengers to visit all candidates," ex- 
 cept tkose received by letter from some 
 other ch., " was to ascertain on behalf 
 of the ch. . . whether they held sub- 
 stantiaUy the doctrines .. .taught by the 
 pastor and recognized by the ch. .. The 
 church was accustomed to satisfy itself 
 on these 'points before it resolved that 
 such candidates should be received to 
 membership, and... such resolution al- 
 ways contained the proviso that if... not 
 already... they should be immersed, before 
 they were received to cmn...." 
 
 3. "During those years... no person 
 was admitted to permanent cmn. in the 
 L's. Spr. with the said ch., who was not 
 admitted thereto as a member of it." 
 
 4. " To the best of [their] knowledge 
 ..no person during [those] years was 
 [received] as a transient member or occa- 
 sional communicant who was not first 
 MENTIONED to such cgn." It "claimed 
 the sole authority to decide who was to 
 be received to occasional as well as per- 
 manent cmn.," and this was done that it 
 "might pi-event [such persons from] 
 communing with it, if it thought fit." 
 They believe that during said time no 
 persons were received to " occasional 
 cmn... but those who professed to be, 
 and were received as, Pr. Bpts.; cer- 
 tainly NONE BUT PERSONS BAPTIZED," 
 
 &c., " and it was customary to mention 
 to the ch. the name of the Pr, Bpt. ch. 
 of which they were members." 
 
 5. Deponents Hastings, Spalding, and 
 Press, say that a person named, they be- 
 lieve, Robertson, " who had been baptized 
 by Mr. Kinghom, was not permitted to 
 commune with this ch. in the L's. Spr., 
 because he was not a member of this or 
 any other ch. recognized by it as duly 
 organized." 
 
 Jfft. V. for pltfs.—Afft. of Robert 
 GuYTON, Wm. Press, Wji. White, Ed- 
 mund Hastings, and John Spalding,. 
 
 being part of the memlers whose exclusion 
 was one result of the innovation commenced 
 in 1845. Filed Nov. 2, 1859. 
 
 1. They were members when Mr. 
 Brock began his new service on April 20, 
 184.5, " and thus violated the rules of that 
 ch. with respect to the observance of the 
 L's, Spr." [See pp. 8, 9, preceding.] 
 
 2. " That the duty of insisting o» 
 the observance of its rules, ia 
 
 vested in the members of this cgn 
 
 We ceased from sense of duty to ob- 
 serve the L's. ,Spr. with the ch., until 
 the ch. should cause this violation of its 
 rules to be discontinued ; and because we 
 did so, certain members, who, as a whole, 
 were bent on permitting the said viola- 
 tion to continue, declared on the 28th of 
 June, 1847, that we were no longer from 
 that time members of the ch., and we 
 were thus, ar/ainst our earnest desire to 
 retain our rights as members of this ch., 
 deprived of them," &c. 
 
 3. " That we... were entitled to share 
 in [the] use of that building, whereas 
 those" received to the L's. Spr. by Mr. 
 Brock, " not being Baptists, nor members 
 of, nor occasional communicants with 
 that • cgn. of Pr. Bpts.' could show no 
 right to the use of the building what- 
 
 Afft. VI. for pltfs.—Afft. of Reuben 
 Willis, and Benjamin Thouless, ^^mw- 
 ing a protest made Aj^ril 11, 1857, against 
 the then recent innovations. 
 
 1. Went with pltf. W. Norton on 
 April 11, 1857, to see deft. Gould, pas- 
 tor, defts. Cozens, the elder, Fletcher, 
 and Tillyard, deacons and trustees, and 
 Cozens, the younger, not a member, but 
 a trustee. [See p. 19 preceding.] 
 
 2. The said W. Norton " informed 
 each. ..that he called as a trustee,... and 
 said that the admission of persons who 
 were not Pr. Bpts. to cmn. with the said 
 ch, ...was a breach of the trusts," or 
 used words to that effect. 
 
 3. " The said W. N... represented" to 
 the four first named defts. " that if their 
 sentiments were such as to reqidre them 
 to admit to ch. cmn. with themselves, 
 persons who were not Pr. Bpts., they... 
 and any other members who agreed with 
 them... ought to give up the use <f the said 
 chapel; and he requested that they would 
 do so.' 
 
 4. That the said five defts. all " de- 
 nied that the admission of persons who 
 were not Pr. Bpts. to cmn. with this ch. 
 was a breach of the trusts," &c. 
 
 5. That deft. Gould said " he did not 
 intend to vacate the pulpit at the re- 
 
88 
 
 quest of one trustee, referring to" Mr. 
 Norton. 
 
 Ajjt. Vil. for i:>ltfs.—Afft. of Reuben 
 Willis, and Richard Spalding {mem- 
 hers and pltfs ) and of John Barber, 
 Thos. Potter, Benjamin Thouless, 
 Philip Armes, and Wm. Alexander, 
 (members), respecthuj the innovations com- 
 menced in 1857. Piled Nov. 4, 1S59. 
 
 Only those of the above deponents 
 whose initials are given at the beginning 
 of each ph. attest its contents. 
 
 1. W. S. B. T. heard deft. Tillyard's 
 proposal as to E. Bayes, Jan. 1857. [See 
 p. 15, preceding.] They and other mem- 
 bers who adhered to the ancient rules of 
 the ch., expecting her presence at the L's. 
 Spr. on the first Sunday in Feb., " were 
 compelled at the imperative dictate of con- 
 science to stay away." 
 
 2. VV. S. B. Ar. T. After the above 
 proposal was made, and before E. Bayes 
 communed, defts. Gould, Cozens, the 
 elder, Fletcher and Tillyard, were told 
 that her cmn. would cause such absence 
 " for conscience' sake," but they " posi- 
 tively refused to use their influence to 
 prevent that proposal from being carried 
 into effect.'' , 
 
 3. W. S. B. Ar. T. Al. A proposal to 
 receive all lelievers to cmn. with the ch. 
 in the L's. Sj^r., was seconded by deft. 
 Cozens, the elder, in Feb. 1857 ; the dis- 
 cussion was resumed on March 11th, 
 1857 ; when deft. Gould read a paper 
 " advocating the admission of all lelievers 
 to the L's. Spr." (Exbt. K. 40.) He 
 "admitted that the L's. Spr. was a ch. 
 ordinance.'" His argiiments, especially 
 at pp. 9 and 11 of K. 40, '* virtually con- 
 demned the above proposal as incon- 
 sistent in not admitting all believers to 
 full membership ;" deponents understood 
 the words of the proposal, "that the 
 constitution of this ch. remain unal- 
 tered," as meaning that "it would be 
 altered if [all believers] were admitted 
 to full membership" as well as to the L's. 
 Spr. [See pp. 16, 17, preceding.] 
 
 4. W. S. B. T. Al. Defts. Gould, 
 Cozens, the elder, Fletcher Tillyard, and 
 other members " proceeded to admit to 
 regular... and notmerelyto occasional and 
 transient cmn. with this ch. in the L's. 
 Spr., believers who were not Pr. Baptists, 
 nor raj-tists at all. On March 30, 1857, 
 deft. Tillyard proposed [I'es. IL on p. 18, 
 preceding.] 
 
 5. W. S. B. T. Al. On March 30,1857, 
 deft. Tillyard proposed that persons who 
 were not Baptists, applying for regular 
 cmn., " should be visited by a deputation 
 
 from the church, and be otherwise treated 
 us candidates for admission to ch. member- 
 ship" are treated. [See Res. IlL on p. 19, 
 preceding.] 
 
 6. W. S. T. Dec. 29, 1858. Two Pres- 
 byterians and one Independent applied 
 for regular cmn. Defts. Gould and Till- 
 yard expressed much pleasui-e on account 
 of it ; and visitors were appointed in 
 imitation of the course pursued in the 
 case of those " who apply for ftdl cmn." 
 
 7. W. S. T. Jan. 31, 1859. Certain 
 members voted the admission of said 
 Presbyterians and Independent. Mrs. 
 Howard, an Episcopalian , was proposed, 
 and messengers appointed to visit her. 
 Defts. Gould and Tillyard "prevented" 
 witness S. from opposing the admission 
 of all these four persons. 
 
 8. W. S. T. Dec. 29, 1858. Deft. 
 Tillyai'd called them "intruders /' deft. 
 Gould said " he did not recognize [iAem] 
 as members." 
 
 9. W. S. B. T. Jan. 31, 1859. Deft. 
 Tillyard called them " intruders." Deft. 
 Gould " said he would not hear a syllable 
 from" them. 
 
 10. W. S. B. T. Ar. Feb. 28, 1859, 
 they " wei'e resolved to insist on [their] 
 right to oppose the introduction of such 
 persons." Mr. Barber rose to speak. 
 Deft. " Gould said he would not hear" 
 him. Mr. Barber "asked him to point 
 out. ..any resolution of the ch., which had 
 placed [him] under ch. discipline, and 
 insisted on an answer." Deft. Gould 
 " immediately dissolved the meeting," 
 and no other ch. meeting was known to 
 have been held since. 
 
 11. W. S. A " MISSIONARY CMN." was 
 
 held in this chapel in May, 1857. They 
 " heard the members of all Christian chs. 
 invited" to it. Two Wesleyan Methodists 
 informed W. that they ",took part in the 
 said service ; . . had not to ajjply to any 
 one for a ticket, or for any other intro- 
 duction, but had only to go and take 
 their places." 
 
 12. W. S. T. Believe that a like 
 MISSIONARY CMN. took place there on May 
 10, 1859 ; that deft. " Gould presided, 
 ...and that defts. Cozens, the elder, 
 Fletcher, and Tillyard, handed the bread 
 and wine." 
 
 13. W. S. P. T. Al. Exbt. K. 44 is a 
 copy of two DECLARATIONS "presented 
 in [their] presence," at ch. meeting, June 
 29, 1857, the one "signed by 92," the 
 other "by 40 members." [See pp. 28, 
 29, preceding.] 
 
 14. W. S. B. P. Al. T. On Juno 29, 
 1857, deft. Gould "read in [their] pre- 
 sence.. .a paper on Schism," Exbt. K. 41 ; 
 
89 
 
 in which he said " that those who had 
 ' ceased to meet with this ch. to eat the 
 L's. Spr.' {K. 41, p. 1, sec. 4) ' had fallen 
 into schism' (p. 5, 1. 42) ; though he knew 
 that their absence was occasioned solely 
 by the introduction of free cmn. ; partly 
 through his ow« advocacy." He said 
 also that strict cmn. — the former practice 
 of this ch., is schism, p. 5, line 24. [See 
 p. 21, preceding.] 
 
 15. W. S. B. AI. T. The special service 
 proposed by defts. Gould and Fletcher 
 *' for baptized believers only," would not 
 have enabled them to attend " all the 
 services of the ch. ;" and these they "had 
 a right to attend." 
 
 16. W. S. T. April 26, 1858, heard 
 defts. Fletcher and Tillyard propose 
 that messengers be apjiointed to visit 
 "members, because they had not com- 
 muned with the ch., since persons not 
 immei'sed " after faith, had done so. 
 
 17. B. W. S. This Bill in Chancery 
 was filed at their " urgent request," 
 made on behalf of protesting mombei's, 
 and was " absolutely necessary" in order 
 to prevent their exclusion. 
 
 18. W. S. B. T. On May 30, 1858, 
 which was after the bill was filed, deft. 
 Fletcher and othei-s urged them to with- 
 draw from ch. -meeting, and persevered 
 in thus " endeavouring to deprive" them 
 of their rights as members, " though the 
 ch. as a body had not adopted any reso- 
 lution excluding" them. They "thus 
 violated the congregational government of 
 the ch." 
 
 19. B. Deft. Tillyard told him "that 
 he was the author. ..of a pamphlet... The 
 Cmn. Question at St. Mary's,. .1857." 
 
 Afft. Till, for pUfs.—Afft. o/ George 
 Wright, John Cooper, and Samuel 
 Collins, ivho had been Pr. Bpt. ministers 
 'for 37, 30, and 33 years, respectively, in 
 the comity of Suffolk. Filed Nov. 2, 
 1859. 
 
 1. " That a Pr. Cpt, ch. consists of 
 persons. ..immersed on a profession of 
 their faith in Christ... and who hold the 
 doctrine of pr. redn., that is, ...that 
 Christ as the Surety, of God's elect, bore 
 their sins and died exclusively for their 
 redn., and that by his death, as the ran- 
 som-price of their ri.dn., he obtained for 
 them eternal salvation." 
 
 2. " That Pr. Bpt. chs. deem the L's. 
 Spr. to be exclusively a ch. ordinance," &c. 
 
 3. That this ch. "had, before the time 
 of the innovations complained of,... the 
 reputation among Baptists of being 
 wholly coynjioscd of and of lioldiiuj ch.- 
 ann. exclusively with fr. lipts." iic. 
 
 4. " That chs. wbich receive to their 
 cmn. none but Bpts., or none but Pr. 
 Bpts., do so on the ground that such 
 practice is an essential pmrt of the con- 
 stitution of a ch. of Christ duly organ- 
 ized, and that from that practice they 
 are forbidden by God to deviate." 
 
 5. "That. ..all Baptists who so deem 
 immersion on a profession of faith pre- 
 requisite and essential to ch.-cmn., and 
 particularly to the L's. Spr. as a chief 
 part of ch.-cmn., are of necessity excluded 
 from the L's. Spi"., by the introduction 
 to [it] of pei'sons who have not been so 
 immersed; nor can- they continue to be 
 members of a ch. which receives such 
 persons to that ordinance or to full ch. 
 cmn." They " cann ot... consistently yw'jt 
 in, nor, by continuing members of such 
 a church, sanction its cmn. with persons 
 who have not been so immersed." 
 
 Afft. IX. for pltfs.—Afft. of Pr. Bpt. 
 ministers living in or near London: that 
 is, o/ John Foreman, aPr. Bpt. minister 
 for 43 years; S\muel Milner, for 28 
 years; Philip Dickerson, /or 42 years; 
 John Andrew Jones, for 51 years; 
 Charles Box, for 24 years; George 
 Wyard, /or 21 years; William Ball, 
 for 37 years ; Wm. Palmer, for 35 years ; 
 and John Hazelton, for 19 years. Filed 
 Nov. 3, 1859. 
 
 This afft. is substantially the same as 
 phs. 1, 2, 4, 5, of the preceding. 
 
 Sec. VIL Affidavits on behalf op 
 defts. 
 
 Afft. I. for defts. Tlie first of deft. 
 George Gould. Filed Nov. 9, 1859. 
 
 That the statements of his three 
 ANSWERS as to "matters within [his] 
 own knowledge ....are correct and 
 TRUE," and that those relating to matters 
 not within it, he believes to be so ; 
 some clerical errors, here mentioned, 
 excepted. 
 
 Afft. II. for defts. Tae second of deft. 
 George Gould. Filed Nov. 9, 1859. 
 Phs. 1 — 31. Pr. Bpt. Associations. 
 
 1. Deft, has made " diligent inquiries." 
 
 2. Believes what he states in Exbts. A. 
 and B. to be correct. 3. He sent a " set 
 of questions" by post, to the secretaries 
 of all associations of Pr. Bpt. chs. exist- 
 ing in 1859, except the Smflolk and Nor- 
 folk Asaon., of which he had information. 
 4. Answers x-eceived as to all but the 
 Carnarvon and the Northern. 
 
 5. Believes that the Carnarvon "con- 
 sists exclusively of cgns. practising strict 
 emu." 
 
so 
 
 6, 7. That the Old Westeun [or 
 SoMEKSKTsniUE] was succeeded iu 1823 
 by the Western and the Bristol 
 Assons. 8. That it existed in 1653; 
 ■was dissolved in 1823. "Appeal's at one 
 period to have included some cgus of 
 Gl. Bpts." 9. That the " earliest meet- 
 ing" of its elders and messengers on re- 
 cord, was held iu 1653. Mr. G. says 
 they resolved that the churches should 
 be left to tlieir own "judgment" as to 
 lai/iiiy on of hands after baptism, but that 
 a minister should not be permitted to 
 preach to the chs. if he " contended for 
 it as a term of cmn." " No list is extant 
 of the cgns. then constitutmg" it.* 10. 
 That the Somerset Cfsn. was published 
 by it in 1656. 11. That elders and mes- 
 sengers from many of its cgns. formed 
 part of the assembly of 1689. 12, 13. 
 That the general assemblies of 1691 and 
 1692, recognized the cgn. at Broadmead, 
 Bristol, " as belonging to their own 
 body." That cgn. " then practised open 
 membership." + 14. That the Old 
 Western held annual meetings of eldei-s 
 and messengers from 1692 downwards. 
 In 1733 it was resti-icted " to cgns. of Pr. 
 Bpts.," and adopted the Cfsn. of 1689 as 
 " the foundation of [its] future meet- 
 ings.'' This act was confirmed in 1734. 
 15, 16. Said cfsn. was recognized, and 
 recommended at its meetings in 1760, 
 and 1762. 17. With a few exceptions 
 said cfsn. was annually acknowledged by 
 it from 1774 to 1819. 18. " The prelhm- 
 ')iarits...i'ea.d annually a,t [its] meetings," 
 spoke of " the members of this asson." 
 as " per sons... who agree in opinion with 
 one another, not only concei-niug the or- 
 dinance of baptism, but also resjjeeting 
 the doctrines of salvation by grace" &c. 
 19. That the New Western and the 
 Bristol Assons. after the dissolution of 
 the Old Western, " adojited the last men- 
 tioned preliminaries as the basis" of each; 
 but in 1831, the Beistol omitted refer- 
 ence to the cfsn. 
 
 20—23. That the Midland Asson. 
 " was formed in 1655," but " no recoi-d 
 exists of any meeting. ... between 1659 
 and 1690.'' In 1690 it "was reconsti- 
 tuted, and ... adopted " Cfsn. of 1689, 
 as its basis. That its preliminaries, 
 adoped in 1817, and still i-ead annually, 
 
 * There is a list of them for 1656. This 
 includes i\\Q strict oh. at Bristol, pastor, Henry 
 Hineham, but not the mixed cli. at Broad- 
 mead, Bristol. See Somerset Cfsn., Epistle 
 Dedicatory, H. K. S. Cfsns., p. 73. 
 
 t No proof oi this is given here, nor was 
 given when asked for at the hearing of this 
 cause. See BIr. K. Palmer's Keply. 
 
 contain the very same words as those of 
 ph. 18, respecting the agreement of its 
 members on the subjects of baptism and 
 grace. That it from its "formation 
 hitherto has alivays included cgns. prac- 
 tising open cmn. "4: 
 
 24. That the Northern was " formed 
 1690," of six cgns, " of which" at least 
 one practised open membership. § That 
 it "continued its meetings... with occa- 
 sional intervals, until 1783. In 1795 
 it was resuscitated." 
 
 25. That, in Norfolk and Suffolk, an 
 asson. existed in 1691, but he knows 
 of 710 record of its proceedings or j^rac- 
 tice.^ 
 
 26—30. The Old Welsh Asson. 26. 
 That it was formed in 1650. But that 
 "notwithstanding [this], the cgus. of 
 Pr, Bpts. in Wales" sent elders and mes- 
 sengers to the meetings of the Old Wes- 
 tern Asson. until 1699. 27. That Mr. 
 Joshua Thomas, in his History of the 
 Welsh Asson. up to 1790, London, 1795, 
 p. 21, says that till 1689, "theBai^tists.... 
 were iu mixed cmn. with Independents 
 ...in most if not all of our cgns. in 
 Wales."'* 28. In 1734 and 1749, the chs. 
 of the Welsh Asson. were requested to 
 mention their agreement with the Cfsn 
 of 1689. 29. That Mr. Joshua Thomas,' 
 p. 48, says they were " very strict for 
 laying on of hands on the baptized" from 
 about 1689 to 1736, when the elders and 
 messengers gave it as their opinion that 
 " i^ersons of different sentiments " on 
 the point, "might be admitted to and 
 continued in cmn." 30. That it was 
 dissolved in 1790, and other assons. 
 formed. 
 
 31. That the Assons. now existing, 
 whose " present rules or preliminaries" 
 recognize the Cfsn. of 1689, are the 
 Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire, the 
 Devon, the Glamorganshire, the Midland 
 the Pembrokeshire, and the Western. 
 
 32. That the Pr. Bpt. Foreign, Irish, 
 
 t Of this no proof is given. 
 
 § No proof \s given of this. In 1848, the 
 meeting of this asson., after [inquiry into its 
 history from 1700, resolved that it "Vio* been 
 proved _ to he a Strict Bpt. Asson." Mr. 
 Gould is believed to have received a copy of 
 that resolution. Ed. 
 
 <[[ This is the only asson. whose proceedings 
 can have the least connexion with this cgn. 
 and of this nothing is known. 
 
 *• This asson. was foimded by Strict I!pt. 
 chs., and its letter, in 1790, declai-ed that "wo 
 person should be received into ch.-covcnant or 
 cmn., withont being baptized.'''' PJppon's Rec 
 1790, p. 67 ; J. Thom.ns' Hist., pp. 5 n • 
 Dr. Richards' Hist., 178—183. Ed. ' 
 
91 
 
 and Home Missionary Societies, are " So- 
 cieties of Pi'. Bpts.'"* That they have 
 "always hitherto been and are now, ac- 
 customed to receive contributions from 
 ....and to bestow such contributions in 
 aid of...cgns." practising open member- 
 ship, and open cmn. at the L's. Spr. 
 
 33 — 36. Refei-ences to deeds of land 
 purchased for the enlargement of this 
 chapel in 1810, 1811, and 1839.— i^e/. 
 These deeds were not mentioned in the 
 list of documents before said to be in the 
 possession of defts. See their Answers 
 to the Bill, ph. xxviii. p. 67, preceding. 
 
 Afft. III. for defts.— A ft. of deft. 
 George Gould and Benjamin Alexan- 
 der. Filed Nov. 9, 1859. 
 
 1. B. Alexander has been chapel- 
 keeper and sexton for 36 years j and a 
 member since Nov. 6, 1823. 
 
 2, Mr. A. affirms the accuracy of min- 
 utes of March 26, and April 30, 1838 
 (see p. 8, preceding,) and of May 26, 
 
 1845 (see p. 9, preceding), referring to 
 the first agitation and introduction of 
 free cmn. by Mr. Brock. 
 
 3. Mr. A. delivered copies of Mr. 
 Brock's "printed Circular Letter " of 
 1845, announcing his intention to insti- 
 tute an open-cmn. service in the said 
 chapel, to the members living in and 
 near Noi-wich. (See p. 8, preceding.) 
 
 4, 5, 6. Mr. G. and Mr. A. both de- 
 clare, that their statements thereafter 
 made, as to each of the 42 persons who 
 signed the Protest of 1845 (see p. 9, 
 IJreceding), and of the 132 who signed 
 the Declarations of 1857, (see p. 28, 
 l^receding) are, as they believe, " true and 
 correct in all respects." 
 
 ■ Schedule I., relates to the protest- 
 ing MEMBERS of 1845. It states that R. 
 Gdyton, J. Williment, W. Owen, W. 
 Press. Z. Rice, J. Spalding, J. Kelf, 
 W. Nash, W. White, E. Hastings, and 
 T. Kelf, who were excluded from ch. 
 memhersTdp hy the act of a majority in 
 
 1846 and 1847 (see pp. 10, 12, preceding). 
 
 * These societies are founded on a mere 
 money qualification for membership, and there- 
 fore are not, strictly speaking, " Societies 
 of Pr. Bpts.," even if devoted to Pr. Bpt. 
 objects. 
 
 t None of these members resigned their 
 membership. Nor did the free cmn. members 
 venture, in their resolutions of Aug. 31, 1846, 
 and June 28, 1847, excluding them (see pp. 
 10 and 12, preceding), to assert that they re- 
 signed it, but only to say that by their absence 
 from the Ld's. Spr. they had " relinquished^^ 
 
 all " left the cgn., and [that their] vo- 
 luntary absence was regai-ded as a re- 
 signation of membership." t It also 
 states that other members in April 1857, 
 " left in consequence of the introduc- 
 tion of open cmn.," who in realty had 
 not left the church, but were still mem- 
 bers : for instance, W. Emms, W. Yar- 
 inton, W. Wales, J. Adlam, P. Armes, 
 W. Alexander. 
 
 Schedule II. relates to the 132 who 
 signed the Declarations of 1857. The 
 most important fact connected with this 
 schedule is that the witnesses (as stated 
 already at p. 28, preceding), have there- 
 in made a statement as to the signatui-es, 
 which it does not seem possible to re- 
 concile with clear and indisputable fact. 
 They have stated that 37 persons, who 
 appear beyond a doubt to have signed 
 the first Declaration, signed the second, 
 and not the first at all. It is unneces- 
 sary to notice any charges of inconsis- 
 tency which this schedule brings against 
 some who signed. Many at the least 
 were faithful and consistent, and their 
 declaration is all-sufficient. 
 
 Affts. IV. to YILfor defts.— Afft. IV. 
 
 of cleft. James Cozens, the elder. — Afft. 
 V. of clefts. Josiah Fletcher, and Robt. 
 Tilltard. — Afft. VI. of Ann Colman, 
 an elderly member. — Afft. VII. of Thomas 
 Brightwell, a Pct;dobaptist., who was 
 formerly a public ^corshippcrin this chapel. 
 The first two filed Nov. 9, the last two 
 Nov. 7, 1859. 
 
 These affidavits are in part alike, and 
 their contents are therefore here placed 
 together. For brevity, C. F. T. Col. and 
 B. are used to denote them respectively; 
 and, to avoid ambiguity, those views 
 which Mr. Gould calls particular and 
 limited redemption, are here mentioned 
 as atonement for all, and atonement for 
 the elect. 
 
 Answers I. and II. of Mr. Cozens and 
 the five jointly answering trustees, are 
 
 and " terminated their membership." A per- 
 son may be said to relinquish by his acts, 
 what he did not intend to relinquish ; but he can 
 scarcely be said to resign unless he intends 
 to do so. This they never did intend ; and 
 to say that tliose who in fiict excluded them, 
 regarded their exclusion as a resignation, is 
 giving a .shade of colour to their words, still 
 darker than the true. To call the absence 
 of the eleven from the L's. Spr, " vohmtary," 
 does not convey a right impression ; for their 
 absence was against then' earnest wish. Mr. 
 Brock had, in their view, compelled it. — Ed. 
 
92 
 
 said in ph. 1 of C. and F. T. to be, in their 
 belief, " correct and true." 
 
 What deponents say of themselves. 
 — C. says, ph. 2 that, he has been a 
 member since Sept. 13, 1804. F. T. ph. 
 2, that F. has been a member since Feb. 
 2, 1825, and T. since March 7, 1S24. Col. 
 says, ph. 1, that she has been so since 
 May 28, 1794. B. says, ph. 1, that he 
 was an habitual worshipper from about 
 1810 until about 1832. All say that 
 they were well or intimately acquainted 
 with Mr. Kinghorn. 
 
 Hymns. C. 3, and F. T. 3, say that 
 this cgn. for 70 years until 1838, used 
 those of Dr. Watts, and the collection of 
 Drs. Ash and Evans, of which last J. 
 Kn. published two edns. and adding to it 
 a supplement of 28 hymns, for the use of 
 the said cgn. That it still uses those of 
 Dr. Watts. In ph. 4, they assume that 
 said hymn bks. teach atoiiemeiit for all, 
 and not atonement for the elect, and say 
 they believe that no objection to the 
 hymns was ever made by any member 
 on that account.— Ref. Gould Ans. III. 
 60, 51 ; p. 72, preceding 
 
 Views op atonement, in respect of 
 terms of membership, and of cmn. in 
 L's. Spr. C. 5, F. T. 5, and B. 3, say 
 that they are not aware that this cgn. 
 ever required " any profession or de- 
 claration of opinion " as to whether 
 atonement were for all or only for the 
 elect "from candidates for admission to 
 menihership ;" nor that it ever, say C. 9, 
 F. T. 7, required it from candidates for 
 cmn. in the L's. Spr. B., ph. 2, says he 
 believes that Mr. Kn. " dui-iug the whole 
 course of his ministry... maintained the 
 doctrine" of atonement for all, as dis- 
 tinguished from atonement for the elect. 
 
 PllIVATE OPINIONS AS TO COMMUNION, 
 
 in respect of terms of membership and 
 of cmn. in L's. Spr. in this ch. : C. ph. 6, 
 F. T. 6, and Col. 3, believe that it has 
 never been the practice of this cgn. " to 
 requii-e any profession... of opinion on 
 the question of. ..cmn., from candidates 
 for membership." C. 7, 8, says that on 
 Oct. 27, 1834, "several members" re- 
 fused to receive any statement as to 
 the opinions of Elizabeth Kitton on 
 cmn.; and that on Aug. 31, 1835, deft. 
 Allen being appointed deacon, several 
 members said that no profession of 
 opinion as to cmn. was nece.ssary to 
 holding the office of deacon. C. 10, and 
 F. T. 8, say that no such profession of 
 opinion was required from candidates for 
 emu. in the L's. Spr. 
 
 Jos. Kinghorn for a time undecided 
 AS TO CMN. C. 11, and Col. 2, say that 
 
 for Bome years he was "undecided " in 
 opinion on the subject. Rcf. -p. 74, col. 2. 
 
 Alleged probable ma.jority for a 
 long time past in favour of free cmn. 
 C. 12, said that probably for 40 years 
 then last preceding ; F. T. 9, said that for 
 70 years; Col. 4, said that at any time 
 during her membei-ship ; and B. 4, that 
 for 50 years last past, a large number and 
 prohahly a majority of the members were 
 in opinion favourable to open cmn. 
 
 Did this ch. commune with Inde- 
 pendent CHS. in Mr. Kinghorn's time ? 
 C. 13, and Col. 5, say that it united in 
 1797 for nine weeks with two such chs. 
 in puhlic worship; and that there is " no 
 record, nor do they recollect being in- 
 formed" that it "celebrated the L's. Sjjr. 
 apart from" those cgns.* They say also 
 that in 1811, the Independent ch. at the 
 Old Meeting invited this ch. to unite with 
 it in the L's. Spr., but Mr. K. declined 
 the invitation ; and several open cmn. 
 members expressed surprise that he 
 had done so. — Ref. Gould Ans. III. 
 72. 
 
 Contributions towards rebuilding 
 THE CHAPEL IN 1811. C. 14, says that 
 about "three-fourths" of the contri- 
 butions ; and F. T. 10, and B. say contri- 
 butions "to a large amount," were given 
 by persons holding "o^j/Htows in favour 
 of.. .open cmn."t — Ref. Gould Ans. III. 
 ph. 73. 
 
 " Many members" in 1812 desired that 
 this "cgn. should thenceforth prac- 
 tise OPEN CMN. :" C. 15, B. 6. C. 16, 
 says that a conference was held on the 
 subject by four members on each side, 
 but that "no resolution... was adopted ;" 
 and B. 7, says that " no arrangement" 
 was made to admit to cmn. persons who 
 were not Baptists. — Ref. Gould III. 
 ph. 74. 
 
 Deference to Mr. K., and the un- 
 derstanding that he would resign 
 if free cmn. was adopted, ai-e alleged to 
 be the reasons why the subject was 
 not agitated after ISlfi. C. 17 ; F. T. 
 11; Col. 4; B. 8.— .Re/. Gould Ana. 
 IIL 76. 
 
 Witnesses say that Mr. Cozens and the 
 
 * These witnesses would, no doubt, have 
 heard of the ftict, if this cgn. had really cele- 
 brated the L's. Spr. icith those cgns. Ed. 
 
 t Mr. Wilkin -n-lio always opposed the in- 
 troduction of free-cmn. into this ch., gave 
 largely. His contributions are probably 
 reckoned as part of those mentioned. The 
 sole question, however, fur the Court, related 
 to the purpose for which the trust was 
 founded. Ed. 
 
93 
 
 other members who were m favour of 
 open cmn. " did not modify [their] 
 OWNIONS :" C. 18 : F. T. 12 ; B. 9.— 
 Bcf. Gould Ans. III. 77. 
 
 They say that pltf. S. Wilkin was ad- 
 mitted a member, Oct. 12, 1808, and was 
 "a zealous advocate" of oi^en cmn. 
 " during the remainder " of Mr. K.'s 
 ministry : C. 19 ; F. T. 13.—Ecf. _ This 
 Mr. W. says is not correct. See his aSt. 
 —Also Gould, Ans. III. 78. 
 
 As to CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ENLARGE- 
 MENT of the chapel in 1838 : C. ph. 20, 
 says that about two-thirds of them, and 
 F. T. 14, say " a large amount" was con- 
 ti'ibuted by persons holding " opinions 
 in favour of. . open cmn.' ' — licf. Gould 
 Ans. III. 79. 
 
 Afft. VIII. for defts.— Afft. of cleft. 
 Jamks Cozens, the younfjer, and Henry 
 Utting Culley. Filed, Nov. 9, 1859. 
 
 They declare the statements made in 
 their answers to be " correct and true," 
 as to things within their own knowledge; 
 and that they believe them to be so, as 
 to things not within it. 
 
 Afft. IX. for defts.—Afft. of Sarah 
 Browne, a member. Filed, Nov. 9, 1859. 
 
 1. Has been a member since 1816. 
 
 2. Heard at ch. meeting Oct. 17, 1831, 
 " several members" object to the ques- 
 tion of " one of the members," that is, 
 " Is she (meaning Eliz. Kitton) a sti'ict 
 communionist ? " E. Kitton was ad- 
 mitted a member "without being re- 
 quu-ed to answer the same." 
 
 Afft. X. for defts.—Afft. o/ 13 leading 
 advocates of free cmn. ; that is, o/ Thomas 
 Steffe Crisp, vjho was haxitized hy Mr. 
 Kinghorn in this chapel, and has been for 
 more than 40 years a yninister of Broad- 
 mead Chapel, Bristol, and is President of 
 Bristol Baptist CoUege ; o/ Frederic 
 Wm. Gotch, L.L.D., Tatar of said Col- 
 lege, and one of the Examiners of he Uni- 
 versity of London ; o/' James Acwortii, 
 L.L.D., President ; Samuel Gosnell 
 Green, B.A., Tutor ; and Thomas Pot- 
 TENGEK, Tutor of Rawdou College, -near 
 Leeds; of Joseph Angus, D.D„ for tip- 
 wards of nine years President, and Ben- 
 jamin Davies, L.L.D., Tutor of Regent's 
 Park College ; (j/'Edward Steane, D.D., 
 fir 36 years minister of Denmark Place 
 Chapiel, Camherwell; o/'John Leechman, 
 L.L.D., of Hammersmith, for 27 years a 
 Pr. Bp4. minister ; of Thomas Price, 
 L.L.D., /or 12 years minister of the cgn. 
 in Devonshire Square, London ; of Fre- 
 derick Trestrail, for 11 yean a Secre- 
 
 tary of the Pr. Bpt. Missionary Society ; 
 o/ Chaki.es James MiDDLEDiiCH, Secre- 
 tary of the Baptist Irish Society ; and of 
 Charles Mitchell Birkell,/©^ 22 years 
 minister of the cgn. meeting in Pembroke 
 Chapel, Livcrpiool. Also of Christopher 
 Woollacott, a Strict Bapdist, and Se- 
 cretary of the Bajjtist Building Fund.* 
 Filed, Nov. 7, 1859. 
 
 1. Deponents describe themselves by 
 giving the above and other particulars. 
 
 2. They say that " the name Par- 
 ticular Baptists was derived fi-om the 
 doctrine called particular redemption," 
 and that " Pr. Bjjts, have been and still 
 are frequently called and known as Bap- 
 tists, the term Particular being drop- 
 ped ;" and that the Gl. Bpts. " are for 
 the sake of distinction commonly called 
 by that name." 
 
 3. Say that " many persons," who are 
 Pr. Bpts. are " members of cgns. holding 
 ...infant baptism." — Fef. Gould, Answ. 
 I. 16. 
 
 4. They define OPEN membership in the 
 same manner as deft. Gould, in Ans. I. 21. 
 
 5. Open membership cgns. are said to 
 " have always called themselves and been 
 recognized as Pr. Bpts. •" sprinkling is said 
 never to have been used in them ; such 
 Bpts. are said to have generally con- 
 sidered the practice open to modifica- 
 tion. They support deft. Gould's State- 
 ments in Ans. I. ph. 22. 
 
 6. Define open and strict cmn. as it 
 is defined by Mr. Gould, in Ans. I. 29, 
 33. See p. 55, preceding. 
 
 7. Say that cgns. practising open 
 CMN. in theL's. Spr. " have always called 
 themselves Baptists :" that in them in- 
 fan t sprinkling was never administered ; 
 nor its validity admitted ; and that those 
 who have practised such open cmn., 
 "have generally considei'ed it. ..open to 
 modification according to the circum- 
 stances of any individual."^ — Ref. Words 
 the same as in Mr. Gould's Ans. I. 30; 
 see p. 55, preceding. 
 
 8. The L's. Spr. and membership said 
 to be distinct. Pr. Bapts. adopting 
 of)en cmn. in the L's, Spr. have, they 
 say, always considered it "to be entirely 
 
 distinct from.. .open MEMBERSHIP;" but 
 
 that cgns. " practising open membei'ship 
 always practise open cmn." — Ref. Words 
 as in deft. Gould's Ans. I. 31, 32 ; p. 55, 
 preceding. 
 
 9. Pr. Bpts. have always held, they 
 
 * At p. 53, col. 1. This afft. was from 
 oversight described as by 14 advocates of fi'ee 
 cmn., instead of by 13 advocates of open, and 
 one of strict cmn. 
 
94 
 
 say, that prayer, praise, and hearing 
 
 OF TnE PREACHING OP THE GOSPEL, are 
 
 " Diviue ordinances of the same nature 
 as baptism and the L's. Spr.," &c. See 
 Mr. Gonld's Aus. I. ph. 34, at p. 55, 
 pi'ecediug. 
 
 W. KiFFiN and others, they say, about 
 the year 16.53 withdrew from a cgn. of 
 Pr. Bpts., formed by Mr. Spilsbery, be- 
 cause they doubted the lawfulness of 
 hearing the preaching of the gospel by 
 persona. ..not... baptized ; or of joining 
 with them in any act of religious wor- 
 ship or service, exclusively of the cmn. of 
 the L's. Spr." — Ref. Gould. Ans. I. 
 ph. 2fi. 
 
 10. The cmn. question "has been, 
 [they say], an open one, expressly re- 
 cognized AS SUCH, among Pr. Bpts.," &c., 
 as in Gould, Ana. I. 35 ; see p. 55, pre- 
 ceding. 
 
 11. Fluctuation of practice. They 
 give two alleged examples of it. Mr. 
 Spilsbery's ch. they say, "now meet- 
 ing in Whitechapel, ... practised open 
 membership and oj^eu cmn. for many 
 years from its formation."* Mr. Kiffin's 
 ch. "now meeting in Devonshire Square," 
 London, was, they say, " the first cgn. 
 which practised strict cmn., [and that it] 
 continued for many years in that prac- 
 tice, but now practises open membership 
 and open cmn." — Ref. Gould, Ana. 1. 
 phs. 20, 23, 36; at pp. 6i, 65, pre- 
 ceding. 
 
 12. There is, they say, no controversy 
 as to whether those " who practised 
 open membership or open cmn. are Pr. 
 Bpts." 
 
 Arguments. Advocates on both sides, 
 have, they say, " uniformly addressed 
 [these] to all cgns. of Pr. Bpts., practising 
 open membership, or open cmn., or strict 
 cmn." — Ref. Gould, Ans. L ph. 46, at 
 p. 56, preceding. 
 
 13. Associations. They say that 
 cgns., whether strict or open, either in 
 membership or the L's. Sjir., " have al- 
 ways been, and still are, accustomed to 
 unite together in associations, as Px". 
 Bpts." Gould, Ans. I. phs. 47, 48 ; at 
 p. 56, preceding. 
 
 14. They say that "each of these 
 assons. comprises generally the cgns. of 
 Pr. Bpts., tuliether jiractising open member- 
 ship, or open cmn., or strict cmn., of one 
 county or district," &c. 
 
 * Can the defts. or their witnesses, adduce 
 any evidence of this ? any evidence sufficient 
 to destroy the proof whicli exists to the con- 
 trary ? If it can be done, it no doubt tcill 
 be. Ed. 
 
 15. That in numei'ous "societies of 
 Pr. Bpts." for missions, &c., Pr. Bpts. of 
 the above three practices as to cmn., 
 " have always hitherto united themselves 
 ...as Pr. Bpts." 
 
 16. Special assemblies. They say 
 that " many cgns. of Pr. Bpts." of the 
 above three j^ractices, have " upon equal 
 terms as Pr. Bpts., met together by their 
 representatives or messengers in special 
 Assemblies, held at various times for the 
 consideration and determination of ques- 
 tions respecting their faith and order, 
 and for the preparation and adoption of a 
 common cfsn. of their faith as Pr. Bpts."t 
 —Ref. Gould, Ans. L 50, at p. 56, pre- 
 ceding. 
 
 17. They say that the Cfsn. of As- 
 sembly of 1677, has been and is con- 
 sidered " a just exposition," &c. See 
 deft. Gould's Ans. I. ph. 51, at p. 56, 
 preceding. 
 
 18. Messengers of Assembly of 
 1677. Deponents say that some of them 
 " no doubt," were from open membership 
 and open cmn. chs. 
 
 The Appendix to the Cfsn. of 1677, 
 they say, referred to this question " as 
 an instance of the want of accord among 
 the members of [this] assembly," and 
 that it was left by it " undetermined." 
 — Ref. Gould's Ans. L 72, p. 58, pre- 
 ceding. 
 
 19. They say that "prayer, praise, 
 and the preaching of the gospel," as 
 parts of " public worship, ai'e, accord- 
 ing... generally to the doctrine of Pi-. 
 Bpts. ..entitled to be called church acts 
 IN every sense* in which the cmn. of 
 the L's. Spr. is so ;" but, .since 1689, have 
 " never been restricted among Pr. Bpts. 
 to baptized jDersons being members of 
 the cgn. performing such public wor- 
 ship."— i?£/. Gould, Ans. L 122,123 ; and 
 the Five, phs. 16, 17, at p. 63, preceding. 
 
 They say that " the tenu 'strict cmn.' 
 has always, at least since the said as- 
 sembly of 1689, been considered by Pr. 
 Bpts. to relate exclusively to admission to 
 the L s. Spr.fX and to mean the restrict- 
 ing such admission to persons who are 
 members of the cgn.,... or who are Pr. 
 Bpts., or who have been" immersed after 
 faith. 
 
 t Defts. and their witnesses seem to imply 
 that these assemblies were hke councils of the 
 Church of Rome. En. 
 
 I See origin of the term " Strict Baptists," 
 about 1772 ; Gould's Ans. I. 43 ; Norton Afft. 
 I. 33 ; and proof, that in and before 1746 open 
 cmn. included open membership. Norton, 
 Afft. L 53. 
 
95 
 
 20. They say that "several colleges" 
 exist for educating " young men for the 
 ministry among cgus. of Pr. Bpts. ; " 
 and that in these the question of cmn. 
 " is ti'eated as a question not determined 
 by Pr. Bpts. as a body." The "prin- 
 cipal" being the Bristol, Rawdou, and 
 Regent's Park Colleges. 
 
 21. "The terms 'Particular' and 
 ' Limited,' used in" Bill, ph. 3, " are not 
 strictly synonymous. The term ' limited 
 redn.' has never been, nor is, so far as we 
 are aware in use among Baptists, al- 
 though the term 'limited atonement' 
 is" BO.— Ref. Gould, Ans. I. 11, 101 ; 
 An.g. III. 2—8. The Five, Ans. I. 3; 
 pp. 53, 61, 68 — 70, preceding. 
 
 22. They say that the " party hold- 
 ing THE DOCTRINE OF PARTICULAR RE- 
 DEMPTION, AS DEFINED IN THE [tHIRD] 
 ANSWER OP THE DEFT. G. GoULD, ...HAS 
 
 HITHERTO INCLUDED,* and Still includes, 
 
 THE MAJORITY OF PARTICULAR BpTS.," 
 "the PARTY HOLDING ... LIMITED REDN. 
 
 being in a small minority. "■ — jRcf. See 
 Mr. Gould's definition of Pr. Ptedu., Ans. 
 III. 2—8, at p. 68—70, preceding. 
 
 Jfffs. XL, XIL, XIII., for de/ts.— 
 Affts. of William Lepard Smith, of 
 deft. Joseph Howse Allen, and Ro- 
 bert Lush, Q.C. Each of these is of the 
 same iiurport, cm d filed Nov. 9, 1859. 
 
 1. Each says that he is a treasurer of 
 "The Pr. Bpt. Fund ... instituted in 
 London in 1717." 
 
 2. That its title " Particular Baptist," 
 was adopted to " distinguish" the found- 
 ers from Baptists who held Gl. Redn. 
 That " the exhibitions" have " been uni- 
 formly made to the j)ersons practising 
 free or mixed cmn. with the same readi- 
 ness as to others." 
 
 3. That " the practice of open,... free, 
 or mixed cmn., or the practice of strict 
 emu. respectively, by any cgiis. of Pr. 
 Bpts., has always been regarded by the 
 managei's of this fund as consistent with 
 the designation of such cgns. as Pr. 
 Bpts.," and " such practice has always 
 been treated by the managers. ..as in no 
 WAY AFFECTING the applications of those 
 cgns. or ministers who have applied for 
 exhibitions from this Fund." 
 
 • There is great boldness in this statement. 
 Can those who have so solemnly sworn to its 
 truth, prove that before the present century 
 the majority of persons called Particular Bap- 
 tists held that Christ made atonement '\tor 
 the sins of the whole woi-ld f (Gould, III. 7) 
 and deemed this a part of the doctrine of pr. 
 redn. ? It is believed to be wholly impos- 
 sible. Ed. 
 
 Jjft.XIV. for dcfts.— Jfft. of John 
 Gooderson. Filed July 22, 1869. 
 " The contents of my answer ... are 
 true." 
 
 Sec. VIII. Cros.s-esamination and 
 
 RE-EXAMINATION OF SOME OF PLTFS.' WIT- 
 NESSES BEFORE Mr. Kenvon S. Parker, 
 ONE OP THE Examiners in Chancery. 
 
 After the depositions, on both sides, 
 had been filed, the rules of the Court per- 
 mitted each to summon the witnesses on 
 the other side to be cross-e^'amined -upon 
 their depositions. The pltfs. resolved not 
 to exercise this right. But some of the 
 defts. resolved to do so, and summoned 
 the ministers residing in and near Lou- 
 don, and in Suflblk, who had made affi- 
 davits, and also Mr. Edmund Hastings, 
 one of the members who was excluded 
 in 1847, to be cross-examined. Mr. 
 Norton heard that vain attempts (but 
 that they were vain is as little remark- 
 able), had been made, to serve a sum- 
 mons upon him also. Though not 
 actually summoned, he attended, as 
 desired, but nevertheless was not cross- 
 examined. The days occupied in this 
 ci'oss-examination were the 2Ctb, 27th, 
 and part of the 2Sth of January, 1860. 
 These were insufficient, and the next 
 day or days which were not already 
 assigned to cross-examinations in other 
 suits, were fixed on for cross-examin- 
 ing the other witnesses who had been 
 summoned. A few days later, however, 
 the defts. abandoned the intention of 
 pursuing the cross-exn. farther ; so that 
 the whole of the proceedings, permitted 
 or necessary, before the case could be 
 entered by the pltfs. for hearing, were 
 thus closed. 
 
 This cross - examination, instead of 
 shaking, confirmed and strengthened the 
 affidavits of those who were ex.amined. 
 The only seeming advantage gained from 
 it by the defts. was this. Their junior 
 counsel, Mr. Marten, read to the wit- 
 nesses certain passages which they had 
 not heard of till then, by Dr. Owen and 
 Mr. Kinghorn, which seemed to convey a 
 meaning which Dr. Owen certainly did 
 not, and Mr. Kinghorn probably did not 
 mean to convey, and by this kind of 
 surprise, he made it appear that neither 
 IVlr. Kinghorn, nor Dr. Owen held the 
 doctrine, which the pltfs. call particular 
 redemption. These extracts, and one 
 read from the works of Mr. Andrew 
 Fuller, are referred to at pp. 72, 73, pre- 
 ceding. 
 
 The whole of the cross-examination was 
 conducted by Mr. A. G. Marten, juniov 
 
96 
 
 counsel for defts. Gould and the Five 
 Tru.stees who answered jomtly, and the 
 reexamination by Mi\ George Lake 
 Russell, junior counsel for the pltfs. 
 Mr. Gould and Mr. Norton were present 
 during tlie whole of the examinations. 
 The Examiner recorded the statements 
 made. The following is the substance 
 of them. 
 
 Jan. 26 and 27. Mr. John Fore- 
 man, Mr. Samuel Milker, Mr. George 
 Wright, Mr. John Cooper, and Mr. 
 Samuel Collins, cross-exd. separately. 
 
 All said, in answer to the questions 
 put to them, that a Pr. Bpt. ch. consists 
 excluiircly of Bpts. who hold the doc- 
 trine of 151". redn., as theu" aifts. had de- 
 fined it. 
 
 As to phs. 6, 7, 8, Ans. III., of deft. 
 Gould, all said that iicdu. and atonement 
 are " co-extcnsive." Also that pr. redn. 
 is not, as Mr. Gould alleges it to be, 
 "the doctrine that the atonement made 
 ...by Christ, in point of sufficiency, was 
 infinite, and made for the sins of the 
 whole tvorld." Mr. Foreman said, 
 " Atonement [is] the price paid ; and 
 redemption the purchase made by it.... 
 The atonement was as particular- as the 
 redn.... The atonement was not in point 
 of sufficiency infinite." Mr. Milner 
 said, "Redn. is a price paid for our de- 
 liverance,.... just as a person would re- 
 deem a mortgage ;... atonement is a sacri- 
 fice made for sin ..for the reconciliation 
 of the offending party... [Mi-. Gould's] 
 definition of the atonement is the doc- 
 trine of General, .not of Particular Bap- 
 tists.... The atonement is sufficient only 
 for the persons to whom it will be applied 
 efficiently." As to the capability of the 
 death of Christ to make atonement, he 
 said, " The atonement might be infinite 
 in its nature.... Christ was God and man, 
 and [it] consequently partook of the 
 virtue of his Divine nature, as well as 
 human ; but [it] was limited by the 
 purposes of the Almighty." Mr. Wright 
 said that in ph 8, the terms " Applied by 
 way of redn.," seemed to denote that 
 " Atonement was the fact, and redemp- 
 tion a contmgency." He added, "I 
 should say that both are inseparably in- 
 volved in the death of Christ.... As an 
 atonement, [it] expiated or imrgcd away 
 the sins of God's elect, and by that 
 means redeemed them from the curseof 
 the law. At the time the satisfactio7i 
 was made, the redn. was obtained. I 
 say that the atonement was made only 
 for the elect." Mr. Cooper said " Satis- 
 faction to the Divine law and justice [is] 
 made by. . Ghxhi... for particular ^^vsoth^, 
 
 providing io)i...\hQ application of Divine 
 mercy to those" per.-ona. " Atonement 
 is a judicial reconciliation of the objects 
 of mercy ;...redn. is a judicial ^JM?rAasc or 
 release of [them] from the consequences 
 to which they were exposed." Mr. 
 Collins said "The atonement was not 
 made for the sins of the whole world, 
 but only for the elect of God." * 
 
 As to phs. 41 and -12 of Answ. III. by 
 Mr. Gould ; the one containing part of 
 a letter by Mr. Kinghorn, dated May 11, 
 1826, and the other, extracts from Mr. 
 A. Fuller, and Dr. J. Owen, on atone- 
 ment and redemption. Mr. Foreman, 
 Mr. Wright, and Mr. Cooper in answer 
 to questions respecting all three extracts, 
 and Mr. Milner to questions respecting 
 those from Fuller and Owen, said, that 
 they would not consider Bpts. who could 
 subscribe to such views, to be Particular 
 Baptists. Mr. Collins declined to answer 
 a like question as to ph. 41, on the 
 ground of "not having had an oj^por- 
 tunity of considering the statements 
 contained in" it ; but said that he should 
 not esteem "a person a Pr. Bpt. who 
 considered that the atonement was suffi- 
 cient for the whole world." 1* 
 
 Mr. Foreman was asked whether '' ac- 
 cording to [his] interpretation of the 
 atonement, there should be a free pro- 
 clamation of the gospel to all men ?" He 
 replied in the affirmative, and said, " I 
 consider that if all men had accepted the 
 gospel, all men would be saved." The 
 editor believes that this question was 
 not repeated in the course of the cross- 
 examinations. Mr. Gould, Ans. III. 
 ph. 7, s^jeaks of an atonement " made 
 for the sins of the whole world," as " ad- 
 mitting the free proclamation of the 
 gospel to all men.'' 
 
 Mr. Gould's definition of open and 
 
 * Mr. Gould, in his sermon of June 3, 1860, 
 p. 19, describes these views as " monstrous 
 bigotry^'' which proves his utter rejection of 
 them. And yet is it not proved that these 
 are views for the maintenance of which this 
 trust was founded ? Ed. 
 
 t For the extracts, and for remarks on 
 them, see pp. 72, 73, preceding. What Dr. 
 Owen called particular redn. is precisely the 
 same doctrine as that which the above wit- 
 nesses call so. See p. 79. And Mr. King- 
 horn, also, though his use of the word 
 atonement is not strictly correct according to 
 their view of the doctrine, yet said that " in 
 point of design^ it was" made for those who 
 were given to Christ ; not for the whole world; 
 and m this limitation of it he agrees with 
 them, and ditfers from Mr. Gotdd's definition 
 of it, Ed. 
 
97 
 
 STRICT CMN. in Answ. I. 29, 33. were ad- 
 admitted iy all to be correct, to a 
 certain extent ; Mr. Milner added that 
 he did " not recognize a cgn. practising 
 open cmn., as a cgn. of Pr. Bpts." Mr. 
 Cooper said that the terra open cmn. 
 " might be applied to other cgns., but is 
 generally, though not exclusively, ap- 
 plied to Pr. Bpts." Mi-. Collins said, " 1 
 apply the term strict cmn. to membership, 
 as well as [to] cmn. at the L's. table.''* 
 
 Transient cmn. All said that their 
 respective churches received to transient 
 cmn. with them the "members of. churches 
 of the same faith and order." 
 
 Terms of membership and cmn. All 
 said that they or their chs. would not re- 
 ceive to membership or church-emu. per- 
 sons who do not hold particular redn. as 
 defined by them ; nor persons unbaptized ; 
 nor persons practising open cmn. Mr. 
 Foreman said "he would exclude from 
 cmn. a member of any cgn. holding... 
 open cmn." Mr. Milner would not re- 
 ceive a person to cmn. "unless he held 
 the doctrine of strict cmn." Mr. 
 Wright said that " if a person holding 
 open cmn. came to [him] with a state- 
 ment that he was a member of a Pr. Bpt. 
 ch., [he] could not refuse to receive him 
 at cmn. at the L's. table." Mr. Cooper 
 " would not admit a person to [his] ch. 
 Vi\iO practises open emu." Mr. Collins 
 said " I should refuse to receive to 
 the L's. Spr. a member of a mixed cmn. 
 ch." 
 
 Are open cmn. chs. true ch';. ? Mr. 
 Foreman said, " I might call the mem- 
 bers of a ch. practising open cmn. Chris- 
 tians, but I could not call them a ch. 
 duly organized, or a ch. at all." Mr. 
 Milner said " I do not mean to say that 
 I should unchurch, or uuchristianize, a 
 ...ch, who do not hold strict cmn., but 
 I should say they are not walking or- 
 derly,... they are pursuing a practice for- 
 bidden by the word of God." Mr. 
 Wright said "strictly speaking, I should 
 not call it a ch." 
 
 The difference between preaching 
 AND the L's. Spr. Mr. Wright said, " I 
 
 * Mr. Gould's definition of open cmn. was 
 so constructed as to limit the meaning' of 
 the term to the L's. Spr., instead of in- 
 cluding membership ; and so also as to imply 
 that the presence of Particular Baptists is 
 necessary to the practice of open cmn., and 
 that the practice is consistent with the prin- 
 ciples on which "cgns. of Pr. Bpts." are 
 founded. His definition of strict cmn., was 
 defective on account of not applying to mem- 
 bership as well as the L's. iipr Ed. 
 
 should not object to preach in any ck. or 
 cgn. whatever.'' 
 
 Cmn. with a ch. which pr.\ctise3 
 sometimes open and sometimes strict 
 cmn. Mr. Wright said, " I should be 
 sorry to sit down at the L's. talile with 
 a ch. [which does so]. 1 should be sorry 
 to sanction such a practice by my pre- 
 sence, because I think I am bound to 
 abstain from the appearance of evil." 
 
 The London Board of Baptist Min- 
 isters. Mr. Milner said, it " is con- 
 fined professedly to Pr. Bpts. I would 
 not, as a general rule, admit all the 
 members of the Board to communicate, 
 but I would admit some of them." 
 
 The Suffolk and Norfolk Asson. 
 Mr. Cooper said : It has " existed about 
 29 or 30 years. The cause of secession" 
 from the Old Suffolk and Norfolk Assn. 
 " was a difference in doctrinal senti- 
 ments in relation to the question of pr. 
 redn., the universal sufficiency of the 
 atonement, and other collateral points ; 
 not at all on the question of cmn. at the 
 L's. table ; that has never been mooted." 
 The old asson. "was exclusively com- 
 posed of chs. of the Pr. Bpt. denomina- 
 tion, and adhering to the practice of 
 strict cmn. The chs. that seceded held 
 that atonement and redn. were co-ex- 
 tensive. Some or most of the chs. that 
 remained held the universal sufi&ciency 
 of the atonement ; and some of them 
 dissented from that doctrine, and held 
 with us, but remained with the old 
 asson., though only for a short time." 
 
 Mr. Cooper said, as to this ch. at 
 Norwich, " 1 think [it] had the credit 
 of being the stronghold of strict com- 
 munion principles up to the death of 
 Mr. Kinghorn, nor did I ever hear that 
 any member of that ch. dissented from 
 the principle and practice of strict cmn. 
 until after that time." 
 
 All the above witnesses after being 
 cross-examined were re-examined, and 
 declared their firm adherence to what 
 they had said in their affidavits, 
 
 Jan. 28, 1860. Mr. Edmund Hastings. 
 His admission to membership. " 1 be- 
 came a member of [this ch.] about 1824. 
 ...I attended on the minister (Mr. Kn.] 
 for some time previously, and heard 
 him preach ; and a deputation waited 
 upon me to hear my opinions." " Be- 
 fore my admission, I made before the 
 ch. assembled, a profession of faith, in 
 agreement with the sentiments which 
 were held by the minister and... ch. 
 at that t'me. [It] was made ver- 
 bally, not in writing...! was asked... 
 
 G 
 
98 
 
 my view of ..hap' ism,... and my view 
 of salvation ; whethei- it was lii/ grace 
 entirely. I answered the questions satis- 
 factorily, and was admitted to mem- 
 bership on being baptized, which was 
 first required by the ch.'' " Till leaving 
 England, about three years befoi'e Mr. 
 K.'s death, ..I scarcely ever omitted a 
 ch. meeting when others were admitted. 
 The same practice was observed" in their 
 admission, as in " my own." 
 
 Mr. Cozens and open cmn. "I recol- 
 lect only one discussion about open and 
 strict cmn. taking place ;" that is, during 
 the time between 1824 and his leaving 
 England just before 1830. This dis- 
 cussion " was respecting Mr. Robertson, 
 mentioned in ph. 5 of my aift. Mr. Kn. 
 was absent ; and Mr. J. Cozens, the 
 elder, ...proposed that [Mi*. Robertson] 
 should be admitted to the L's. Spr. with- 
 out being admitted to the ch. It was 
 stated that he had been baptized by Mr. 
 Kn. Upon this proposal being made, 
 there was rather an angry feeling mani- 
 fested, and he was refused cmn. because 
 he had not come to be examined before 
 the ch., as to his Christianity on the one 
 hand, and as to his eligibility on the 
 other. He did not commune..." 
 
 Occasional cmn. " Persons were not 
 admitted to cmn., except on letters from 
 their pastors, unless they were known to 
 
 meml ers of our ch. The names of tha 
 proposed communicants from other chs., 
 were mentioned by the minister after 
 [public] service, and previously to the 
 cei'emony of the L's. Spr." 
 
 Opinions of the members as to cmn. 
 " I do not know that there was a differ- 
 ence of opinion with respect to ch.-cmn. 
 amongst the members of the ch. during 
 Mr. Kinghoru's ministry, excejit as re- 
 gards Mr. Cozens and Mr. Theobald. 
 They held diffei'ent opinions from other 
 members ; they advocated open cmn., 
 and there was a report that other mem- 
 bers did also, but I did not know it per- 
 sonally. And I believe they were rery 
 few. I had personal communication with 
 very few of the members. The subject 
 was never mooted in a church-meeting 
 except in the case of [Mr.] Robertson, 
 that I recollect.'' 
 
 On RE-EXAMINATION, Said, " Mr. K. 
 during my attendance at his ch. was 
 always strongly opposed to open cmn — 
 I think that it is an essential requisite to 
 the con.stitutioa of a Christian ch., and 
 cannot be violated without transgression. 
 ..I have been excluded from. .ch. -member- 
 ship, because I could not commune con- 
 scientiously with persons who tolerated 
 ojaen cmn. This was in Mr. Brock's 
 time. ... I adhere to the statements in my 
 afft." 
 
 PART IV. -THE HEAEING, ON APEIL 30, AND MAY 1, 2, 1860. 
 
 Mr. RouNDELL Palmer, Q.C, after 
 naming the Relators, Pltfs. and Defts., 
 and stating the object of the suit, said 
 that on the terms of the Deed of 174(3, 
 two questions arise : " What are Par- 
 ticular Baptists? and What were the 
 tenets, principles, and usages of tins par- 
 ticular congregation of them ?■ 
 
 I, What are Particular Baptists ? 
 As Baptists he described them by their 
 " fundamental tenet'' as to baptism, and 
 said that in their view " all other persons 
 are unbaptized." The term Particular, 
 he said, distinguished the Calvinistic, 
 from the Arminian Baptists, and denoted 
 their view of " atonement and redemp- 
 tion ;" which was that Christ died, not 
 for the redemjition of " all mankind, but 
 of a certain d^nite number of particular 
 
 persons, knoion theologically as ' the elect,' 
 and that he made the salvation of those 
 2yer.?ons, absolute, certain, and indefeasible ; 
 dependent on no condition whatsoever,'' 
 while the Arminian or General Baptists, 
 held that redn. " was 'potentially, not 
 actually, common to all mankind." 
 
 The CH.-GOVERNMENT, he said, of Par- 
 ticular Baptists, though their body was 
 distinct from the persons " commonly 
 called Congregatioualists or Independ- 
 ents," was, like theirs, of tub Con- 
 gregational ORDER ; of which " the 
 fundamental principle is, that every 
 congregation is absolutely independent, in 
 point of authority and jurisdiction, of 
 every other ;" and though individuals, 
 called messengers, are sent by these inde- 
 peiident cgns. to assemblies, these as- 
 
99 
 
 semblies " have not in any respect the 
 character of a representative body; they 
 claim, no office or authority ; all they do 
 is to (jive advice, or to fjlve expression to 
 what may happen to he the ]jrevailing 
 sentiments of the persons who come to- 
 gether from different cgns,, from time to 
 time." 
 
 Mr. P. then referred to " membership 
 among the Pr.Bpts.;" and to "occasional 
 
 or TRANSIENT MEMBERSHIP," Or COmmu- 
 
 nion, to which he said, " persons who do 
 not usually reside in the place where a 
 pai'ticular cgn. exists," are received, upon 
 producing " pi'oper testimonials and cer- 
 tificates," giving such proof as is required 
 " of agreement with the principles'' of 
 that body. " Now, sir, we asserb," he 
 said, that the Lord's Suppek "is an 
 essential j)art, indeed is the essence, of ch.- 
 cmn., and is not capable, consistently with 
 the principles of the body, of being ad- 
 ministered to any but those who are full 
 members, or, at least, have the capacity to 
 become so, if they were permanently re- 
 siding in the place : and, as a necessary 
 consequence of that position, that neither 
 membership nor cnin. can, ivithout a viola- 
 tion of the principles of this body, he im- 
 parted to any who are... .not recognized 
 as baptized by the principles of the de- 
 nomination." 
 
 He thought that this appeared "beyond 
 all doubt, from a mass of testimony, of 
 which [he would] give some specimens.*' 
 But there had " been some few pel^ons," 
 and the other side alleged, " some few 
 cgns., assuming the same name of Bap- 
 tists, or Particular Baptists, who [had] 
 advocated a larger latitude" both as to 
 membership and the L's. Spr., and who, 
 he said, " in the manner in which they 
 have advocated that opinion, appear to 
 have gone very far to subvert the funda- 
 mental basis of this, and perhaps I might 
 add, of any other, distinctive denomi- 
 nation." 
 
 He then proceeded to give "an out- 
 line OF THE GENERAL HISTORY OF THE 
 BODY." 
 
 The practice of Mr. Spilsbery's cgn. 
 was, he said, "a matter of controversy," 
 and he did not intend then to " enter into 
 the question of fact, whether Mr. S. 
 was or was not what he is described as 
 being." 
 
 But from about 1643, when Mr. 
 Kiffin's ch. was avowedly established 
 on the principle now called strict cmn , 
 "no one," he said, "who reads the evi- 
 dence, can, I think, entertain the smallest 
 doubt that from that time forth, with very 
 few and rare exceptions indeed, that was 
 
 the universal p)raetice of all cgns., passing 
 under the name of Bpts.'' 
 
 Ill the infancy of the denomination, 
 there were some bodies, " apparently 
 formed on another model," which, " hav- 
 ing become more or less leavened with the 
 opinions of Pr. Bpts., had never cast out 
 the mixture of other opinions originally 
 in them. Such was the case with the 
 cgn. of [Mr.] jEssEY...the earliest advo- 
 cate in theological literature of ...free 
 cmn.,... connected with the Independents." 
 He became, "before 1645, minister of... 
 the first Independent cgn., founded ori- 
 ginally under [Mr.] Jacob." In 1645, he 
 " adopted the opinions of the Pr. Bpts.," 
 but retained " a position. . .in which it was 
 impossible to exclude those... who con- 
 tinued to hold different views," and ad- 
 vocated " a larger basis than that on 
 which.... the Pr. Bpt. cgns. were actually 
 formed." 
 
 " In like manner, [Mr.] Tombes, a bene- 
 ficed clergyman of the ch. of England, 
 adopted, in 1646, the opinions of the Pr. 
 Bpts., and seems to have carried on 
 teachmg in what would be called, eccle- 
 siastically, a very irregular manner, while 
 he occupied that anomalous position. 
 He wrote books advocating that species 
 of latitude in ch.-cmn., of which he was 
 a living example " 
 
 "The celebrated John Bunyan,... 
 about 1672, had his own chapel, ...at 
 Bedford, registered, not as a Baptist, but 
 a Congregational chapel," and " said that 
 ...not only members of the Ch. of Eng- 
 land, Independents, and Presbyterians, 
 but even good Roman Catholics were 
 equally welcome... to be received on the 
 footing of complete memljership in his ch. 
 He was a great man, no doubt, but cau- 
 not be considered an example of the 
 denomination of Pr. Bpts." These were 
 " anomalies." 
 
 " Both Mr. Spilsbery and Mr. Kiffin 
 joined" in the London Cfsn. of 1646, in 
 which " the necessity of baptism is stated, 
 as a part of the definition of the visible 
 ch. In the 33rd article, (put forward by 
 the defts. themselves as favourable to 
 their view) they [the chs.] define the 
 members of the visible ch .as being ' bap- 
 tized into that faith,' " [&c.] a foi'm of 
 definition which seems aljsoLulely to ex- 
 clude unbaptized persons from the position 
 of members of the ch, ..-There is nothing 
 whatever in [the cfn.'\ that countenances 
 the notion of universal cmn. with all per- 
 sons calling themselves Christians." 
 
 By THE Assembly of 1677, notice was 
 taken of some individuals, — (the defts. 
 " would say cgns., I do not think that 
 G 2 
 
iCO 
 
 that is by auy means clear), at all events, 
 individuidi, towards whom [it] practised 
 a certain degree of intentional abstinence 
 and forbearance, in avoiding to state spe- 
 cificalbj t/te riews that miijht be entertained 
 by the assembly as to points on which those 
 individaal.s differed." Mr. P. read from 
 the Cfsx. of 1677, part of chaps. 28, 29, 
 30, on baptism and the L's. Spr., in which 
 the L's. Spr. is said to have been insti- 
 tuted by Christ, "to be observed in his 
 churches unto the end of the world." He 
 read also passages from the A ffexdlx : 
 one, stating their wish to show by the 
 cfsn. their agreement with other Chris- 
 tians " in the fundamental articles of 
 Christianity ; " auotlier, saying that 
 they ditiered from Psedobaptists not only 
 on baptism, but also in such '' circum- 
 stances as have a necessary depend- 
 ence'' on the observance of it; and also 
 the passage given on p. 5S, col. I, pre- 
 ceding, as to individual diii'ereuces on 
 cmn., beginning, "We are not insensible;" 
 which passage, Jlr P. remarked, explained 
 their reason, for not " including a dog- 
 matic article on the subject" of cmn. in 
 the cfsn., to be, not that the strict " can 
 waive or compromise their strictness, 
 but that they claim no authority in that 
 Assembly to impose it as a law upon any 
 who dissent therefrom.'' 
 
 Mr. P. then referred to the General 
 Ba])tist Cfsn. of 1678, called an Ortho- 
 dox Creed. [This was no part of the 
 evidence adduced by pltfs., but it was 
 mentioned in Mr. Gould's first Ans.. phs. 
 74, 75, as a Pr. Bpt. ci-eed, and Mr. P. 
 misconceived it to have been " r/enerally 
 received." It denies expressly the right 
 of unbaptized persons to membership or 
 the L's. Spr. — Ed.] 
 
 The ^Master of the Rolls. " That, 
 as you state it, does not differ from the 
 doctrine of the Ch. of England." 
 
 Mr. Paljjer assented, and said of that 
 jieriod, " I should greatly doubt whether 
 it was not the universal creed of every 
 Christian denomination ; because they 
 were all founded on positive adherence 
 to specific doctrines ; and none of them 
 separated from the Ch. of England on the 
 ground of any dissent from the position 
 that baptism was essential to the pri- 
 vilege of admission to Christian churches, 
 although they might not have considered 
 that salvation would be refused to the 
 vmbaptized. " 
 
 The Master of the Rolls, said he 
 had heard nothing yet " about the doc- 
 trine that [Christ's death] was only on 
 behalf of a select few, who are called the 
 elect." Mr. Palmek replied : " 1 do not 
 
 propose to read to you myself passages 
 in detail on that subject, because the 
 controversy on it in the evidence.. .is a 
 refinement which I do not think it ne- 
 cessai-y to enter in to... The defts. in their 
 ans. say that there is a distinction to be 
 taken within the pale of that doctrine, 
 as it were ; that is to say that some 
 among them, although believing... that 
 redemption is only for the elect quoad [as 
 to] the efficiency of Christ's sufleriug, yet 
 hold that ahstracted'y it was sufficient 
 for the salvation of ail the world.' * 
 
 Sir H. Cairns, Q.C, the leading coun- 
 sel for >Ii-. Gould and the Five, said that 
 " the origin of the coutrovei-sy" was the 
 insertion of " Limited" in the Amended 
 Bill ; and that thereupon both sides went 
 " into evidence at considerable length on 
 the question whether ' particuhu"' and 
 ' limited' redn. are synonymous terms or 
 not." [But on reference to the original 
 Bill, the tei-m ' limited " was found 
 there ; and his explanation of the " origin" 
 of the length of Mr. Gould s third answer, 
 was proved to have no foundation. Be- 
 sides this, Mr. Gould said that " limited 
 redn" had never been used by Pr. Bpts , 
 and therefore he could not pretend to give 
 evidence as to what iiad been its mean- 
 ing. After the suit Mr. Gould ascribed 
 the course he took in his thhd answer to 
 a discovery of Mr. Norton's views. See 
 p. 68, col. 2, preceding.— Ed.] 
 
 Sir H. Cairxs, said also, " about the 
 meaning of particular redemption, I 
 think we are all agreed." 
 
 Mr. Palmer said, "I believe so.* There- 
 fore I pi-opose to confine chiefly what I 
 have to say, to the other points, on which 
 your Honour will find that the difference 
 becomes important and practical." 
 
 " The Assembly of 1 689," at which " the 
 two ministers of this particular cgn. were 
 present .. adopted the ... declarations... 
 made by the Assembly of 1677. "+ 
 They recognized " the existence of some 
 differences, and that they had no au- 
 thority as between particular chs. to 
 settle them.... It is quite consistent with 
 the case on both sides, that the cgns.... 
 which adhered to the strict principle of 
 Pr. Bpts., did not claim, and could not 
 
 • Mr. Palmer does not seem to have noticed 
 that ^Ir. Gould did not speak of abstract suf- 
 ficiency merely, but that he connected suffi- 
 ciency with actual jmrpose, and that his 
 definition of pr. redn. was essentially the same 
 as Mr. Palmer himself had given at the be- 
 ginning of his speech as that of general redn. 
 
 t It was not proved to have adopted the 
 Appendix of 1677. See p. 69, preceding. 
 
101 
 
 claim, authority to control the principles 
 of those (however few they may have 
 been) who held different views. It is for 
 your Honour to say v^hat vms the prin- 
 cqAe of the particular cgn. with which we 
 are now immediately concerned." 
 
 Mr. P. then referred to some writers 
 OF AUTHORITY in proof thAt" according 
 to the principles of the denomination of 
 Pr. Bpts., j)yop)erly so called, the unhap- 
 tized were excluded from ch. -membership) 
 and from ch.-cmn." 
 
 He first quoted passages from Gra>'- 
 tham's Christianisiius Puimitivus, ori- 
 ginal edn. 1678 ; book III. pp. 3-3, 34 ; 
 bk. IV. pp. 171. 173; and bk. IV. chap. 
 II. sec. 1, p. 178, stating that the bap- 
 tized chs., both General and Particular, 
 maintained at that time, both in prin- 
 ciple and practice, the necessity of bap- 
 tism to ch.-membership and cmn. He 
 referred to other passages at pp. 175, 177, 
 and 178. Of the passage at p. 178, he 
 said " it bears on two points ; first. ..the 
 inadmissihili t ij of the unbaptized to the 
 table of tlie Lord ; secondly, the relation 
 of that divine m'dinunce to ch.-cmn. ; from 
 which [defts. say] it is separable." [See 
 ph. 31, at p. 55, preceding.] 
 
 He next read passages from Dr. 
 Wall's History of Infant Baptism ; pp. 
 431, 560, of edn. II. 1707, remarking 
 that he is " a standard authority of the 
 Ch. of England, on this question of bap- 
 tism ;'' and that this his " Treatise on In- 
 fant Baptism, is perhaps the most learned 
 and able that belongs to our ch." The 
 l^assages read were, " They do many of 
 'em hold it necessary to renounce cmn.," 
 &c., and "I know that the Antipaedo- 
 baptists do not admit to the L's. Spr." 
 &c. [See ph. 21, proof 6, at p. 79 ; and 
 end of ph. 72, at p. 58, also p. 82, col. 2, 
 preceding.] 
 
 Next a passage from Dr. Gale, " the 
 champion of the denomination," who 
 answered Dr. Wall in 1705 and 1706. 
 He said "of the Antipsedobaptists.-.and 
 of Dr. Wall...' Both sides agree. Bap- 
 tism is a necessary initiation into the 
 Christian ch.' Exactly as your Honour 
 said. That is the view of the Ch. of 
 England, represented by Dr. Wall, and of 
 the Baptists, represented by Dr. Gale." 
 [See p. 83, preceding.] 
 
 "Mr. D. Neal ...[in] his history of 
 the Puritans, published 1731 — 1738, vol. 
 II. p. 280, says, the Pr. Bpts. "would 
 hold cmn. with none but such as had 
 been dipped." [See p. 83, preceding.] 
 
 Mr. Crosby's Hist., vol. II. p. 341, 
 was also refen*ed to. [An error, instead 
 of III. 14. See p. 83, preceding.] 
 
 Mr. Palmer next refen-ed to wit- 
 nesses ON the side of defts. Among 
 tho.se were office-holder.^, now living, of 
 "The Particular Baptist Fund," in- 
 stituted, in 1717, for " purposes of pe- 
 cuniary assistance and relief to members 
 of this deuomination... Those gentlemen 
 state (which 1 have no doubt is quite 
 true) ....that they now admit to the bene- 
 fit of it...(''7».s." pi'actising mixed emu., 
 and they "flatter themselves... they are 
 not deviating from the principles of the 
 body which they repi-esent." Mr. P. then 
 read from its oriijinal riaes, a definition 
 of what was meant by ■' Particular Bap- 
 tists," in the rule which say.s, it '" shall be 
 for the use. ..of those chs only that go 
 under the denomination of Pr. Bpts." 
 The definition is, that ■' by Pr. Bpts. are 
 intended those that have been solemnly 
 immersed," t<c., and who profess, among 
 other doctrines, that of " jir. redn....ac- 
 cordiiifi to the Cfsn. q/'.1689." "I think, 
 therefore," said Mr. P., '' Avhatever may 
 have been the more recent practice in 
 the distribution of this Fund,... that if 
 we look back to the original founda- 
 tion, we shall not discovei', in that, any- 
 thmg favourable to the contention of the 
 defts." 
 
 " There is pretty strong evidence from 
 the mouth of the most disiinf/ui^hed oppo- 
 nent of. ..strict cmn.,... Mr. John Bunyan, 
 that his views on the subject were not 
 those of the [Pr. Baptist] community 
 in (leneral. He. .calls himself siue/ular in 
 respect of them," (see Works, vol. II. p. 
 618.) and said that for sixteen years "the 
 hrn. of the baptized way. ..have sought to 
 break us in pieces meiely because we are 
 not, in their way, all baptized first :" pp. 
 616, 617. 
 
 "A Mr. Brown, [about] 1778. ..con- 
 demned the chs. which he called ' the 
 baptized churches' for making immer- 
 sion on a profession of faith essentially 
 necessary for constituting a true ch. of 
 Christ." 
 
 " Mr. Booth a leading champion of the 
 orthodox doctrine, wrote a book in 1778, 
 intituled ' An Apology for the Bpts.,' de- 
 signating [those who held strict emu.] 
 by that name, and it appears by the evi- 
 dence that the holders of strict cmn. were 
 always called 'the Baptist.'',' until about 
 that time, when the expres.sion ' Strict 
 Baptist' came in, and has been used in 
 consequeuce of the other doctrine being 
 held and advocated by a greater number 
 of persons." Mr. R. Hall, "the ablest 
 and most distinguished [of the] modern, 
 as Mr. Bunyan was of the earlier op- 
 ponents" of strict cmn., " admits that 
 
102 
 
 Mr. Booth had, in the belief and jjrac- 
 tice of the chi?. of his denomination... 
 fair warrant for the title" he gave to his 
 defence of strict cmn. Mr. P. quoted his 
 Reply to Mr. Kinghoru, 1818, p. xii, " The 
 prevailing system," &c. " The few chs.," 
 &c. See p. 83, col. 1, preceding. 
 
 " In the latter part of the 18th cent., 
 ...several persons, some of whom appear 
 to have held Socinian opinions, came 
 forward as the champions of the free-cmn. 
 principle... They were opposed by IVIr. 
 Booth and by Mr. Buttfield." 
 
 In the present cent. Mr. R. Hall, 
 " took a very prominent part in advo- 
 cating, vpon the largest basis, the prin- 
 ciple ..of free-cmn, and was opposed as 
 eaergetically by Mr. Kinghorn,... minis- 
 ter of the pr. cgu. now in question for 
 forty years and more, from 1790 to 1832. 
 ...Mr. R. Hall, in our evidence, is stated 
 not to have been a Pr. Bpt....On the 
 other side it is said he was." 
 
 Sir H. Cairns. " The relators say 
 that every person who does not agree 
 with them is not a Pr. Bapt." 
 
 Mr. Palmer. In Mr. Hall's Life, p. 160, 
 " his own words are, ' I believe firmly in 
 general redemption. I often preach it.' " 
 
 " The LAST FACT bearing on the general 
 state of opinion on this subject, which 1 
 would mention, is this ; that latterly Mr. 
 JR. Hall's views fuund more acceptation, 
 than similar views had ever done before ; 
 and your Honour will trace in the his- 
 tory of this cmn. question, some analogy 
 to that which occurred in the case of 
 Lady Hewley,... where, in the absence of 
 tests, there was a constant tendency to 
 change, until the change at last became 
 very exten.sive, if not in that case almost 
 universal. ..But your Honour will find re- 
 markable teotiniouy..to the inconsistency 
 of [free cmn.] with the ancient doctrine, 
 and the maintenance of that doctrine by 
 the more ancient churches, in ph 32, of 
 Mr. Norton's first afft." [He then re- 
 ferred to the Model Deed of the Baptist 
 Building Fund, and the statement as to 
 what it would be "necessary" to insert 
 in case free cmn. were practised ; see 
 p. 80, preceding.] " That appears to 
 me to be pregnant with evidence that ac- 
 cording to the usage of those bodies 
 down to [that] time, deeds expressed in 
 general terms were not undei'stood to au- 
 thorize... that practice, and that in order 
 to make [it] an authorized, safe and 
 regular one, it was necessary tliat the 
 deed should provide expressly, and give 
 power for that purpose. And I think 
 those latter words, [j^roviding for that 
 practice] illustrate the argument pretty 
 
 .strongly: 'although such persons shall 
 not be of the denomination aforesaid.' " 
 
 The Master of the Rolijj. " What I 
 must look at i^rineipally is : What was 
 the doctrine at the time of the Founders 7 
 but that may have got considerably modi- 
 fied in the course of 112 years." 
 
 Mr. R. Palmer. "No doubt: but 
 your Honour will find that. ...it is an ad- 
 mitted fact, [and one which] stands out 
 in broad relief, ivithout the possibility of 
 doubt, on the ichole of the evidence, that 
 until 1845, thei-e was not the slightest 
 deviation in this cgn. from the principle 
 and practice of strict emu., most strictly 
 understood." 
 
 II. " What the practice was in this 
 particular ch. 
 
 " We have the church books from 
 about 1687, downwards. We find at the 
 beginning of [the first] book, the articles 
 and covenant ... signed by*^ ... persons 
 who were then members." Mr. P. while 
 reading article IX. from deft. Gould's 
 Ans. I. ph. 89 ; see p. 59, preceding, said, 
 "Therefore on the face of the arts, of 
 this particular .. cgn., the visible ch, is 
 defined as consisting of ' baptized believers 
 ... who voluntarily agree to walk to- 
 gether... in cdl the laws and ordinances of 
 Christ's house.' " He read also part of 
 Art. X., in which the Ls. Spr. is said to 
 have been "delivered to the ch.," and 
 said, " There appears to be a Cove- 
 nant on that basis, [the basis of the 
 articles] ; and the next entry is ' The num- 
 ber of the names of the baptized ch — ;' 
 and all the names of the members are 
 given. That title of ' the baptized ch.^ 
 ...will be found in the evidence to be re- 
 peated from time to time in the yeai'S 
 1687, 1723, 1729, 1738, 1766, 1779, 
 1836, and 1837.. ..Then we have lists of 
 admissions from that time down to the 
 present, showing that the practice of the 
 admission of members has been uni- 
 formly maintained in it. And, on the 
 subject of admission, not only to all the 
 privileges oi members, but to the cmn. [in 
 the L's. Spr.], which the deft, desires to 
 treat as separate from the other privileges, 
 we find... admitted in the Ans., at ph. Ill, 
 'that from a period long anterior to... 
 1746,'" &c. (see p. 62, preceding). "Then 
 at phs. 114, 115, deft, says, 'I believe 
 that from some time before 1793. ..the... 
 cgn. did not practise open membership or 
 oi^en cmn.," &c. (See p. 62, preceding.) 
 
 " In addition to that, sir, we have evi- 
 dence as to the sense in which the terms 
 
 • Their names are underwritten, but not by 
 the members themselves- Ed. 
 
103 
 
 * communion,' and ' admission to,' and 
 ' exclusion from communion,' were used 
 in this ch." He then read a passage 
 fi'om the beginning of ph. 20 of Mr. Nor- 
 ton's first aflt., see p. 78, preceding, in- 
 cluding the ch. minutes there mentioned 
 as far as Nov. 1718. He read also from 
 ph. 17 of that afFt. (p. 78, preceding) the 
 ch. minutes of Sept. 22, 1(598, as to ex- 
 clusion for worshipping with the Quakers; 
 also from ph. 9, the minute of 1753, de- 
 claring it unlawful to sanction the doc- 
 trines of the Methodists ; and from ph. 10, 
 the minute excluding T. Lamkin, partly 
 for " pleading for infants' baptism." 
 
 Sir H. C. said there was another reason 
 for his exclusion, — excessive drinking. 
 
 Mr. P. " Of course the mention of 
 his pleading for infant baptism is not de- 
 stroyed by" the mention of that also. " I 
 think it adds strongly to it, because hav- 
 ing so good and sufficient a cause as my 
 learned friend mentions, it is obvious 
 that unless they had thought seriously 
 of the pleading for infants' baptism, 
 they would scarcely have added that, in 
 order to inci'ease the strength of the 
 accusation." 
 
 He referred also to the requirement, 
 in 1714, of agreement with this ch. "in 
 doctrine, vjorship, and discijjiine," as to 
 the old members of the Pulham ch., 
 mentioned in the Bill, ph. 14, and the ex- 
 clusion in 1724, oiS. Taylor iov returning 
 to general redemption, Norton Aift. I. 
 ph. 10 ; also to proof, in ph. 22, that this 
 ch. admitted, in 1836, that a mixed ch. 
 was not a " baptized ch.,'' nor "of the 
 Bame faith and order" with itself; and 
 that the plaintiff, S Wilkin, objected to 
 send a dismissory letter to it. 
 
 III. The ijtxovations. 
 
 "Mr Brock became minister in 1833, 
 ...on the express terms.. .that he under- 
 took,..' not to moot the que.stion of open 
 cmn.' " there ; (p. 8, preceding); "but 
 notwithstanding, ... in 1845, acted in a 
 manner which I am unable to reconcile 
 with that engagement. He, affecting not 
 to interfere with the constitution of the 
 ch., but to leave it unchanged, deter- 
 mined to introduce, in addition to the 
 ordinary cmn." service, a free cmn. one, 
 (see p. 9, preceding). " That was 
 strongly objected to by many members. 
 ...Mr. Brock admitted on various occa- 
 sions, that to change the constitution of 
 the church by introducing persons ....who 
 were not baptized persons, at the or- 
 dinary cmn. on the first Svmday, or 
 generally, would be in fact to drive out 
 of the ch. those who conscientiously 
 thought they could not be admitted. 
 
 That proposition had been very strongly 
 put in some of Wr. Kinghorn's writings, 
 cited [in the evidence]. But Mr. Brock 
 himself admitted it." [See extract from 
 his letter of March, 1845, part of which 
 Mr. P. read, at p. 8, preceding]. "Ihe 
 majority acquiesced, but some did not, 
 and they, about 11,* I think, were obliged 
 to leave the cgn. ; but nothing more was 
 done in Mr. Brock's time." 
 
 Mr. P. then referred to the concession 
 made at Mr. Gould's ordination in 1849, 
 that the ch. had "for many years" been 
 strict (pp. 15, 79, preceding); and to 
 the resolution in Jan. 1857, of Mr. Gould 
 and those who agreed with him, that E. 
 Bayes be admitted as a member, unbap- 
 tized (pp. 15, 84, preceding). It thus " be- 
 came a question, who wei'e to be excluded, 
 those who adhered to the old orthodox 
 practice, or those who introduced this 
 change." She was " subsequently bap- 
 tized, [and] all parties might have con- 
 doned" this irregularity ; but it " was 
 followed up on the 11th of March, 1857, 
 by a general resolution passed by Mr. 
 Gould and the majority agreeing with 
 him, for open emu. ; and on the first 
 Sunday in April, 1857, that practice was 
 introduced, which has since been ad- 
 hered to, indiscriminately admitting all 
 kinds of persons, Methodists, Indepen- 
 dents, members of the Ch. of England, 
 and others ; in fact the denominational 
 character... is entirely gone ; and it is at- 
 tempted to JUSTIFY that, ...by falling 
 back on the general imnciple advocated 
 by R. Hall, Bunyan, and others, which 
 goes the full length, ivithout distinction of 
 ch. cmn. and ch. membership, of advo- 
 cating the inherent right of everybody 
 to ch.-membership, who professes a hope of 
 salvation through Christ, whether he he 
 baptized or unhaptized, and whatever may 
 he his tenets. That, I submit, utterly de- 
 stroys the denomination. They tell us 
 in the Answer, that that has been acted 
 upon hy several cgns. to the full extent of 
 admitting to \_fuU'] ch. membership those 
 who do not belong to the denomination," 
 but "that others, like themselves, in the 
 present stage, have made a distinction, 
 and have stopped at cmn. in the L's. Spr., 
 and have treated that as distinguishable 
 from membership generally. But it is 
 quite plain that this is a distinction 
 which, on their own showing, rests simply 
 on sufferance merely, as long as they 
 
 * Others did not acquiesce, but merely con- 
 sented not to agitate the cbnrch further on the 
 subject at ch.-meetings, feeling that it was 
 useless ; see pp. 64, 65, preceding. Ed; 
 
104 
 
 choose to adhere to it ; and the principle 
 on which tliey have acted, does not com- 
 pel them to st(ip there.* As your Hon- 
 our mipht anticipate, that very thing 
 which Mr. Kinghorn and Mr. Brock had 
 foreseen, has happened ; that the con- 
 sciences of those who [adhered to Pr. 
 Baptist cmn.] could not be reconciled to 
 a practice which abolished altogether its 
 denominational character ... They were 
 ohliged to absent themselves from this cmn., 
 to which others icho were strangers were 
 indiscriminately introduced." 
 
 " There was a proposition that some 
 afternoon service should be appointed for 
 those who were excluded from the cmn. 
 on the first Sunday of the month. That 
 of course they would not agree to, more 
 especially as the communion on the first 
 Sunday in every month, is that at which 
 new memhers are admitted. 
 
 " Since that, proceedings have been 
 taken with a view actually to exclude 
 it/(e»ra /...and the question is, Which shall 
 prevail, those who have innovated in this 
 ■manner on the practice of the church, or 
 those whom they claim a right to exclude 
 and excommunicate, because they do not 
 acquiesce in that imiovation ? The In- 
 formation was filed on the 13th of May, 
 18.58, in order to have that question de- 
 termined ; and I trust your Honour will 
 think, when you have heard the evidence 
 which bears out the statement I have 
 made, that we ai-e entitled to the relief, 
 which we ask." 
 
 [Mr. Palmer's speech occupied about 
 one hour and forty minutes in delivery. 
 The whole of these abstracts of the 
 speeches of counsel are from a verbatim 
 report, corrected by counsel themselves.] 
 
 Mr. George Lake Russell. 
 
 Mr. Russell, before reading a sum- 
 maiy of the evidence on behalf of the 
 plaintiffs, read phs. 15 and 29 of deft. 
 Gooderson's Ans., to show that he, like 
 the pltfs., was opposed to the innovations. 
 (See pp. 64, 67, preceding.) In Mr. 
 Russell's remarks on the evidence, he 
 said that he thought the defts.' "own 
 admissions established this case against'' 
 them. Phs. 17 and 22, of Mr. Norton's first 
 attt., were " a challenge to [his] learned 
 friends to produce, if they could, [from] 
 the church books," evidence that " any 
 person [had been] ever admitted into 
 the churcli" or to ch.-cmn. unbaptized ; 
 or that " this ch. ever violated the prin- 
 
 t It compels them to go the whole extent 
 of receiving all beUevers to full membership. 
 Ed. 
 
 ciple that only those who are qualified for 
 full membership are entitled to cmn....in 
 the Us. Spr." He refei-red to the phs. 
 relating to particular redemption ; and 
 on ph. -32, said that if a free-cmn. ch. 
 was to be called one of Pr. lipts., then 
 those of Independents, Presbyterians, and 
 the Ch. of England were chs. oi Pr. Bpts. 
 also. On ph. 35, as to the name, Strict 
 Baptists, he said, that " it was not until 
 twenty-six years after the foundation of 
 this particular church that we find any 
 such term as ' Strict' annexed to the word 
 'Baptist.' Up to that time the word 
 ' Bctptist' me&ut simply those who held 
 strict cmn.. ..Then, when you go to the 
 deed of 1746, and find the word 'Bap- 
 tist' used, it can only mean those who 
 held strict cmn.'' Ph. 36, he said, "goes 
 to the fact that strict cmn., in its prin- 
 ciple, applies to doctrines, rules, and eft. 
 government." 
 
 The Master of the Rolls. " Have 
 they excluded baptized believers ?" Mr. 
 Russell said, " not.. .by /orce,... but those 
 who.. .cannot conscientiously concur in 
 that [free-cmn.] service, abstain from 
 going there." His Honour said, " but 
 then the unbaptized communicants would 
 not partake of the communion of which 
 the Strict Baptists would partake," [re- 
 ferring to the strict service offered to the 
 strict members]. " You must make 
 out to me that there is some injury." 
 Mr. Russell said, " we have a trust for 
 a particular class of religionists. The 
 pastor and others. ..avowedly say they 
 have a right to apply that for the pur- 
 pose of a separate and distinct sect. 
 According to the same principle, Mr. 
 Gould may think it right to admit Ma- 
 homedans, or Buddhists, or any other 
 persons to the ch...If they are not to 
 be confined as the trust confines them, 
 then they are to be at liberty to admit 
 anybody, and everybody into the church, 
 Mahomedans or others." 
 
 His Honour said, " I do not under- 
 stand the principle on which they object 
 to receive the communion at all. As- 
 suming" that the admission of " persons 
 who are unbaptized.. made it impossible 
 for them to receive the communion in 
 this church, they had no option, but to 
 retire, had they ?" 
 
 His HoNOTJR, in reference to the res. 
 of March 11, 1857, said, " What is meant 
 by a believer in Christ ? That seems to be 
 a very vague expression. Does it mean 
 a believer in the Divinity of Chr'st V 
 Mr. Russell, shortly afterwards read Mr. 
 Gould's words, " I shall always be ready 
 to receive any man who professes to be a 
 
105 
 
 leliever in tlie Lord Jesus," and said, 
 " Your Honour will have to determine 
 whether that is consistent with the trust 
 in question before you." 
 
 His Ho>.'OiiR : "Anabaptists and /?«2J- 
 tists nieaji the same thing ?" Sir H. 0. 
 said " Anabaptists was a term of re- 
 proach that was given to them in our 
 old statute books, and which they took 
 offence at." 
 
 His Honour. "What is the effect of 
 their [the free-cmn majority] declaring 
 that they [the plaintiff members] are 
 no lonf/er members of the church? Can- 
 not they attend the service ? " Sir H. 
 C. said, " They can attend the preaching, 
 if they please." Mr. Russell, '■ Just as 
 your Honour or I might, but no more.... 
 They could not communicate till they 
 were restored." They would "not only 
 be excluded from the use of the chapel," 
 [as enjoyed by members], but " deprived 
 of the benefit of all charitable funds an- 
 nexed to the chapel." j 
 
 His Honour said, " What I am look- 
 ing at is, that you must show that you 
 have sustained some injury. Assuming 
 that a person commits a breach of trust, 
 the cestui que trust — [the person inter- 
 ested in the trust] cannot complain of 
 that, if it does him no harm." Mr. 
 Russell said that, by exclusion, the 
 members suffered a " direct injury," 
 they could "not attend the church- 
 meetings ;" nor " derive any benefit from 
 any of the charities." Sir H. C. said, 
 " our great anxiety is that they should 
 attend. Our arms are open to receive 
 them. We deplore immensely that they 
 have gone away. And we should be de- 
 lighted if they would come back again." 
 He said as to their threatened exclusion 
 from membership, that it was because 
 they did "not attend the communion." 
 Mr. Russell said that exclusion from 
 membership "is excommunication," the 
 excluded could not " take a part in the 
 election of a clergyman [minister]. All 
 those rights whicli flow from member- 
 ship are absolutely gone. 'I'he question 
 for your Honour's decision is simply 
 this. Whether this trust did, or did not, 
 intend that we should have the benefit of 
 it, or not. My learned friend says that 
 ...to receive erenjbodi/ ..is consistent with 
 the trust. We say it is not. We say it 
 is to be a congregation of Particular 
 Baptists, and none other. My friend says 
 he woidd be happy to receive us to- 
 morrow ; but he would only receive us 
 if we admit that this is not a trust for 
 that particular class, but ...for all the 
 world at large. What we ask at your 
 
 Honoux''s hands is simply a construction 
 of the deed." 
 
 Mr Russell read the greater part of 
 the afft. of Moore and others, as to the 
 practice of the ch. in Mr. Kinghorn's 
 time, and referred briefly to the other 
 affts. 
 
 His Honour said, as to the Prater of 
 the Bill, " You must tell me the decree 
 you ask," Mr. Russell said, " I ask for 
 the whole prayer of the Bill." Sir H. C. 
 said, " Tlicn that goes to the question of 
 limited or j^afticular redemption."* 
 
 Mr. Thomas Henry Haddan. 
 Mr. Haddan said on behalf of Mr. 
 Allen that he lived at some distance 
 from Norwich, knew nothing of the 
 matter, had taken no part in it, and was 
 willing to retire from the trust. 
 
 Mr. N. Lindlet. 
 Mr. N. Lindley for Mr. Gooderson, 
 said, that Mi-. G. took "the same view of 
 the doctrine and practice as" the pltfs., 
 but " did not think it part of his duty to 
 concur in the Information, [and] could 
 not put in a joint answer with those to 
 whom he [was] opposed." 
 
 Sir Hugh Cairns. 
 Sir H. Cairns appeared " for all the 
 defts., except Mr. Allen and Mr. Gooder- 
 son." He said, "the question.. .in the 
 view which I intend to submit to j'our 
 Honour,. ..lies in a very narrow compass; 
 but it is impossible for me to.. .overstate 
 [its] importance, whether...looked at with 
 reference to [this] cgn., or. ...the interests 
 of the BaptLst body at large. ..The pro- 
 positions for which I mean to contend,... 
 [are] propositions of FACT,and...oF law. 
 The propositions of fact are these : — 
 1. That before, [in], and since [1746] a 
 cgn. of Pr. Bpts. might, in entire con- 
 sistency with its title to that name, 
 adopt the practice of.. .open emu. 2. That 
 the question whether a., cgn. would [do 
 so] was... to be decided by a majority... 
 as [it] might, from time to time, think 
 fit. 3. That a cgn. of Pr. Bpts. might 
 adopt... open cmn ; ... afterwards,... strict 
 cmn. ; and again...open cmn., as before, 
 and that all those changes might.. .and... 
 did take place in Baptist cgns. without 
 the .slightest sacrifice of their title to be 
 called ' cgns. of Pr. Bpts.' " t 
 
 * Mr. Gould has said " tliis part of the 
 case against us was formally abandoned." 
 See p. 68, col. 2, preceding. 
 
 t The qucstiuu is not what a ch. miyhl be, 
 
106 
 
 " The propositions of law ... are 
 these :— 1. That a gift of i^roperty to a 
 Vi: Bpt. cgn., or, as in this case, to tlie 
 cgn. of Pr. Bpts. at a particular place, 
 for the time being, is a gift to [it] sub- 
 ject to all the consequences of the exer- 
 cise of that power. 2. The fact that a 
 Cgn.. .has pursued one practice,. ..is con- 
 sistent with the pos.session of jjower 
 [and] right to alter that practice,. ..when 
 the majority so think fit. 3. That this 
 is peculiarly the ca.se in a form of ch.- 
 governraeut, by which (the relators ad- 
 mit). ..there is reposed in every cgn. of 
 Pr. Bpts. absolute power* for the regu- 
 lation of its government and practice. 
 4. That the introduction of persons to 
 open cmn , is not insisted upon as the 
 right or privilege of the jjersons intro- 
 duced,.. .hwi of the crjn." + 
 
 " We say that no person is or ought 
 to be a member of this cgn., according to 
 its present practice, unless.. .baptized. "J 
 " Further we do not contend for the right 
 of forcing any members.. .who feel a con- 
 scientious scruple as to open cmn., to 
 attend that open cmn. to which they ob- 
 ject. We have ottered them always. ..the 
 opportunity of having, to the same ex- 
 tent which they ever had, a strict-cmn. 
 service, at which none but members of 
 the cgn. shall be present. J 
 
 and yet be called a cgn. of Pr. Bpts. ; but 
 what this Pr. Bpt, cb. recdly was. For the 
 trust is expressly for it, and no other. If it 
 held baptism to be indispensably necessary to 
 ch.-membership, and ch. -membership to be 
 so to cmn. in the L's. Spr., these things cannot 
 be altered without destroying its identity. 
 The whole of these propositions, therefore, are 
 irrelevant. If for such a reason free-emu. 
 Baptists might dispossess Strict Baptists of 
 their property, any man might plunder his 
 weaker fellow-man because their common 
 rMme is man. — Ed. 
 
 • They admit independence, not " absolute 
 power ,'' not power to alter rules held to be 
 Divine, nor to apply property devoted to strict, 
 for the uses oi free cmn. 
 
 t The relators deny the right of both. If 
 A. takes property belonging to B., and gives 
 it to C, A. lias as little right to give, as B. 
 has to receive. The want of right in the one, 
 is the want of it in the other. So the Eelators 
 deny the right both of the cgn. to introduce 
 the unbaptized, and of the unbaptized to ac- 
 cept their introduction to the L's. Spr., because 
 both parties would thus invade the right of the 
 strict members, to meet with the ch. at all 
 times. — Ed. 
 
 t The defts. in various ways recognize all 
 believers as being, or having a right to be, ch.- 
 viemlicrs ; but here they say that no person 
 ''ought to be a member!'' Why.'' This 
 plea has helped to exclude the Strict Baptists 
 
 He contended that the liberty of the 
 cgn. was " subject to this only, that they 
 do nothmg with that property which it 
 is impossible for a Pr. Bpt. cgn. to do ;" 
 that " to admit to. ..the L's. Spr. persons 
 who have not become «tew6er.5§... is one 
 part of their liberty," and that their 
 liberty would be infringed, if the Court 
 debarred them from doing so. 
 
 The Prayer of the Bill. A decree 
 that only Pr. Bpts. are "entitled" to the 
 benefits of the trusty would not, he said, 
 meet the question. He admitted that 
 there is " no such title in those who are 
 outside the cgn.," but contended that 
 there is " in the cgn . itself the right and 
 title as an act of courtesy," &c., to in- 
 troduce to cmn. " a believer who is not 
 a member." As to excluding the pro- 
 testing members, he said, " if a breach 
 of trust has been committed by us.. .the 
 cgn. may have been wrong in excluding 
 them from membershii),'' if not, those 
 members "have become subject to the 
 rule of the cgn. ...that unless members 
 shall attend cmn. at certain times, they 
 shall be subjected to ch.-discipliue ;" and 
 are rightly excluded " until they shall 
 withdraw the attitude of rebellion which 
 they have assumed." 
 
 " The precise words of the deed of 
 1746." He quoted three passages in 
 which this cgn. "for the time being," \\ is 
 mentioned. 
 
 The independence, and limit of the 
 POWERS, of this cgn. " I agree that there 
 is no power in this cgn., with reference 
 to the enjoyment of trust powers, to do 
 any act, or to change their constitution 
 in any way, which would dejjrive them 
 of the name of a Pr. Bpt. cgn." 
 
 The evidence, to prove the above 
 propositions of fact. I. " Confessions 
 of Faith... made.. .by Assemblies of repre- 
 
 from the chapel, and left the free-cmn. mem- 
 bers in sole possession. Again, in order to 
 their defence, they had to declare themselves 
 willing to practise both strict and free cmn.,Xy;o 
 apposite systems at once ; each claiming to be 
 divine, and each practised as a p.art of God's 
 will! But eren tins self-humiliation was not 
 sufficient, they had further to say that the 
 strict members, who formerly had a right to 
 attend all meetings of the ch. for observing 
 the L's. Supper, even if they had been held 
 daily, had still opportunity " to the same ex- 
 tent they ever had," &c. Ed. 
 
 § In 1746, even free-cmn. chs. did not ad- 
 mit to tlie L's. Spr. those whom they ex- 
 cluded from 7nembership. Ed. 
 
 II The words for the time being, must of 
 necessity refer, not to any change of the fun~ 
 damental constitution of the ch. , but to change 
 of the iudividual j;criOn.s forming it. Ed. 
 
107 
 
 eentatives from Bpt. cgns." which he 1 
 would .refer to, not as binding on the 
 Baptist body at large, but "as the best 
 evidence to show what was the general 
 imdei'standing and belief, at the time," 
 as to whether " the question of open or 
 sti-ict cmn. [was] an ojjcii question— ix 
 question as to which' ' cgns might differ, 
 "and yet both be embraced icithin the 
 denomination ofPr. Bpt. cgns." II. " The 
 General History of Baptist cgns." III. 
 "Controversial writers on the subject.'' 
 
 Sir H. Caiens said that the evidence 
 which his Honour had heai'd, related to 
 haptism, not to redemption ; to the ad- 
 mission to cmn. of believers uubaptized, 
 who are " exactly of the same faith in 
 other respects as" Particular Baptists.* 
 " There is at present," he said, " no alle- 
 gation,... with regard to Mr. Gould, or 
 any of the trustees, that they profess a 
 doctrine on the subject of redemption 
 that is not the doctrine of Pr. Bpts. I 
 deny that they do, and I have heard no 
 charge at the bar that they do." 
 
 1. London Confession of 1644. 
 Gould, Ans. T. phs. 52 — 64. "Among 
 the signatures" to that cfsn. of " seven 
 London cgns., was that of Mr. Spilsbery. 
 We know that he was a warm advocate 
 for, and professor of, open cmn., during 
 the whole of the time he had his cgn. in 
 London, t 1 deiive this inference from 
 the cfsn... On the question of open cmn. 
 it is sileyit.X It does not decide the 
 matter one way or the other." ''Mr. 
 Kiifin... separated or diflered from Mr. 
 Spilsbery on this question of open cmn., 
 [and] left [bis] cgn. on that point, li 
 After the separation ... we find them 
 agreeing to sign this cfsn. of their faith, 
 although we have the clearest and most 
 distinct evidence, that on this point, at 
 all events, they wei'e at variance. || 
 Therefore the inference is irresistible 
 that it was considered by them, and... 
 by those who signed this document,... an 
 02^671 question, whether open or strict 
 cmn. should be practised by this body." 
 He read arts. 33 and 39, from the edition 
 of 1644, but made no allusion to the 
 words '' and ufter [being baptized] to 
 partake of the L's. Spr.,'' added to 
 art. 39, in 1646. Read also part of Pre- 
 
 • This is not correct. The question 
 and evidence relate to all believers ; to those 
 who differ 071 redeniption, and on other point.-:, 
 as well as on baptism. Ed, 
 
 t Not correct. See pp. 54, 85, and Mr. 
 Palmers Reply. 
 
 J In and after 1646, the 39th art. is not 
 silent ; see p. 85. 
 
 II Not correct; see ph. 5, p. 8G, preceding. 
 
 face containing the words we " are all 
 one in C7)in." He said that " with the 
 definition of a visible church," as com- 
 posed of visible saints. ..6(!j4/zec/, "we en- 
 tirely agree." 
 
 Sir H. C. alleged that "there were 
 thirtij-)iine Pr. Bpt. cgns. in London§ who 
 did not join in. ..this cfsn." He referred 
 to remarks by Baillie and Marshall, in 
 Gould, Ans. I. ph. 64, [p. 57, j^receding.] 
 
 His Honour said, '• When was the 
 vf ord Fart icidar &riit introduced?" Sir 
 H. C. replied, "1717 is the date we 
 assign. ... We have proved... that untd 
 [then]. ..the words used.. were — 'denying 
 Arminia7iis/7i.' " 
 
 2. The Somerset Confession of 1656. 
 Gould Ans. I. 65, 75 ; [pp. 57, 58, pre- 
 ceding.] Sir H. C. said, " The only 
 thing to be observed upon it is... [that 
 it] is silcyit on the subject."^ 
 
 3. The Confession of Assembly of 
 1677. Gould, Ans. I. 66—73; [pp. 57, 58.] 
 Sir H. C. said that though the churches 
 from which the "elders and brethren' 
 came, are called in the title, " Cgns. of 
 Christians, baptized;" yet "your Honour 
 will find in this very cfsn., emanating 
 from" those elders and brethren, that 
 " their views are open on the subject of 
 open or strict cmn., and I think that will 
 be all-importajjt in the case." After 
 reading extracts from the Preface, Sir 
 H. C. read from chap. 26, the statement 
 that "all particular cgns. ought to be 
 constituted of visible saints,'' and from 
 chap. 27, that " saints by pi-ofession are 
 bound to maintain an holy fellowship 
 and communion in the worship of God," 
 &c. The Master of the Rolls said, " How 
 do you read the word ' communion' 
 there ?'' Sir H. C. replied, " I do not 
 imagine that *cmn.' there points to the 
 L's. Spr. alone — certainly not ... [The 
 paragraph speaks] of the absolute duty of 
 cmn. between believers ;.. of course in- 
 cluding a participation in an ordinance 
 like that of the L's. Spr." ** He read 
 
 § Not correct; see pp. 84, 85. * 
 
 IT Not wholly so ; it implies by what it says 
 that baptism is pre-requisite to the L's. Spr. 
 Chap. 24, says that believers '• baptized... &nd 
 being thiis planted in the visible eh.,. ..do walk 
 together in cmn., in all the commandments 
 of Jesus. Acts ii. 42, 'And they continued 
 steadfastly ... in breaking of bread and 
 in prayers.' " 
 
 **■ It is self-evident that this passage did 
 not refer to the L's. Spr. ; that it did not 
 mean that baptized and unbaptized believers 
 ought to coj/tmune together in it ; for in that 
 case no Strict Baj^tist could have signed it. 
 Ed. 
 
108 
 
 from chap. 28. the worda " baptism and 
 the L's. Spr. are... to be continued in 
 [Christ's'] eh. to the end of the world," 
 &c., and from chap. 3", the words, 
 "the Sjir... was instituted ... to be ob- 
 served in his churches," <fec., and said, 
 "There is not a word as to exchiding a 
 person who has not been actually bap- 
 tized ; and... the Appendix says it is left 
 open." 
 
 Sir H. C. said, that an extract, read 
 by him from the Appendix, showed that 
 the messengers did not, as Mr. Kiffin at 
 a former period had done, object to hear 
 persons who had not been baptized, 
 preach. He said also [see p. 58], that 
 if they referred to those cgnx., when 
 they said that, as to " entire cmn. in 
 God's house, ...we (as well as others) are 
 not at a fiill accord among ourselves," 
 &c. ; then it "is a confession that dif- 
 ferent cgns. among them take different 
 views, yet that they were all Pr. Bpt. 
 cgns. ...My learned fi'iend, Mr. Roundell 
 Palmer, .said .. [that] those words may 
 only refer to the conscientious views of 
 individuals' in the cgn....I should have 
 said. ..that clearly could not be the case ; 
 for what they are speaking of is the 
 practice of the chs. and not the particu- 
 lar views of individuals.'' * 
 
 Sir H. C. said, that Mr. Kiffin, who 
 opposed open cmn., was one who signed 
 the Circular Letter convoking this as- 
 sembly, and that " it is natural to pre- 
 sume" he took part in it. 
 
 This cfsn., he observed omitted the 
 statement made by the Westminster 
 Cfsn. (on which it was founded), that 
 baptism is to be used "for admission into 
 the visible ch..'' 
 
 '• The fifth edn. [of this cfsn.] was 
 published in 1720,. ..bringing it very near 
 the time of the trust-deed in question."! 
 " The Hanserd Knollys' Society, a so- 
 ciety greatly looked up to by the Bap- 
 tists, an Antiquarian Society.. .reprinted 
 [it] ..in 1854." 
 
 4. The Orthodox Creed of 1678. 
 Aft^ following Mr. Gould's Ans. in 
 alleging this to be a "Local Cfsn. of 
 cgns. of Particular Bpts.," Sir H., on re- 
 ferring to Crosby s History, found it 
 stated to be a General Bpt. Cfsn,, and 
 said, " if it was [so,] we have nothing to 
 say about it. Jf [it was] a Particular 
 
 * See proof to the contrary in the passage 
 itself, — "freedom in our S2nrit^;" and Mr. 
 Palmer's Reply. — Ed. 
 
 t 1693 is tliR hist time tliat a General As- 
 sembly recognized this cfsn., Ivimey I. 533, 
 536. Mere booksellers' edns. are proof of no- 
 thing l)ut its circulation. Ed. 
 
 Bpt. Cfsn., ...it must be either made in 
 ignorance of" that of 1G77, or " as a mani- 
 festo against it.":J: 
 
 5. The Confession of Assembly of 
 1689. Gould Ans. L 79—82. Sir H. C. 
 after stating that two persons were pre- 
 sent in that assembly from this cgu., 
 " concurring in.. .that cfsn. ;...Mr. Austine, 
 the pastor,... and Mr. Flatman, the minis- 
 ter," said, " although I again say.. ..that 
 not even their concurrence would hind 
 this cgn., yet I take their concurrence, 
 and the statement of the whole of this 
 body at the time, as contemporaneous 
 evidence of what was understood at that 
 time to be the doctrines that should be 
 held by Pr. Bpt. cgns." 
 
 He next read the first and second Pre- 
 liminary declarations of the Assembly, in 
 which they say, "Wherein one ch. differs 
 from another,, .in point of communion. . 
 we leave [them] to their own liberty," 
 &c. This Sir H. C. interpreted to mean, 
 " If we find any church which does not 
 agree with us, which does not walk with 
 regai-d to cmn. as we say they ought to 
 walk, [we do not say] they are not a Pr. 
 Bpt. ch. at all." He noticed "the title 
 which this Assembly gave themselves ;" 
 that is, " The ministers and messengers 
 of... baptized cgns... denying Arminian- 
 ism ;" and said, " I believe their object" 
 in publishing this cfsn. " was to testify 
 to the world, and to satisfy all other 
 Christians ..what it was they professed," 
 and "in [it] one of the things they tell 
 [them] is : — We do not insist on strict 
 cmn. ;...some cgns. do it, some do not, 
 each must take its own liberty." || He 
 said that Mr. Palmei''s remark, as to the 
 Appendix of 1677, that the views of 
 indiriducds were there referred to, could 
 not apply to the above preliminaries ; 
 for these said, " wherein one church 
 differs from another,. .in point of cmn."§ 
 
 Sir H. C. then read Mr. Gould's state- 
 
 I It did not differ from that of 1677, ex- 
 cept in clearness and fulness of expression. 
 See, for proof that tbe Cfsn. of 1677 affirms 
 that of 1646, which says, that persons ought 
 to be baptized before they partake of the L's. 
 Spr., Mr. Palmer'^s Reply, and p. 86, pli. 9. 
 
 II Tliey adhered to the strict Cfsn. of 1646. 
 And Sir H. admits that tbe strict chs. did 
 " insist on strict cmn." within themselves. Ed. 
 
 § But no j)i'oof was given, or seems to 
 exist, that the rule of ami. on which any one 
 of these churches did then differ from tbe rest, 
 was the rule of admitting all believers to cinn. 
 It is proved that other diiferenoes in point of 
 cmn. did exist ; in respect, for inst.<ince, of lay- 
 ing on of hands, keeping the .Jewish Sabbath, 
 &c. Sec Mr. Palmer's Reply. Ed. 
 
109 
 
 ment, that some who in 1G89 signed the 
 approval of this cfsu., were " ministers 
 or messengers of cgns. of Pr. Bpts. prac- 
 tising open membership or open cmn." 
 
 Mr. Palmeh. I am not aware of any 
 evidence in support of that." Sir H. C. 
 said, " There is distinct evidence on the 
 point ..I will give your Honour one [in- 
 stance], and one is as good as twenty." 
 
 Master of the Rolls. "I do not 
 know that one is as good as twenty. I 
 think the more you can give me the 
 better." 
 
 Sir H. C. " At any rate I will give 
 your Honour one, Mr. Thomas Vaux, 
 who was at that time pastor of Broad- 
 mead ch., in Bi'istol, which we show to 
 have been a ch. practising open cmn." 
 
 Mr. 11. Palmer. " That does not ap- 
 pear. It varied." 
 
 [The Court rose]. 
 
 Second day, Tuesday, May 1, 1860. 
 
 Sir H. C. in proof that the Broadmead 
 ch. practised mixed cmn. in 1689, re- 
 ferred to Mr. Norton's Afft. 1. 8, 34, and 
 particularly his statement that it " had 
 since 1733 been strict." He said, •' I will 
 take that as implying an admission of 
 that which we state, that before 1733 it 
 was an open cmn. ch.'' * 
 
 " Sir, 1 have done with the cfsns." t 
 
 II. Evidence from the history of 
 Baptist churches. 
 
 Sir H. C, first, under this division, read 
 almost all the following paragraphs — 
 
 « That is, Counsel had no proof, and was 
 glad to rest upon the hope that Air. Norton 
 might have meant to admit that the ch. was 
 mixed in 168U. Mr Norton, in these words, 
 hud no such intention. He was speaking 
 solely of the state of the church after 1733. 
 Ed. 
 
 t These cfsns. were adduced, it will be re- 
 membered, to prove that churches practising 
 open cmn. in the L's. fcipr. onli/, (not in ■mem- 
 bership, for that is said to bo distinct) were 
 called cgns. of Particular Baptists. But what 
 support has even that proposition, (though in- 
 sufficieut, if proved, to show a right to sub- 
 vert the constitution of this ch.) received from 
 these cfsns. ? Open cmn. in the L's. Spr., as 
 distinct from memtiership, is the practice in- 
 troduced at Norwich. But the churches here 
 brought forward, — Air. Spilsbery's and that at 
 Broadmead, are not even alleijed by counsel 
 tn have practised open cmn. in the L's. >Spr. 
 Oft///, but in full membership also. More than 
 that; no proof is given that even these 
 two churches, at the time when they are 
 said to have been recognized as c(jns. of 
 Particular Baptists, did actually practise, as 
 they are alleged to have done, mixed member- 
 ship. Thus far, therefore, the case has en- 
 tirely broken down. Ed. 
 
 14, 18, 21 to 49, inclusive, 86 and 87, of 
 Ans. I. by deft. Gould, and made a few 
 remarks on them in passing. He spoke 
 of this ans. as having, " by the great 
 care, pains, and ability of [his] learned 
 friend,'' Mr. Marten, ''succinctly em- 
 bodied [their] view." 
 
 [The substance of these phs., will be 
 found at pages 53 — 59, preceding, and 
 needs not to be repeated here.] 
 
 The chief remarks of Sir H. C. upon 
 them were these. On ph. 14, which says 
 that Mr. Spilsbery's was " the^jvs'^ cgn. of 
 Pr. Bpts. in London," he said, "on that 
 point. I believe, there is no diflerence." J 
 On ph. 18, which relates to Mr. Tombes : 
 " 1 accept ray friend Mr. Palmer's ob- 
 servation, that your Honour is not to 
 take what happened in early times, when 
 there was a transition from membership 
 of the Oil. of England into this separate 
 body,. ..as the view of the Baj^tist body... 
 We shall see how far the practice was 
 altered afterwards." On ph. 21, he said, 
 his Honour was "to look at [this] defi- 
 nition of OPEN membership as distinct 
 from [that] afterwards given of open 
 CMN ," II and that the ch. at Norwich — 
 " our ch., does not wish to go to that ex- 
 tent." On phs. 21—23, that " Mr. Spils- 
 bery was spoken of at that time as 
 differing from some of his own way." 
 On ph. 27, that the words of Mr. Tombes 
 meant that entire separation from other 
 Christians, was " not a general rule, only 
 the practice of some persons." § That 
 ph. 34 "forbids us to draw any strict 
 analogy between what the practice of a 
 ch. may be which looks on baptism as a 
 sacrament, and the p)ractice of a cgn. of 
 this kind, which looks on bapti.sm merely 
 as an ordinance, just like preacJdag and 
 prayer." Also that defts. say " there was 
 
 t But ph. 13 of the same Ans. says that 
 there was a mixed ch., of which Mr. S. How 
 a Pr. Bpt., was pastor, as early as 1G22. 
 Therefore, according to Mr. Gould's own show- 
 ing, Mr. Spilsbery's ch., which history says 
 was really the first Pr, Bpt. ch., could not 
 have been such a mixed church as Mr. How's 
 was, for then it could not have been the first 
 of its kind. Therefore Mr, Spil.sbery's must 
 have been an unmixed ch., and Mr. How's 
 mixed ch., was evidently not deemed a Baptist 
 ch. at all. Ed. 
 
 II The term " Opeii communion," as used 
 by Jlr. Hall and his predecessors, applied to 
 membership as well as to the L's. Spr. Mr. 
 Gould's detinition, therefore, of open cmn. was 
 not accurate, as to the time in question. Ed. 
 
 § Mr. Tombes atlmits, that it was separatim 
 which was the general rule. He says that 
 " some are otherwise minded;'' that is, so?ne 
 persons are in favotu' of mixed cmn. Ed. 
 
110 
 
 a separate controversy about the lawful- 
 ness of hearing preaching by persons 
 who were not Baptists." On ph. 36, 
 which states that Mr. Spilsbery's oh. 
 changed from mixed to strict, and Mr. 
 Kiffin's from strict to mixed member- 
 ship : and that Mr. Spilsbery's " still 
 practises strict emu.," Sir H. C. said 
 that " iu 1856 the minister of the church 
 [Mr. Spilsbery's] published a Memorial." 
 Mr. R. Palmer said, it appeared " fx'om 
 much earlier documeuts that there is no 
 foundation" for the statement respecting 
 Mr. Spilsbeiy's church. The Master of 
 the Rolls also said, " We should know his 
 [the minister's] authoi'ity for believing 
 it, because he is speaking of a matter 
 that occuri'ed about a hundred years 
 ago." Sir H. C. said, the minister 
 " speaks of his authority as derived from 
 the ch. bks. He says : — ' No change of 
 doctrine can be traced in the ch. bks., 
 throughout all the histoi-y of the ch., 
 unless the change from open to strict 
 cmn., might be so considered ;' thereby 
 implying that he finds iu the ch. bks. 
 that change." * 
 
 * This implication, instead of being proofs 
 implies that iw pj-oo/ could be given. Mr. 
 Gould and foiuteen others have stated on oath 
 that Mr. Spilsbery's ch., " for many years 
 from its formation practised open member- 
 ship," and is "now meeting in VVhitechapel, 
 Middlesex." Mr. Stovels ch., is, no doubt, 
 referred to, which met formerly in Prescot 
 Street, Goodman's Fields. Mr. Crosby states, 
 IV. 327, that the Prescot Street chm-ch was 
 formed by persons (perhaps they were a ma- 
 jority, Ivimey III. 543), " who came off 
 from" Mr. Spilsbery's ch., and that " the re- 
 claming part continued some years together, 
 but,...iu the end were necessitated to dissolve 
 their church-state." Supposing, however, 
 that the minister of the Whitechapel ch., has 
 seen some of the ch. bks. of Mr. Spilsbery's 
 ch., and knows their contents ; even then the 
 fact that no prooj'xs given from them, implies 
 that they contain none, Defts. refer to Mr. 
 Spilsbery's church as a special example ; they 
 need proof exceedingly, and yet can only say 
 that a certain minister, implied in 1856, that 
 there was such proof. The minister referred 
 to, no doubt, took counsel of Mr. Stovel, who 
 in a letter to The Freeman., dated Aug. 16, 
 1858, thus urged a search, which has led 
 to this result. The only wise course to 
 be adi)pted is for all parties ... to collect 
 the facts and the evidence which bear upon 
 the case." On this point, it seems that by the 
 aid iif all parties, nvtldng has been colkcted. 
 And Mr. Gould noiu admits, that " We have 
 ■)io history of this cgn., subsequently to its 
 formation, durini/ the pastorate of Mr. Spils- 
 Jcr^," which, he tliinks, closed "about 1676." 
 See " Open Cmn ," 1860, p. cxxv. Yet he 
 
 On phs. 38 — 41, as to Mr. Jessky, Mr. 
 D. King, and Mr. Anthony Palmer, 
 Sir H. C. said nothing of importance. 
 
 On ph. 42, as to '"the reason" why 
 Mr. Bunyan's chapel " was registered aa 
 a Congregational... a.nA. ..not a Baptist 
 place of worship," he said that the Bap- 
 tists were then called " by the State" 
 Anabaptists, and he believed " were not 
 recognized, and would not have been 
 tolerated." Mr. Palmer handed his 
 learned friend Mr. OflFor's edn. of 
 Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, opened at 
 p. 62. of the Introduction, as proof "that 
 it was the practice to register Baptist 
 cgns. as Anabaptists, and was done very 
 largely at that time." Sir Hugh said that 
 the Information and Bill admitted that 
 " Congregational is the generic term un- 
 der which a Baptist ch. ranks." t After 
 reading aloud Mi'. Offor's statement of 
 the fact, and his opinion that the ch. 
 " could not fairly be called Anabapt.," 
 Sir Hugh said, "Mr. Offor... evidently... 
 takes a very strong view, as these gen- 
 tlemen do." Mr. Palmer said, " Mr. 
 OflFor is a very strong advocate of opjen 
 cmn." Sir Hugh assuming this to be so, 
 said, " we might all say that // you find 
 a church ^vhich has in it persons who are 
 haptized in infancy, and who recognize 
 Pcedohaijtism ; if they are in the church 
 as 'members, that is not a church, which, in 
 the strict sense of the term, is to be called 
 an Anabaptist ch." J 
 
 Sir Hugh I'ead the title of a declara- 
 tion made in 1647, " ' by Congregational 
 societies in and about.. London; as well 
 of those commonly called Anabap'fists, 
 as others,' — that is, [he said] of Inde- 
 pendents." H. K. Sy's Cfsns., p. 273. 
 
 On ph. 43, stating that J. Ryland, 
 D. Turner, and R. Robinson were 
 " Particular Bpts.,'' &c., Sir Hugh said, 
 " About which there is no denial that I 
 am aware of" || Booth, he said, " was 
 one of the most celebrated advocates of 
 strict cmn. in the last cent." 
 
 and the fomieen witnesses, made oath that it 
 " practised open membership" at that time. 
 
 t The Information admitted that Baptist 
 churches are congregational in their govern- 
 in«nt, not in name. Also Norton Aift. I. 9. 
 
 t This denies what Sir Hugh had contended 
 for; namely, that mixed chs., such as he de- 
 clared those of Mr. Spilsbery and Broadmead 
 to be, were really Pr. Bpt, churches. 
 
 II Plaintiffs deny that Mr. Robinson was a 
 Particular Baptist in later life ; Norton, AfFt. 
 I. 32. His " Doctrine of Toleration applied 
 to. ..free cmn. was "first printed in 1781," 
 after Mr. Booth had written iu 1778. He 
 died in 1790. 
 
HI 
 
 On ph, 44, relating to the cessation of 
 the controversy from the time of Robin- 
 son to that of Hall, in 1815, he said, 
 that " while the controrergt/ slumbered, 
 those chiu'ches which adopted open cmn., I 
 went on practisiwj [it]." I 
 
 On phs. 45 — 48, the last two stating 
 that open and strict chs. had " always" | 
 united in Ass'ciativns as " cgns. of Pr. 
 Bpts.," Sir Hugh said, " I do not find 
 any attempt on the other side at meeting 
 those four last phs. by evidence." * 
 
 On ph. 49 as to Missionai-y and other 
 Societies, and phs. 86 and 87 as to changes 
 in c(jns. in respect of cmn., most of them 
 recent, he made no material remark. 
 
 Sir Hugh referred to "Anabaptism," &c., 
 1647, by R. tiaillie, " a Presbyterian ;" 
 and though his Honour said that state- 
 ments by opiwnents, were, as evidence, 
 "really worth nothing;" Sir H. C. read 
 an extract, which says of the Baptists : 
 " these two sacraments [baptism and the 
 L's. Spr.], ordinarily they conjoin ;...and 
 some of their greatest doctors hold it 
 nowise incongruous to admit persons to 
 the L's. table before they be baptized." 
 
 As to the "prevalence of. ..open cmn." 
 in Mr. Booth's time ; his learned friend, 
 Mr. Palmer, had thought that he found 
 "some admission" by Mr. Hall [Reply, 
 Pref. xii.] that " the churches which 
 practised open cmn.f had either entirely 
 died out, or were. ..insignificant. ..if in- 
 deed they deserved the title of Baptist 
 chs. at all." Sir Hugh quoted a passage 
 from the same work, 14 pages onward, 
 in which Mr. Hall ascribed to Mr. Booth 
 a " disposition to enlarge the number of 
 his jDartizans," and said that free-cmn. 
 Baptists in Mr. Booth's time were " a 
 respectable part of" the Baptists. 
 
 Sir Hugh did " not expect to find very 
 full admissions on this subject from Mr. 
 Norton, ...but any admissions from him 
 [were] valuable." He said of the follow- 
 ing statements by him : " 1 take those 
 — as admissions, coupled even with the 
 denial of the general statement we make, 
 — as admissions, after which there can be 
 no doubt it is established in this suit, 
 that there always have been, and are now 
 churches practising certainly free-cmn., 
 
 • The statements were not proved, and if 
 they could be proved, were wholly uisujjiclent 
 to justify the destractioii of what was deemed 
 by tliis church its sacred and inviolable con- 
 stitution. Ed. 
 
 t No proof is given that even a single ch. 
 then existed wliich practised " open cmn.," as 
 used by defts. to denote open cmn. at the table, 
 as distinguished from it in ftdl membership. 
 Ed. 
 
 perhaps also as he says practising free- 
 memhershij}, which are considered to be 
 and are enrolled in the general list of 
 Pr. Bpt. chs." Mr. N., he said, had not 
 attempted to controvert "the summary of 
 the Baptist cgns. at present ;'' J [phs. 86, 
 87 ?] He admitted Broadmead to be 
 open " \ip to 1733." || In his afft. I. 22, 
 " he admits that Langham, an open cmn. 
 ch., was a Pr. Bpt. ch." Mr. Palmer, 
 " We do not concur in your view of it." 
 Sir H. C, "I say it is necessarily in- 
 volved, and that where you find a mem- 
 ber passed from one to the other by 
 letters of dismission, it proves the two 
 chs. belong to the same body."§ "The 
 only qualification that Mr. Norton at- 
 tempts to give to our statement that 
 there were open cmn. chs. at the time of 
 the trust-deed, [is this ; in afft. I. ph. 33]; 
 he says : — ' the few free-cmn. chs. which 
 existed in 1746, did all, so far as my 
 knowledge extends, admit those whom 
 they deemed to be true believers, not 
 merely to the L's. Spr. ; but to full ch- 
 cmn.' That is to say, they were not 
 merely free-cmn. but free-membei'shii^ 
 chs., . . . [an] admission that there were a 
 fevf free-cmn. chs. at that time."** 
 
 Sir Hugh i-ead Mr. Norton's statement 
 in Afft. I. ph. 28, [p. 80, preceding], as 
 to the Model Deed of the Committee of 
 the Baptist Building Fund, formed in 
 1824, and said that " these persons, to 
 
 t No admission whatever was made as to 
 the truth of the summary. Silence ignored it 
 as unimportant to the issue. Ed. 
 
 II No where admitted. See p. 109, pre- 
 ceding, note * 
 
 § This act of dismission in 1836, in 3Ir. 
 Brock's time, was referred to by ]\lr. Norton 
 as protested against by strict members, on the 
 ground that there was " danger [that it] 
 would conduct... eventually to the introduction 
 of open cmn." Mr. Norton, therefore, did not 
 admit, he never meant to admit, that the dis- 
 mission was right, nor that the mixed member- 
 ship ch. at Langham was, strictly speaking, a 
 " cgn. of Pr. Baptists." What Mr. Norton 
 said was, that " all pr'esent" at the ch. meet- 
 ing, even the innovating members, ^'■admitted 
 that the ch. at Langham was not ' of the same 
 faith and order' as this strict cmn. ch." 
 
 ** Mr. Norton did not admit that even one 
 ch. practised opeii cmn., in the sense in which 
 tliat tenn is used by defts. ; that is, to denote 
 that it is practised at the L's. table only. This 
 is important, because if all were mixed as to full 
 membership, the only provision necessary in a 
 trust-deed, to prevent the practice of free- 
 cmn,, was to define that ch.-membership 
 should be Hmited to Pr. Bpts. ; such a pro- 
 vision being then, of necessity, understood to 
 require that the Us. ^pr., as peculiar to mem- 
 bership, should follow the same rule. Ed. 
 
11; 
 
 whom Mr. Norton appeals as great ex- 
 positors of Baptist practices, [admit] that 
 a ch. wliicb practises opeu emu. would 
 still be a ch. of the Pr. Bpt. deuomiua- 
 tion :" — fur [though thoy say that if " it 
 is desired that uubaptized persons shall 
 be admitted to emu. and membersliip, or 
 either of them," it is "necessary" that 
 besides the words "Society of... Pr ... 
 Bpts. ; " there should be introduced a 
 clause which would ''' elearly express" 
 that intention ; a clause such as this?, that 
 " it shall be lawful for the members,... 
 for the time being,... to admit" to the 
 L's. Spr. only, or to membership, persons 
 who " shall not be of the denomination 
 aforesaid,]" yet the Fund being [Sir Hugh 
 said for ehurchcs, but the rules say] for 
 " places of worsltip, belonging to the Pr. 
 ...Bpt. denomination," this is "conclu- 
 sive proof,'' that the committee esteem 
 even such a ch. to be a Pr. Bj^t. ch.* 
 
 Sir Hugh asked how Mr. Norton could 
 reconcile what he says as to that Fund, 
 with his statement in ph. 32, that " a ch. 
 constituted and regulated upon the prin- 
 ciple of free-cmn., is essentially different 
 from a cgn. of Pr. Bpts." t 
 
 He next referred to " The Baptist 
 Fund," founded in 1717, and read the 
 statement made in common by the three 
 Treasurers, Messrs. Smith, Lush, and 
 Allen, [.see p. 95, preceding] " as to what 
 their practice is in giving aid from the 
 Fund;" namely, that "mixed cmn...has 
 always been regarded by the managers 
 as con.sistent with the designation of such 
 cgns. as Pi". Bpts," and " has alwaj-s been 
 
 * Mr. Norton's belief was that mo.st of the 
 members of this committee were in favour of 
 free-cmn., and he appealed to them in proof 
 that even such a committee had admitted that 
 a ch. was nut entitled by km to introduce the 
 unbaptized to the L's. Spr , in a chapel the 
 trust-deed of which used no other words to 
 define the trust, than such as declare it to be 
 for "A Society... called Pr. Bpts." Ed. 
 
 t Sir Hugh admits that a mixed memher- 
 s?ii2) ch. is not, "in the strict sense of the 
 term, a Bpt. ch." Suppose, therefore, that Mr. 
 Norton regarded a ch. which practises open 
 cmn. at the table only, and strict cmn. as to full 
 membership, or which at the L's. table prac- 
 tises both open and strict cmn., as a ch. which 
 is not " regulated upon" the principle of " free- 
 cmn.," but which is, on that point, wanting 
 in principle altogether; then the above ad- 
 mission of Sir Hugh justifies Mr. Norton's 
 32nd ph. The Committee of the Building 
 Fund evidently supposed that a deed limiting 
 use to " a Society of Pr. Bpts ," might be held 
 to exclude free-cmn. both in membership and 
 the L's. Sjir. Ed. 
 
 t The original or early Rules of this Fund 
 (Exbt. K. 3), say in Eule L , " that this Fund 
 
 treated by [them] as iu no way affecting 
 the applications of. ..cgns.'' or " persons," 
 for exhibitions from the Fund.i 
 
 Sir Hugh said that the treasurers "do 
 not anj, We apply the fund to the benefit 
 of a person who has never been bap- 
 tized ; but, we apply it to the cgn. [as 
 having] liberty.. .to admit to... the L's. 
 Spr. the " unbaptized ;" II and he main- 
 
 sh:dl be for... those chs. only, that go under the 
 denomination of Particular Baptists," and a 
 Nota Bene defines Pr. Bpts, to be persons 
 immersed, and who hold the Trinity, Pr. 
 Kedn.," &.C., " according to the Cfsn. [ofj 
 1G89." Eule XiV. sajs, as to "the distri- 
 butions of this Fund," " no cgn. which is not 
 a rcyular c/;.,... shall be con.siderod,"' and tlie 
 rule as to young ministers, required that 
 they sRould be " baptized," and " mem- 
 bers of Pr. Bpt. chs." Most certainly Strict 
 Baptists do not regard mixed w?em/;e?'.<A!)j chs., 
 (and these are the only open-cmn. rhurclies 
 proved to have existed in 1717 or 1746), as 
 reyularclis- The known sentiments of Strict 
 Bpts. are, that open cnm. is an irreyidarity 
 which they must not tolerate in ch. cnni. 
 The nine " Pr. Bpt. chs., which had the right 
 of choosing the managers, towards the close of 
 that century were. Carter Lane, J. liifipon, 
 pastor ; Cripplegate, J. Iteynolds ; Dean 
 Street, W. Button; Devonshire Square, T. 
 Thomas; Goodman's Fields, A. Booth; Graf- 
 non Street, J. JMartin ; Maze Pond, J. Dore ; 
 Unicorn Yard, D. Williams; and Wild Street, 
 Dr. S. Stennett ? (See Rule II., Exbt. K. 3). 
 
 In 1719, two -years after the Fund was 
 founded, the managers absolutely refused to 
 permit the ch. in Paul s Alky, liarbican, to 
 join in the support and management of the 
 Fund: a church which had not chosen, Mr. 
 Ivimey says, "to be recognized as being either 
 Armmian or Calvinist." Compare vol. iv. 
 200, with iiL 154, 165. _ Afterwards that ch. 
 had united, in 1705, with the Association of 
 Pr. Bpt. chs. ; but it is evident from the dis- 
 cussions at the foundation of this Fund in 
 1717, that the founders, from the first, in- 
 tended to exclude it, and any ch. which was 
 not strictly and truly a Particular Bpt. ch., 
 from connection with the Fund : and as every 
 mixed-cmn. ch. tolerates cmn. ivith Arminians 
 either in the L's- Spr. or in full membership, 
 how could the founders have deemed such a 
 ch . to be a Pr. Bpt. ch. as to doctrine, more 
 than in respect of baptism ? Ed. 
 
 II Only regular baptized chs., and persons 
 baptized, each holding that Christ saves " all 
 those for whom" he died a "sacrifice," are 
 objects of this Fund ; the managers nmst not 
 apply it to the benefit of tlie unbaptized. But 
 at Norwich a part of the benefits of the trust, 
 namely, the right of attending the L's. Spr. 
 on the first Sunday of the month, and at other 
 times, is taken away from the Strict Baptist 
 members, to whom it is acknowledged to be- 
 long, and is given to any believers unbaptized. 
 Ed. 
 
113 
 
 tained that the extract which Mr. Palmer 
 had read " from the orUi'tnal rules," did 
 not throw " doubt on the propriety of 
 that application of tlie Fund." One of 
 the rules referred to the Cfsn. of 1689, 
 "as its interpreter,'' which Cfsn. "said, 
 on the face of it," that mixed cmn. is 
 " consistent with the continuance of a 
 Pr. Bpfc. cgn."* 
 
 Sir Hugh then referred to phs. 1 — 31 
 of Mi\ Gould's second afift., [see pp. 89, 
 90, preceding] as to Associa,ttons,f and 
 ph. 32, as to Societies. 
 
 He next read most of the phs. of the 
 afft. by Mr. Crisp and thirteen others, 
 [see Afft. X. p. 93, preceding] ; but not, 
 it is believed, ph. 19, which alleges that 
 Pr. Bpts. regard jirayer and praise as 
 "entitled to be called ch. ads, in every 
 sense in which the cmn. of the L's. Spr. 
 is so." 
 
 He then said, " Sir, I there close that 
 part of the evidence." I 
 
 III. Controversial wkiting.s on the 
 
 SUBJECT. 
 
 Sir Hugh first admitted that the con- 
 troversialists on both sides " affirm, in 
 their treatment of the argument, that 
 those cgns. who do not agree with them, 
 riolate the laivs of God, the priiiriples of 
 the gospel, [and] every consideration... o/ 
 orderly ch.-f/orernment ;" but said, that 
 if, though this " controversy has raged, 
 the body of the Pr. Bpts. has still been 
 one body, ...the whole I contend for is 
 conceded." II 
 
 * The Cfsn. of 1689 does not say tfiis. 
 But in ch. viii. sees. 5, 6, 8, it does say that 
 " to all those for whom Clirist obtained eternal 
 redemption' — for whom he '■'■satisfied the 
 justice of God, [and] procured reconciliation," 
 or atonement, by paying " the price of re- 
 demption" when he died ; — tliat to a// these, he 
 communicates that redemption. So that 
 wliatever part of the interest of this F'und is 
 devoted to the education of students at Re- 
 gent's Park or elsewhere in the sentiment 
 which Dr. Angus and Dr. Davies declare in 
 their aft'ts. to be pr. redu., is applit^d in vio- 
 lation of the rules of the Fund. — Ed. 
 
 t What actual proof was given by Mr. 
 Gonld that even one ch. comprised in the 
 associations in 17-lG, practised mixed cmn ? 
 Uroadmead was then strict. — Ed. 
 
 I A close examination of tliis second part 
 of the evidence, will show that it is as destitute 
 of proof, even on the point for which it is 
 adduced, namely, that in 17-16, there were 
 chs. which practised open cmn. in the L's. Spr. 
 only, and that these vvere recognized to be 
 cgii.s. of Pr. Bpts., as the first part was. — Ed. 
 
 II It is scarcely credible that it should be 
 gravely as.sumed that a church declaring the 
 will of God (as understood by itself) to be in- 
 
 Sir HunH oTijpcted to the quotations 
 from T. Grantham, Dr. Wall, and Mr. 
 Neal, as authorities " oiofside" the Pr. 
 Bpt. body. He said this " point of prac- 
 tice, ought to be decided, as your Honour 
 has already intimated, by the authorities 
 in the inside of the ch." 
 
 He denied that Mr. Bunyan speaks of 
 " the brethren of the baptized way" as 
 a " body to whom he does not belong," § 
 and that a passage on p. 613, vol. II., 
 which he said Mr. Palmer had quoted 
 to prove the contrary, did prove it. Sir 
 Hugh read from " I speak not," to 
 " of saints." [The passage really quoted 
 by Mr. Palmer was not this, but one from 
 pp. 616, 617, "the brethren of the bap- 
 tized way have sought to break us in 
 pieces," &c.] Of thi.s and another pas- 
 sage at p. 618, showing that Bunyan's 
 practice was called by his opponents 
 "singular," Sir Hugh said, "anything 
 more absurd... as instances that Banyan 
 was. ..contending for views inconsistent 
 with the tenets of the Bpt. body, could 
 not well be conceived." ^ 
 
 He then read part of ph. 32, of 
 Mr. Norton's first afft. ; said that Mr. 
 Booth's reference to Faustus Socinus as 
 " the first open comniunionist," was 
 " irony and raillery," and that to speak 
 of it as " a correct statement," was to 
 tiu"n that irony " into a solemn assertion 
 of a matter of fact."** 
 
 violahle law, should be supposed to be indif- 
 ferent whether that law wei-e violated or not, 
 and to be satisfied if it retahied the name 
 of Pr. Bpt., even though under that name, its 
 constitution as fired by God, should be vio- 
 lated. Is it the fact that godly people care 
 not for the violation of God's vvill, if it is done 
 under a certain name ? Or might it be as- 
 sumed that i-roperty left to a certain person 
 of the name of Smith, was duly inherited, if 
 instead of that Mr. Smith, any person of the 
 name of Smith actually possessed it.? To 
 common people this seems to be neither re- 
 ligion nor morality, neither law nor equity. — 
 Ed 
 
 § Reference to Mr. Bimyan's works will 
 show that Sir Hugh was mistaken. — Ed. 
 
 IT Wlien disproof is impossible, wl at then ? 
 May it be suppo.sed that to say a thing is ab- 
 surd or aimless, that it is trash or ridiculous, 
 that proof is needless, or the like, is some- 
 times deemed lawful in order to hide the 
 defect.— Ed. 
 
 ** The principle or ride of Mr. Hall and 
 other Trinitarian advocates of free cmn., is the 
 same as that of Socinus, and other Socinian 
 advocates of it. Socinus said, " Satis est 
 dummodo in 'is Concordes simus, sine quibiis 
 Christiana pietas con.sistere non potest. — It is 
 enough if we agree in those things, without 
 
114 
 
 He referred to the words of Mr. Hall, 
 given ill Dr. Gregory's Life of him, on 
 the authority of Mr. Balmer, to whom 
 Mr. Hall addressed them; that is, "I 
 believe iirmly in general redemption;... 
 I consider the fact that Christ died for 
 all men," &c. Sir Hugh said, that dur- 
 ing Mr. Hall's " whole life, he was the 
 minister of a Pr. Bpt. cgn., and would 
 therefore have been committing a fraud, 
 in the mildest sense of the term, if he 
 held the doctrine of general redn., in op- 
 position to the doctrine he was expected 
 to preach." * Sir Hugh spoke of this 
 part of the afft. as "ridiculous" and 
 *' trash." 
 
 He noticed the evidence given that Mr. 
 R. Robinson became a Socinian, and 
 that Dr. James Foster advocated cmn. 
 with Sociiiians, &c. ; but did not at- 
 tempt to prove the contrary. He merely 
 said that such statements were ' ' aim- 
 less," and " end in nothing." 
 
 Of ph. 6, in Mr. Norton's second afft., 
 [see p. 86], which states that each side, 
 on the cmn. question, has held that its 
 practice "was made incumbent iij the will 
 of God, and not left ope7i to the pleasure 
 of men," Sir Hugh said, " / entirely 
 concur in that...l agree ; in that sense it 
 was not an 02>en question." 
 
 Sir Hugh then read two or three pas- 
 from Mr. R. Hall's works, to 
 
 which Christian piety cannot consist." Works, 
 I. 737. Mr. Hall and others ditiered from 
 him merely as to the ajyjlication of this 
 principle, — merely as to what those tilings are 
 •without which piety cannot consist. Mr. 
 Booth no doubt meant that what he said of 
 Faustus Socinuswas really "matter of fact." 
 —Ed. 
 
 * No proof is given that Mr. Hall did not 
 hold the doctrine that Christ died for all men. 
 This doctrine is one which deft. Gould and his 
 witnesses call particular redn. The difter- 
 ence between Mr. Hall and them is merely 
 this ; that Mr. Hall calls this doctrine correctly 
 general redemption. But the ability of those 
 who hold that view, to use Particular Baptist 
 chapels, and to share in the benefits of the 
 Pr. Bpt. Fund, and other endowments, might 
 have been much affected by a decision of the 
 Master of the Eolls, that the doctrine that 
 Christ died for all, is that of _ yeneral 
 redn. Deits have no express decision from 
 the Master of the Rolls, on that point, hut 
 their own leading counsel has given one in- 
 stead. It is in eft'ect this, that it is a fraud for 
 those who hold the position of I'articular Bap- 
 tists, to do so and yet maintain this doctrine 
 of general redemption : — that Christ died for 
 all men. It is singular that their efforts 
 should have drawn from their own counsel 
 such a declaration as this. — Ed. 
 
 " show exactly that was the issue then 
 raised." One passage contained the re- 
 commendation, quoted at pp. 7 and 8, 
 preceding, that if there is a majority in 
 favour of free-cmn, it should introduce 
 it, and let the strict members " receive 
 the L's. Spr. apart." At Mr. Palmer's 
 request he read also the statement that 
 thus " a silent revolution may be efl'ected 
 in our chs.," &c. Reply to Kn., p. xviii. 
 
 The learned counsel next referred 
 to the cross-examination of pltfs.' wit- 
 nesses, remarking as he read parts of the 
 depositions of the ministers that they 
 denied that Mr. Kinghoru, or Dr. Owen, 
 or Andrew Fuller, held the doctrine of pr. 
 redn. ; and saying " how very tight [as to 
 cmn ] the reins would be drawn, if these 
 gentlemen only had their own way ;" for 
 they would not receive even a Pr. Bpt. 
 to cmn. with them, if he were a member 
 of a ch. which "admits the practice of 
 open cmn." 
 
 He then dismissed the subject of 
 evidence derived from controversial writ- 
 inr/s,\ by saying that " the mode in which 
 these gentlemen in cross-examination 
 speak, throws a light back on the way 
 in which the controversy was conducted 
 in past times." 
 
 IV. 7'/if history of tliis church. 
 
 Sir Hugh first referred to Mr. Gould's 
 Ans. I. phs. 88—92, and 104—109. [See 
 pp. 59 — 61, preceding]. 
 
 As to the Articles in the first ch.-hk., 
 he said, that in the 9th, defining the 
 " visible ch." to consist of " baptized be- 
 lievers," there is " no reference, in terms, 
 to the exclusion from the L's. Spr. of 
 uubaptized believers.''^ " We admit en- 
 tirely the definition here given," that is, 
 as to full membership. But the Con- 
 fessions, he said, to which he referred on 
 April 30, had " the very same definition," 
 and " expressly treat, as a question con- 
 sistent with those Cfsns., the admission 
 of unbaptized believers to... the L's. 
 Spr." 
 
 t It is obvious that in this third part there 
 is as little y^roo/' as in the parts preceding, 
 that chs. receiving the unbaptized to the L's. 
 Spr. o?di/, even existed in 1746. On the other 
 hand, the decisive point is admitted, that 
 strict cmn. has been held by its advocates to 
 be an inviolable law of God. — Ed. 
 
 t Art. 10. states that the L's. Spr. is " de- 
 livered to the ch.," which makes membership 
 in some ch. of baptized believers, necessary to 
 cmn. in the L's. Spr., and excludes from it 
 persons who are not baptized, and those 
 who, though baptized, are not members of 
 some such ch. Another remark which is 
 pressed on the attention by this admission, is 
 
115 
 
 Yet if tlie articles, he said, had re- 
 quired the exclusion of the unbaptized 
 from the L's. Spr., he would "have con- 
 tended that.. .it would have been per- 
 fectly competent for the cgn. ... after- 
 wards. ..to have said, we will now have 
 articles of a different kind.'' He main- 
 tained that in 1775 this cgn. " did con- 
 sider that it had perfect authority... to 
 put aside the whole of these articles, 
 with the exception of one of them." 
 
 In answer to Mr. Russell's challenge, 
 implymg that they " could not find any 
 where in this bk., mention of [unbap- 
 tized] persons received to cmn. at the 
 L's. Spr.," Sir Hugh said, " My answer 
 is, there is nothing whatever in the book 
 that is meant to bear on that subject,.., 
 [it] is silent." * 
 
 He then handed to his Honour the 
 first ch.-bk., that he might see that the 
 leaves containing the articles " were evi- 
 dently bound ujj subsequently to the 
 time the jjapers were written." But his 
 Honour said, " The water-mark is the 
 same on the fly leaves in the first part 
 and subsequent pages. Persons who are 
 skilled in those matters, would tell you 
 the date of the year of the i^aper which 
 
 has a pai-ticular water-mark This book 
 
 appears to have been bound on two dif- 
 ferent occasions. There are two backs 
 to it.'|-...It has all the appearance of 
 being perfectly bona fide." Sir Hugh 
 
 the self-contradiction involved in the defence. 
 It is in evidence that, by the defendants, /?«(?/« 
 is held to constitute essentially ch. membef- 
 ship; and church meinbershij), to entitle to 
 the L's. Spr. ; that churches composed chiefly 
 of the unbaptized are held to be true chs., 
 and their members rightful ch. -members; 
 that to become a member of such a ch. is 
 deemed a " more excellent way," than to be 
 a Strict Baptist (see p. 42, col. 1, preceding), 
 and that all this is required by God to be acted 
 on as law ; and yet counsel for these parties, 
 come forward and admit, fur the purpose of 
 securing the use of this chapel for their in- 
 consistent practice, that the ch. must be ex- 
 clusively composed of baptized members. Thus 
 admitting also, that if the said parties acted 
 m accordance witli what in the evidence they 
 are proved to hold, the original articles of this 
 ch., would, on tlieir own admission, declare in 
 the most express terms possible, their practice 
 to be unlawful. — Ed. 
 
 * As to strict cmn., it is not silent. See pp. 
 78, 79, preceding, and iMr. Palmer's Beply. Ld. 
 
 _t The ch. bks. of Baptist cgns. often con- 
 tained a record of the birth of the children of 
 the members. The removal of pages con- 
 taining these records to Somerset House, may 
 perhaps account for the second binding of this 
 book. Ed. 
 
 then took the artic'.es as admitted to 
 have been " evidently the rule of jirac- 
 tice at the time," but contended that 
 they " might be changed at any time," 
 and were " annihilated in 1775." 
 
 He then read phs. 104-109, of Mr. 
 Gould's Ans. 1. [see p. 61, preceding]. 
 
 His next subject was the view Mr. 
 Kinghorn appeared to take of what was 
 a Pr. Bpt. ch. when he was undecided as 
 to cmn. On this point. Sir Hugh re- 
 ferred to deft. Gould's Ans. II. phs. 63 — 
 71, [see p. 74, preceding] ; as i^roving 
 that then " it never occurred to his [Mr. 
 K's.] mind, to say that open cmn. would 
 be fatal to this ch. as a Pr. Bpt. ch. ;" 
 and that Mr. Kinghorn " thought it quite 
 consistent with his being a minister and 
 a member of the ch. of Pr. Bjjts., that 
 he might arrive at one conclusion or the 
 other." 
 
 Sir Hugh then read, or referred to most 
 of the succeeding phs. of deft. Gould's 
 ■2nd Ans., that is, from ph. 72, to the 
 end, [see pp. 74, 75, preceding], but 
 without making any remark, of import- 
 ance. 
 
 He next made comments " on some 
 examples," in Mr. Norton's AfFt. I. phs. 
 10, 14, 17, and 20, given, he said, by Mr. 
 Norton, "as instances... of discipline or 
 practice consistent with his view, and in- 
 consistent with ours." [See pp. 77 and 
 78, preceding]. 
 
 As to ph. 10, instances of exclusion 
 from the L's. Spr. and full membership, 
 including that of Mr. Lamkin for "plead- 
 ing for infant baptism," of Sarah I'aylor, 
 for going back to "general redn.," and 
 Mrs. Sexton for preferring " the New- 
 tonian doctrine," which. Sir Hugh said, 
 meant that of "Mr. Newton, an Inde- 
 pendent minister ;" he remarked that all 
 " those are instances ... [of] doctrines 
 contrary to this fundamental doctrine, or 
 ...of conduct which would be a disgrace 
 and a scandal to the ch." % 
 
 As to ph. 14, showing that 2^^'oof -was 
 required by this ch. that professed re- 
 pentance and faith were truli/ so. Sir 
 Hugh objected that all but one were 
 cases of proof required after " back- 
 sliding ;" and as to the fact that the ch. 
 " agreed there was a work of grace" in 
 Mary Beard, said that there is there, 
 
 t Exclusion from the L s. Spr. for not hold- 
 ing certahi views, is proof that to liold them 
 was deemed essential to cmn. in it ; and tliere- 
 fore these instances of exclusion from it, prove 
 that correct views of baptism and correct views 
 of pr. redn., were deemed by this ch. equ^illy 
 fundamental to cmn. in that ordinance. Ed. 
 H 2 
 
IIG 
 
 "merely the professiou of faith, which 
 we say is all that is required." * 
 
 As to ph. 1 7, giving proof that the " ch. 
 declined to permit persons to have emu. 
 with it," who assembled " among the 
 Quakers ;" who did not " agxee with [it] 
 in doctrine, worship, And. discipline ;'' or 
 w^ho gave countenance to worship coutvnry 
 to the ordinances of Christ ; Sir Hugh 
 said, " none of these entries refer to any- 
 thing but membei-ship." f 
 
 His HoKOUR said, " some of the en- 
 tries... seem to mention that they were 
 removed on what we should consider 
 very slight grounds." 
 
 Sir Hugh said, "No doubt the dis- 
 cipline is very strict." 
 
 As to ph. 20, Sir Hugh said, "Mr. 
 Norton sets out upon an argument which, 
 I think, so good a reasoner as he generally 
 is, would, on reflection, desire to with- 
 draw;. ..he says that [exclusion] means 
 they are excluded from everything in the 
 church, [including] cmn. in the L's. Spr. ; 
 ...wherein we agree ; but he infers from 
 that the most fallacious and inconse- 
 quential proposition, that the reception 
 of any person... to the L's. Spr. is, by a 
 converse of statement, a reception of him 
 into all the privileges of the ch., as 
 members.'^ 
 
 Sir Hugh thus summed up his argu- 
 
 * It seems, therefore, as if defts. meant to 
 contend for a right to receive, as Mr. Gould 
 declared himself willing to receive, " any man 
 wlio professes to be a believer," witliout judg- 
 ing him. See p. 45, col. 2, top. The minute 
 sliuws that the ch. required proof of a saving 
 change. Ed. 
 
 t But excluf^ion from membevsliip was ex- 
 clusion from all cnm., occasional, as well as 
 regular^ in the L's Spr. An excluded person 
 could not partake of the L's. Spr. under any 
 circumstances whatever. The al)ove minutes, 
 therefore, were positive proof of the jrractice 
 of strict cmn. as to the L's. Spr., as well as 
 in full membership; for a person who merely 
 pleaded for infant baptism was on account of 
 it excluded from Jxith. Ed. 
 
 t What Air. Norton stated and proved was 
 that the term " cmn.," instead of being used 
 as defts. use it, for cmn. in the L's. Spr. 
 nierrli/, and to denote an net which they .say 
 is distinguishalile from tlie privileges of ch. 
 membership, was by this clmrch applied to 
 " the full cmn. of membership, including cmn. 
 m the L's. Spr.,!.. as [beingj one act or part 
 
 of privileges peculiar to the ch.''' He 
 
 sliowcd that the ordinance was spoken of as 
 "in the ch.," so that, by tins church, consisting 
 of baptized believers, persons who were oitt- 
 side of any and every such ch., were deemed 
 outside also the observance of tills ordinance. 
 This was not an inconsequential inference, but 
 a proved fact. Ed. 
 
 ment on this head ; " There is nothing 
 in these ylr//cte,.. inconsistent with... the ' 
 Confessions of faith,... which [Cfsns.] re- 
 cognized on the part of Baptist chs. 
 generally, the privilege of admitting to 
 cmn. believers who wei-e not baptized ; 
 ...nothing in the hooks which negatives 
 the supiposition. that prior to Mr. King- 
 horn's time such reception of unbaptizcd 
 believers did take place;... nothing in 
 these instances that Mr. Norton gives,... 
 except that... 7rte)?»ier.s... Were excluded 
 from the church in con.=!equence of dis- 
 orderly conduct. Therefore, in the con- 
 stitution of the ch., the liberty of the 
 ch., as I contend for all Baptist chs., is 
 
 not in any way curtailed If you had 
 
 found in the original articles anything 
 that would indicate a curtailment (jf that 
 liberty, it would be wholly within the 
 
 power of the ch [to J adopt a different 
 
 practice ; [and] we have this confession 
 from Mr. Kinghorn, [when he] was in 
 doubt, that it was not incompetent to the 
 cgn. to adopt the one view or the other."§ 
 
 V. The alleged innorations. 
 
 Sir Hiigh refen-ed to phs. from 139 — 
 164 of deft. Gould's 1st Ans. 
 
 As to E. Bayes, he said, " there is no 
 doubt that some persons in the cgn. were 
 willing that she should have been re- 
 ceived as a member even before she was 
 baptized, and they carried a resolution 
 to that effect ; || but Mr. Gould says, I 
 carefully absstaiued from receiving her as 
 a member until she was baptized." 
 
 As to the res. of March 11, 1S57, [p. 16], 
 Sir Hugh said, the parties " thought, 
 and we contend most properly thought, 
 ... [it] was simpily an affirmance of, 
 and acting upon the constitution of 
 the ch." 
 
 § From first to last nothing was adduced 
 which supported tliese conclusions. Neither 
 by the Cfsns., nor the proceedings of tlie As- 
 semblies wliich pnssed them, was it demon- 
 strated, lieyond a doubt, that a single mixed- 
 cmn. church was recognized, as in a proper 
 sense, a " cgn. of I'r. Bpts." The reference 
 made since the siiit, by Mr. Gould, in his 
 edition of The Case, to other alleged evidenee 
 on this point, will be noticed afterwards. The 
 articles by their definition of the constitution 
 of the visible ch., and of the L's. Spr. as a 
 church ordinance, and also the church minvtes, 
 are inconsistent with the admission of all be- 
 lii'rers to the L"s. Spr. The articles deny the 
 right of any man to alter what, in the view ot 
 this ch., God had enjoined. And Mr. King- 
 horn made no such confession as is alleged. 
 
 II Compare the denial of tlie Five Trustees, 
 at p. 65, col. 2. 
 
117 
 
 He mentioned the offer of a separate 
 strict service as "very important." 
 
 Of tlie course adopted towards the pro- 
 test iiuf membirx, Sir Hugh said, that "a 
 more considerate course could not have 
 been talien by Mr. Gould/' and that oije 
 of those who gaye " advice, in accordance 
 with" which Mr. Gould acted, was " a 
 Strict Bpt., the Rev. C. Woollacott." 
 Sir Hugh, interpreting Mr. Gould's 
 meaning, said that " if these gentlemen 
 [the protesting members] will not come 
 to that which it is incumbent on them, 
 according to the rules of the ch., to come 
 to, . if they remain stubborn and unyield- 
 ing, then the ch. must exercise its dis- 
 cipline, not on account of their opinions, 
 but on account of their procedure." * . 
 
 As to arbitrjfiov, he said, that Mr. 
 Norton's afft. " seemed to impute blame 
 to Mr. Gould on this subject, ' he would 
 say, that "anything moi-e kind, fail-, or 
 honourable than the offers he, [Mr. 
 Gould, had] made.. .could not be sup- 
 posed." t 
 
 Sir Hugh then referred to the schedules 
 of Mr. Gould and Mr. B. Alexandei-, 
 [p. 91, preceding], relating to those who 
 signed the Protest of 1845, and the 
 Declai-ations of 1857, pp. 9, 28, pre- 
 ceding. 
 
 As to the Protest signed by 42 persons 
 in 1845, he said, that they were so far 
 from " having their consciences outraged, 
 [that] they continue to worship at the 
 chapel.'' Instead of admitting the ex- 
 clusion of eleven of them, he spoke of 
 nine only, and said of their exclusion, 
 " that we call resignation." Mr. Palmer 
 said, "It appears from our affts. in reply, 
 that in the years 1845 and 1846, eleven 
 wei-e excluded, on the ground of Mr. 
 Brock's proceedings." Mr. Gould said 
 '• that is not exclusion." 
 
 As to the 132 who signed the Declara- 
 tions in 1857, Sir Hugh said, that taking 
 these documents as evidence of " the pre- 
 sent opinion of the cgu.," the statements 
 of the above afft. showed that the mi- 
 nority on " the question now discussed, 
 [is] utterly insignificant," and that the 
 defts. "represent the wishes and views 
 of the overwhelming majority of the 
 
 * It is unquestionable that their procedure 
 was the result of their opinions ; and to say 
 that by the rules of the ch., that is, by the 
 very rules which had been set aside by the in- 
 troduction of free-cmn., the strict members 
 were required to acquiesce in that introduc- 
 tion, is to state a contradiction, it is to say 
 that those laws required assent to the viola- 
 tion of themselves. Eu. 
 
 t Compare pp. 29 to 48, preceding. 
 
 church." [See p. 28, as to the nature of 
 some of the statements of this afft.] 
 " I have now done with the evidence." 
 VI. " A few words upon one or two 
 other jMrts of the case. 
 
 1. " The extent to which my leai'ned 
 friends must can-y their argument ... 
 The Prayer ... asks your Honour to 
 declare that no person is entifledX to 
 enter the doors " who has not been 
 baptized ; which " would prevent" others 
 from entering as hearers. " If they 
 do not ask for that, [I ask] what is the 
 line of demai-catiou ?.. I contend here, 
 not for the privilege of strangers,... of 
 children,... of occasional communicants, 
 [but] of the majority of the cgn. If 
 the nnxjority ... say there shall be no 
 strangers admitted,... so it must be.... If 
 [they] say, 'we. ..desire the house should 
 be used in this way, and to this extent,' 
 [a reference apparently to the use of it 
 for free-cmn.], then I say, they are clearly 
 entitled to have that.'' 
 
 2. "My learned friends say, "it is a 
 contradiction in terms to speak even of 
 the presence in a cgn of Bj^ts., of persons 
 who are unbaptized." Sir Hugh denied 
 that it was his Honour's " province to 
 determine whether it was "a contra- 
 diction in terms," or not, and said that 
 he had mei-ely "to ascertain... a question 
 of fact," as to whether "the Particular 
 Baptist church || has recognized the pos- 
 
 X What the pltfs. there ask for, is a dc- 
 clatlon as to who has a legal title to tlie 
 beneficial use ; and they do so, not for the 
 purpose of actually excluding all who liave no 
 such title, from the bnilding, but of excluding 
 them from all such use of it as invades, in 
 any degi-ee, the exclusive right of those who 
 have such a title. Ed. 
 
 II The term church seems to be used here 
 in a sense at vai-iance with congregationahsm ; 
 and to denote a body of churches. Sir Hugli 
 seems to have meant, that it is possible for a 
 term to be, in the course of time, used by 
 such a body of churches in a sense contrary 
 to its original and natural meaning ; so that 
 to appeal to its nntural meaning would be to 
 mislead from its actual meaning. This is, 
 no doubt, quite possible. And, therefore, it 
 was important for plaintiffs to siiow that such 
 terms as " Cgn. of Fr. Baptists," were com- 
 monli/ used, in and before 174G, in accordance 
 with their natural meaning, and as the dis~ 
 tinetive name of cgns. composed of, and limit- 
 ing emu. to, Pr. Bpts. This was proved 
 most decisively. Suppose, however, that the 
 Broadmead ch. Iiad been proved to be mixed 
 at the time when it is fmmd in a list of more 
 than 100 churches, called " cgns. of Chris- 
 tians baptized-" such a circumstance, in a 
 classification which was merely a general de- 
 scription of the mass, not an exact definit'on. 
 
118 
 
 sibility of admitting" such persons with- 
 out t'oi'feitiug that name. 
 
 3. As to the expression farticuJar 
 or limited redn., Sir Hugh said that "an 
 attempt was made liy the Amendment of 
 this Bill to ask the Court to declare, 
 (speaking of limited and particular 
 redn., as if they were exactly synony- 
 mous) that admission to this ch. of St. 
 Mary's was to be confined to those who 
 professed the doctrine of limited or par- 
 ticular redn." 
 
 Mr. Palmer. "There is no such 
 amendment, that I am aware of. ... I 
 think if you look at the Information, 
 you will find the words remain the same 
 as they were." 
 
 Su- Hugh, after looking, admitted that 
 "the words. ..[did] occur in the original 
 Bill." He said that Mr. Russell had re- 
 lieved him " from dealing with" the sub- 
 ject,* and that he had only to remark that 
 Mr. Gould was not charged " in the suit" 
 with "erroneous doctrine on the sub- 
 ject,'' nor was the ch. said to have re- 
 quired, " as a test of membership, the 
 profession of any particular view'' on it. 
 The doctrine of general I'edemption Sir 
 Hugh defined to be that Christ " died for 
 all mankind," but that God made " no 
 absolute decree [to save] particular in- 
 dividuals ; " the doctrine of particular 
 redemption he defined to be, that the 
 elect are " fore-ordained... to be saved,"t 
 and " are the only persons who can 
 
 could no more prove that the whole body 
 meant to say that, in a strict and proper sense, 
 cliurches composed ofedl believers, are cffiis. of 
 Christians baptized., than the presence of a 
 single horse in a drove of a hundred oxen 
 would prove, that a person who called it a 
 drove of oxen meant to say that a horse was 
 strictly and truly an ox. Ed. 
 
 * Mr. Russell had relieved him from deal- 
 ing with it " at present." Pltfs.' counsel 
 used their discretion as to the manner of ad- 
 vocating the ca.se, but they had no authority 
 whatever for ivithdrawing any part of it. The 
 withdrawal of the term " limited," would 
 have left the definition of particular redn. 
 just the same ; and Mr. Eussell said expressly 
 that they asked for " the whole Prayer of the 
 Bill." The term " particular" was used in the 
 sense which it was proved by the pltfs.' 
 evidence to have in 174fi, the sense of a 
 redemption limited, as to both purchase and 
 deliverance, to the elect. Ed. 
 
 T This is the doctrine of predestinntim not 
 of redemption. Some of the early General 
 Bayitists, the avowed advocates of general 
 redemption, seem to have held precisely tlie 
 same combination of general redemption with 
 particular Jbre-ordvimtion, which defts. de- 
 clare to have been held to be particular re- 
 demption. 
 
 profit by the atonement;" and he con- 
 tended that the holding of this decree, 
 whether it were in connection with the 
 view that Christ " died for all mankind," 
 (as held by the General Baptists), or 
 with the view that Christ " did not die 
 for all mankind,'' constituted particular 
 redn. ; but that the last view, — the view 
 "advocated Vjy the relators in this suit" 
 as having been that of pr. or limited 
 redn., — though it may be "called the 
 doctrine of limited redn.," is only one 
 view of the docti'ine oi pKirtkular redn. 
 
 4. Sir Hugh alleged "the silence of the 
 Deed upon the subject' of cmn., and 
 said, " Nothing would have been easier, 
 if the author of this trust-deed had de- 
 sired to exclude this Pr. Bpt. cgn. from 
 the liberty which other Baptist cgus. on 
 the general Cfsus. of faith then had, 
 than... to dedicate [the property to it] 
 'only so long as they hold that particular 
 form of practice which they now profess 
 and... now adopt."'J 
 
 5. He spoke of the words "for the 
 time heing," as referring partly to "■fluc- 
 tuation of opinion vfiihiu the pale of what 
 may be called Pr. Bpt. sentiments," § and 
 said of these two points, [4, 5,] that they 
 are " about the strongest evidence we 
 could have that that cgn. was to have 
 the fullest liberty which a Baptist cgn., at 
 that, or at any time previously, was held 
 to have enjoyed." 
 
 6. Sir Hugh said, that this is "not a 
 question of improper alienation of pro- 
 perty," but " simj^ly of the extent of the 
 power of the congregation, looking at 
 
 t No church could be expected to prohibit 
 a practice tlien unknown. In the Introduction 
 to Mr. Gould's edition of tjie Norwich Case, he 
 admits at p. cxlii. that the practice of open 
 cmn. limited to the L's. Spr. onli/, is of com- 
 paratively " recent origin." Su- Hugh admits 
 that a mixed membership ch. is not sti-ietly a Pr. 
 Bpt. ch., and therefore arf//ii7« that the term 
 "cgns. of Pr. Bpts.," yrassujh'cient to prohibit 
 expressly at that time the only form of mixed 
 cmn, proved to have then existed. But be- 
 sides this, the property was left to this cgn., 
 as distinguished from, and independent of, all 
 others. Its articles declared baptism to be 
 essential to membership, — the L's. Spr. to be 
 a Divine and a ch. ordmance, and tlie will of 
 God to be imalterable. To say that notwith- 
 standing this, it could intend that its consti- 
 tution might be altered, is to contradict the 
 evidence. Ed. 
 
 § The words "for the time being," are used 
 customarily to denote merely a succession of 
 persons. They could not be hitended to de- 
 note permission to change t\\& pi'actice of that 
 church as then held to he made binding and 
 unalterable hij God. Eu. 
 
119 
 
 it iu the capacity of a qmisi corpora- 
 tion.'' * 
 
 6. Sir Hugh repeated his propositious 
 of fact and law ; and claimed for the 
 majority a right to act on the question 
 as it jjleased. He maintained that the 
 propei'ty was given to it subject to that 
 right, and that the majority had leave to 
 exclude those who did not acquiesce in 
 its decision on the point, from their share 
 in the use of the trust property. 
 
 7. He submitted that this Information 
 was " an attempt to raise... a central and 
 ruling authority in the Court of Chancery, 
 which would supply the place of that 
 central authority, the existence of which 
 [the body had] disavowed, "f and prayed 
 that his Honour would " dismiss the 
 Information out of Court." 
 
 Mr. Alfred G. Marten. 
 
 Mr. Marten spoke at considerable 
 length, and occupied the remaining part 
 of the second day. But as the points 
 on which he dwelt were either the sa^e 
 as those on which Sir Hugh had ad- 
 dressed the Court, or were not material 
 to the points considered in the Judgment, 
 it is needless to refer to them, further 
 than to say that he endeavoured to show, 
 first that what had been done was not 
 inconsistent with the trusts,'' and then 
 that the trustees had not been " pro- 
 perly appointed," according to the re- 
 quirements of the deed of 1746. 
 
 May 2, 1860. Mr. Roundell Pz\.lmer's 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 "Sir. ..The points of f.\ct on which 
 my learned friend, Sir H. Caii'us relied, 
 were in substance, 
 
 Fir.5t, 7hat evcrif cgn. of Pr. Bpts. 
 might always, considently with, and by 
 virtue of its constitution as such, adopt 
 the practice of open cmn. Secondly, that 
 
 * The property, as a matter of fact, is now 
 alienated from that part of the cgn. which 
 adheres to what was fundamental to its con- 
 stitution, when the Trust-deed was made. 
 They have been excluded, because of that 
 adherence. As the rest of tlie members have 
 violated that constitution, these are the only 
 true representatives of that congregation as 
 then constituted. Ed. 
 
 f The sole request of pltfs. to the Court 
 was to enforce the Truft-deed as to a question 
 oi property. But Sir Hugh himself did that 
 wLicU he imputes to pltfs. He made the free- 
 cmn. practice of other cyns., a law to override 
 tlie proved fundamental practice of this cgn. 
 El). 
 
 the decision on that question... was alvxiys 
 within the po^ver of the majority, ....who 
 might change backwards and forwards... 
 as often as they pleased. 
 
 " His conclusions of law.. .are these : 
 — that a gift of property to a Pr. Bpt. 
 cgn., at a certain place, for the time be- 
 ing is... subject to the poivcr of altering 
 its terms of cmn. : that the actual usage 
 of any such cgn. even for any length of 
 time, being consistent with an inherent 
 power to alter that usage, was no evidence 
 of the impropriety of their doing so; and 
 ...that such conclusions may be deduced 
 fi'om, or ai'e at least strongly fortified 
 hj...the congregational form of ch.-gorern- 
 ment which existed in these societies ; 
 and that the introduction of those who 
 are not baptized, is the privilege of the 
 cgn. and not the right of tlie persons intrO' 
 duced." 
 
 Mr. P. first noticed " an incidental 
 ^)o/wf... which, in some respects [had] 
 been treated as of importance — the al- 
 leged distinction between o^^ew member- 
 ship and open communion." [This term 
 open cmn. he generally uses as the defts. 
 do, for open cmn. in the L's. Spr.] He 
 said it would-be utterly impossible 
 through the merfia relied on by the other 
 side, to establish... a liberty to introduce 
 open cmn.,.. .which would not equally 
 
 establish a liberty to introduce open 
 
 membership.. . It is obvious also, if you 
 look to what has passed in thi.s particular 
 ch., that this result [admission to full 
 membership'] is looming in the distance, 
 and at no very remote distance. It is 
 the logiccd development of the principle 
 asserted ; it is the practical development 
 which [it] has in many cases received, 
 and in this case would undoubtedly re- 
 ceive. ... It is important to attend to 
 [this], because when... my friend dealt 
 with the history of this ch. [he argued] 
 that open cmn. [in the L's, Spr.] might 
 be allowed in this ch., without advancing 
 at present a claim beyond that, in this 
 particular case. I am quite sure that 
 your Honour will find that if the argu- 
 ments are sound, they involve a latitude 
 which will not admit m principle of that 
 distinction. [It] is merely arbitrary and 
 
 verbal My learned friend's ground is 
 
 so large that, if tenable, it follows mani- 
 festly, that the inherent powers of the 
 congregation will always enable them to 
 enlarge or to limit the terms on which 
 they admit persons into their body, who 
 did not originally belong to it." 
 
 "Now, sir, let us examine the histo- 
 rical treatises on which my friend relies 
 in order to sui^poi-t his main propositions 
 of FACT, He refers first to confessions ; 
 
120 
 
 secondly/, to the docti'ine and practice of 
 Pr. ministers and cgns. in former times ; 
 thirdly, to.. .Associations... ; fowtltiy, to 
 Colleges and Mi.ssionary Societies; ..[also] 
 to...lettei's dismis3ory...aud the present 
 statistics of the denomination... The first 
 two have an importance gi-eatly exceed- 
 ing the last three, because . . . pieseut 
 jjractice . . [is] manifestly inconclusive 
 altogether as to vehether that practice is 
 de jure or otherwise.'' 
 
 1. Tlie CONFESSIONS. "The more that 
 subject is examined,. ..the more the argu- 
 ments attempted to be derived from it 
 will recoil on my learnt d friend, and will 
 tend to establish with clearness ... the 
 propositions on which this Information 
 relies " 
 
 1. " First, with regard to the.. London 
 Cfsn. of 7 [ogns.] in 16i6 : there is a 
 loose suggestion in some part of the 
 papers.. ..that there were...7nany morecgns. 
 [in London], not represented by tbiose 
 who signed it. For that suggestion there 
 is no support whatever in any portion of 
 the evidence. On the contrary, I thinli 
 Mr. Norton in his 2nd atft. has brought 
 forward facts which most clearly show 
 that it could not possibly have been so, 
 and leave no doubt that the 7 cgns. were 
 all the cgns. which existed at that time in 
 London : from which the document pro- 
 ceeds." Mr. P. then read the evidence of 
 this from Mr. N.'s 2ud afft., see p. 84, 
 preceding; and said that " the languai/e of 
 the cfsn. seemed " unmistakably to con- 
 tain". ..the principle of strict cmn. He 
 read art. 33, defining the vixihle ch. to con- 
 sist "of visible saints.. .being baptized," and 
 said : " from the words ' heitifi bavtized' 
 there can be no escape." After reading 
 art. 39, stating that disciples "ought to 
 be baptized, and after, to jDartake of the 
 L's. Spr.," he said that it implied " as far 
 as language at all ambiguous can do, 
 that.. .to the partaking of the L's. Spr. 
 baptism is an antecedent qualifiixition." 
 
 " My learned friend argued that such 
 could not have Iseen the intention of the 
 framers of that document, [because, as 
 he] insisted, Mr. Spilsbery, . .one of [those 
 who signed it], advocated and pi'actised 
 ...not only open cmn. [in the L's. !>pr.], 
 but open mcinber.ihip." Bat " if Mr. 
 Spilsbery's practice and tenets, (which 1 
 will show your Honour presently is not 
 the case),... were such, my learned friend 
 has to explain how Mr. Kiffin...who [he 
 says] separated from Mr. S. on account 
 of [Mr. K.'s] .... non-intercommunion 
 with persons not baptized, came to join 
 him [Mr. S , in that cf^n. But] it was 
 pot on this question of open cmn. and 
 
 membei-ship, that Mr. K. separated, but 
 on a ground that went beyond that." Mr. 
 P. then read an extract from Mr. Nor- 
 ton's 2Qd aift., ph. 5, referring to Mr. 
 Crosby, IIL 3, i ; and Mr. ivimey IL 
 297, in proof that the real occasion of 
 Mr. Kitfin's separation was a difiereuce 
 about "suffering ministers to preach.. .who 
 had not been baptized :" and said that 
 his Id. fi'iend had stated correctly that 
 in about 1(390, the fitness of pei-mittiu^ 
 them to preach was affirmed, on the 
 ground that preaching " was not an act of 
 ch. member.ihip or ch. emu., but.. .capable 
 of being participated in by p^ersons of any 
 description whatever. That was the real 
 difference between Mx*. Spilsbery and Mr. 
 Kiffin." 
 
 In proof that Mr. Spvilsbery did not 
 advocate and practise open membership, 
 Mr. P. referred to Mr. N.'s 2ud aiit., 
 ph. 2. He first read Mr. N.'s statement, 
 that those who became members of Mr. 
 Spilsbery's cgu. in 1633, may have con- 
 sidered themselves, when un baptized, 
 " competent to join together in a ch. 
 covenant," with a view to choosing one 
 of their number to immerse them forth- 
 with ; but that to the best of his Jiuow- 
 ledge the ch. did not permit any but 
 Baptists to become fully constituted 
 members, or to pai-take of the L's. Spr. 
 (Compare p. 51, note, and pp. So, 11 U, 
 preceding.) 
 
 " If nothing more," said Mr. P., " were 
 done in Mr. Spilsbery's church than 
 [that], his pi'actice...was only what, in 
 the nature of thing.s, was inseparable 
 from the origin of the denomination. 
 That is confirmed by the passage cited 
 from Mr. Ivimey, vol. iii. 314 ; "no evi- 
 dence can be produced that the ch ...ever 
 practised mixed emu." 
 
 "These louse suyyestions, as to Mx*. Spils- 
 bery's practice [are] founded on a mere 
 hypothesis, which is, in truth, contrary to 
 all the evidence we actually hare." 
 
 " My friend,.. .with very great candour, 
 acknowledged the accuracy of a passage 
 in Mr. N.'s 2nd afi't., ph. ti, with which he 
 said he was happy to be able to agree ;"' 
 [that passage states that the question 
 had not been recognized as an " open" 
 question, in the sense of being left to 
 human, discretion.'] " That is," said Mr. 
 P., as to what Sir Hug'n acknowledged, 
 " they have all held the course which 
 they respectively advocated, to be re- 
 quired hji the will of God, and have not 
 held it to be ' open' and discretionai-y 
 whether it should be adopted or not ac- 
 cording to the will of men." Mr. P. 
 quoted Mr. N.'s reference to his first 
 
121 
 
 afft., pha. 33, 38, in proof of this, and 
 said, " that will be strictly borne out, 
 on both sides, by the citations offered." 
 
 "Bearing in mind... .that [this is] ad- 
 mitted on both sides, ...just follow one or 
 two things on the subject of this Cfsn... . 
 At p. 23 \_E,vht. VI.] in the Preface to the 
 2nd edn. of this Cfsn., it is said, ' and al- 
 though, ...yet are we one in faith, fellow- 
 ship, and cmn.' And at p. 48...' But if any 
 man shall impose upon us anything that 
 we see not to be comioanded by our Ld. 
 Jesus Christ, we should in his strength 
 rather embrace all reproaches and toi'- 
 tures of men, to be strijiped of all out- 
 ward comforts, and if it were possible, 
 to die a thousand deaths, rather than to 
 do any thiug against the least tittle of the 
 truth of God, or against the light of our 
 own consciences.' It is not possible 
 that men who.. .most sincerely entertained 
 such sentiments, and expressed them- 
 selves with tliat force, should have met 
 agreeing together to compromise any 
 point which any of them regarded as 
 matter of Divine revelation, and obli- 
 gatory, and altogether independent of 
 [human] discretion." 
 
 " Mr. Heiijainiii C'oa;... [whose] signature 
 as well as those of Mr. Spilsbery, Mr. 
 Kif&n and Mr. Hanserd Knollys .... is, 1 
 think, in the 2nd edn [of the London 
 Cfsn.], issued an Appendix I to it], as ' a 
 more full declaration of the faith and 
 judgment of baptized believers.' " Mr. 
 P. then read a notice of Mr. Cox by Mr. 
 E. B. Underbill, editor of the Hanserd 
 K. ISociety's vol. of Cfsns. Intro, p. x, 
 stating that Mr. Cox " was probably 
 employed in the revi.sion of the 2nd 
 edition" of that Cfsn., &c., &c. He read 
 also the words in the title of the Appen- 
 dix, "It is therefore our duty," &c., as 
 far as, "this ensuing appx.," and said, 
 that these words .show that it was " con- 
 ceived by the writer to be merely a more 
 full statement of the doctrine set forih 
 in the Cfin., to which he adhered." He 
 then read Art. xx. of this Appendix ; see 
 Exbt. VI. p, 59, stating that the churches 
 which joined in the Cfsn. did notcommune 
 in the L's. Spr. " 'witli, any bat disciples 
 baptized;" and said, '^ That shovfs,! think, 
 very plainly, in what sense that Vftsn. was 
 understood by.. .Mr. Cox, at the time; 
 nor is there the slightest trace, that I 
 can find, in that bk. [Exbt. VI.] of any 
 person in that cent, having excepted to 
 the statement, as an improper statement 
 of the practice, the views, and the doctrine 
 of the body." 
 
 Mr. P. then took up Exbt. 51, an ori- 
 fjiuM copy of the f th edu. of the Loudon 
 
 Cfsn., published in 1652, which he said 
 " has an Epistle to the Reader pi-efixed, 
 signed by J ohn Spilsbery, Wm. Kiffin, and 
 various other ministers. Then follows 
 the London Cfsn., and after [it] a sort of 
 Appendix to the Cfsn., [an] i^pi.stle to 
 the Brethren, ..called ' Heart Bleedings 
 for Professors' Abominations,' addressed 
 ' to all the chs., of God, sanctified,' [&c.] 
 Exbt. VI. p. 293." They speak of " the 
 true churches of Jesus Christ," as " bap- 
 tized in his name ; the scripture no where 
 appi-oving any other chs. that we read 
 of." It is given at p. 307 of Exbt. VI. 
 
 Mr. P. i-ead also from this Epistle the 
 words (see Exbt. VI. p. 3u9), " if any 
 shall judge, [&c.]....we desire all such 
 seriously to take notice, that true love 
 and charity is not the soothing of any 
 in their sins, the healing of wounds 
 slightly, the crying peace, peace, when 
 sudden destruction is at hand ;" which 
 he thought was strong j)roof that " tlie 
 latitudmariauism of the argument on 
 the other side was utterly unknown 
 then." 
 
 " Therefore. . .as far as the London 
 Cfsn. is concerned," and the " testimony 
 [which the above] documents bear to 
 the principles and practice of the denomi- 
 nation at the time," he thought it would 
 be found that the " exijre-^s statement of 
 the 33rd art., ..which makes the visible 
 ch. [consist of] baplized believers, is re- 
 peated.. .hj Mr. Spilsbery, [in the Heart 
 Bleedings]," and that the said article 
 "was rightly understood and rightly ex- 
 pounded, in its more detailed application 
 to ch. ordinances, by Mr. Cox, when he 
 said expressly,... bearing his testimony 
 lo the practice and principle of the de- 
 nominatiuH, that it was not their custom 
 to admit into cmn. [i/t the L's. Spr.^ any 
 bat those who were baptized.'' 
 
 2. " Was any more latitudinarian view 
 entertained by the framers of the sub- 
 sequent CJb'SN. of 1677 ? The more [it] 
 is examined the more clear it will ap- 
 pear that there was not.. .They identijy 
 themsclces completely with the Cfsu. of 
 11)40." Mr. P. read part of the Address 
 to the Reader, from the words " It is 
 now many years," to the words, "the 
 reaswn and occasion thereof," in which 
 they say, that "divers of" them had 
 joined in publishing the London Cfsu. ; 
 that their end in publishing this new 
 one was to give testimony of their "firm 
 adheriny" to that, and that though their 
 •' manner of e.cpressinij" their sentiments 
 in this, is different, yet '' the substance of 
 the matter is the aame " with that of 
 the Loudon Cfsn. 
 
122 
 
 " To understand rightly," said Mr. P., 
 the place of the Cfsn. of 1(377, "in this 
 argument, it is necessary to cqij'reciate its 
 objects and aims, [as stated] in the sequel 
 of the jjassage, part of wliich I have 
 read ; my Id. friend,. .with becoming can- 
 dour, says... .it is obvious that a main 
 purpose.. was to inform the outside world, 
 those who per.secuted,those who .slandered 
 this denomination, who confounded them 
 with the Anabaptists of Munster, and 
 the like,. ..of their error ; and to present, 
 so far as possible, the points on which, 
 beiiiff agreed among themselves, they also 
 approximated to, or substantially agreed 
 ivith, other Protestant bodies in this coun- 
 try These articles were not issued as 
 
 ...^es^s at all ; but.. as manifestoes to the 
 world, as declarations of agreement, as far 
 as possible, with other bodies ;... find... 
 there might be points of essential im- 
 portance in the government and admi- 
 nistration of particular cgns., which... 
 would not have entered into a docu- 
 ment of that kind." Their reason for ex- 
 pressing themselves, so far as they could, 
 in the very words of the Westminster 
 and Savoy Cfsns., was to show " their 
 agreement in the doctrine and funda- 
 mental principles of the Christian re- 
 ligion, not only among themselves, but 
 with other bodies to which no such enor- 
 mities had been imputed... In a docu- 
 ment of this character, the absence of 
 such. 2J0sit'tce statements as [those] in the 
 antecedent documents (...here not dis- 
 sented from, but recognized), as to the 
 necessity of baptism, as to. .the visible ch., 
 and cmn...can be no matter of won- 
 der, if it appears that the introduction 
 of them would have involved, not only 
 the condemnation of some opinions..enter- 
 tained by individuals even among them- 
 selves, but, which is of more consequence, 
 would have brought prominently forward 
 a cause of alienation from others, with 
 whom, as far as possible, they desired to 
 place themselves in relations of sympathy 
 by this publication." 
 
 Mr. P. referred to " the title" of the 
 Cfan. ; to the woi'ds, " cgns. of Christians 
 baptized upon profes.sion of their faith.'' 
 
 " No one can read," he said, "the pas- 
 sages to which my Id. friend referred in 
 chajD. 2fi, on the subject 'of the church,' 
 (Kxbt. VI. pp. 219— 224), without seeing 
 that.. ..everything is omitted there except 
 general propositions on the subject of 
 spiritual requisites to the constitution of 
 a ch., which [the Independent, Presby- 
 terian, and Episcopalian bodies] would 
 acknowledge." To that definition each 
 body would "have its own differentia to 
 
 add, which would not... e.vclude the sal- 
 vation of others who may compose what 
 is called the invisible ch. ; but for the 
 purpose of the definition of the risible ch., 
 [those differentia'] would exclude those 
 who did not ado^^t the same view. ..An 
 Episcopalian might [thus] define the ch. 
 to which he belonged ;" though " minis- 
 ters rejecting Episcopal government... 
 would not be designated ministers of [it. 
 In it no] one could be admitted to the 
 cmn. without baptism," for there " that is 
 not an open question... If I do not mis- 
 take, every single Christian body would 
 apply to itself the language here, like 
 the language of the coi-responding article 
 of the Ch. of England, (which on this sub- 
 ject, is extremely general*), but [would 
 do so] quite consistently with supplying 
 things which would not be introduced 
 when the object was to bring out points 
 of agreement rather than points of differ- 
 ence It is clear that there is not a 
 
 word here inconsistent with the existence 
 of ..some notion of a ch. which would 
 involve language of definition such as 
 that you have in the Cfsn. of 1G46, where 
 the words ' baptized believers ' distinctly 
 occur, and which Cfsn. is recognized in 
 all these documents... I cannot help think- 
 ing that phs. 12 and 13, of chap, 26, of 
 this Cfsn. (Exbt. VI. p. 223) have a bear- 
 ing not by any means favourable to the 
 defts.' view." Mr. P. then read them. 
 They state that " all believers are bound 
 to join themselves to particular chs.," 
 and that "no church-members. ..ought to.. 
 absent themselves from the assemblies of 
 the ch. or administration of any ordi- 
 nances" on account of any personal offence 
 given by fellow-members ; which seemed 
 to imply that those admitted to church 
 ordinances, including the L's. Spr., which 
 was "to be ' observed in [the] churches,' 
 pp. 225, 227, are persons who have 
 joined themselves to that ch. ; and it seems 
 not by any means to favour the notion 
 now entertained, of the distinction be- 
 tvjeen cmn. and membership)." 
 
 In reference to the passage in the 
 Appendix to this cfsn. beginning "We 
 are not insensible" (see p. 58, preceding), 
 Mr. P. said, "there is no evidence.. .that 
 there were any persons present on that 
 occasion excej^t [ft-om] chs. constituted 
 only of baptized believers ;...\i there were 
 any such, yet that association, in this kind 
 of meeting, was not a thing ejusdem generis 
 [of the same kiud] with church-cmn.," 
 and persons could unite " in a meeting 
 of this sort, with ministers from other 
 
 * " A cgn. of faithful men,'' &c. 
 
123 
 
 chs., differently constituted, with which 
 ch.-cnm. would be impossible and in- 
 consistent with the piiuciples of most of 
 the persons present. We have it ex- 
 pressly declared (and... this is an unmis- 
 takable proposition) that it was the 
 knoivn state of the consciences of many of 
 them, not only that they could not hold 
 ch. cmn. with any others than bcqttized 
 believers in their oivn chs., but that they 
 could not hold it with any other than 
 chs. constituted of such." In the statement 
 " some others of us have a greater. ..free- 
 dom in our spirits that way, ...those 
 words 'our spirits,' plainly show," he 
 said, " that individuals are i-eferred to 
 there, and not crjns....lt comes to this, 
 that there are some individuals in the 
 meeting who take a different view of the 
 subject, ....and [the meeting] in order not 
 to otiend or exclude from combination, 
 where combination is possible, persons 
 holding those divergent opinions, say, 'we 
 have purposely omitted the mention of 
 things of that nature, that we might 
 concur in giving this evidence of our 
 agreement both among ourselves and other 
 guod Christians, in those important ar- 
 ticles of the Christian religion, mainlij 
 insisted on by us." 
 
 " Sir, I cannot help thinking that that 
 passage by no means points.. .to the matter 
 now m question, the controversy about 
 open or strict cmn. in Bpt. chs ,..Lbut] to 
 this, that some... persons who were pre- 
 sent there, held themselves at liberty to 
 hold cmn. with Presbyterians, or Epis- 
 copalians, or Independents.. ..There is not 
 a word which points to the question 
 whether in any Pr. Bpt. ch. at that time, 
 it was lawful for any jjerson to admit to 
 cmn. those who were not Pr. BjJts., or not 
 baptized believers ; and having the. .pas- 
 sages.. .in the earlier Cfsn., with which 
 this is meant and declared to be con- 
 sistent, I think it is manifest that you 
 cannot infer from that passage anything 
 at all at variance with it." 
 
 3. As to THE Cfsn. of 1689, Mr. P. re- 
 ferred to the " Narrative of the Proceed- 
 ings" of the messengers (see Ivimey, I. 
 4S6), showing that they met to consider 
 the state of " the baptized chs. ;" and he 
 read the 1st and 2nd preliininaries agreed 
 upon by them ; the first limiting their 
 action to " counsel and advice," the se- 
 cond stating that " wherein one ch. 
 differs from another... in point of cmn.... 
 we shall.. leave every ch...to walk together 
 as they have received from the Ld." 
 That is, said Mr. P. "according to its 
 own principle which it has adopted, a 
 principle which it considers itself to 
 
 have received from the Lord,. ..as matter 
 of Divine obligatum," Mr. P. said, that 
 even assuming, which he would " pre- 
 sently show [was] assuming a great deal 
 more than" could be proved, yet as- 
 suming that this reference was to the 
 admission of persons unbaptlzed, it did 
 not prove, as the other side alleged, that 
 " according to the usage and tenets of 
 Pv. Bpts. at that time, it was competent 
 for every " Pr. Bpt. ch., " whenever it 
 pleased, to pass from strict to open, or 
 from open to strict cmn. ; that it was in 
 every such ch. an ojien question." The, 
 language implied that the chs. whose 
 messengers were admitted, might as to 
 certain points, be ^'onech., of one principle, 
 and another of another," but "where," 
 said Mr. Palmer, " is the warrant for 
 [the] conclusion that each of those cha. 
 might depart from its oivn principle. It 
 seems, on the contrary, to imply that each 
 ivill adhere to its own principle, whatever 
 it is ; that.. .the associated body does not 
 pretend to intei-fere with it." If open 
 cmn. was " one of the things there re- 
 ferred to, the most that can be inferred 
 is, that it was not considered necessary to 
 refuse to act in common. ..in an assembly 
 of this description." 
 
 " To that, Sir, I must add, that it is 
 bare hypothesis and mere assumption that 
 reference is [there] made to this question 
 of open or strict cmn.,... because your 
 Honour will find it in the evidence,... 
 thdAj... outside this controversy, there had 
 been variations in the rules, and laws, and 
 constitutions, of particular cgns., and that 
 some had " adhered to tenets and prac- 
 tices connected with the subject of cmn., 
 which had not been of universal recep- 
 tion," such as the laying on of hands after 
 baptism, as mentioned in the 1st afft. of 
 Mr. Norton, ph. 8. It is a mere petitio 
 pjrincipii, that the words refer to the 
 question of open cmn. at all ; but if they 
 do ... it would be simply a disclaimer 
 of interference with particular cgns... 
 not the least in the world authorizing 
 the supposed general rule, that...thei'e 
 was to be an unlimited licence of chang- 
 ing de die in diem, whenever it might 
 suit the will of any particular body to 
 do so." 
 
 " My Id. friend, insisted that there 
 was one ch., at all events," whose messen- 
 gers ivere '^present there, which at that time 
 practised open membership : — Broad- 
 mead, at Bristol ; and... having so stated 
 at the conclusion of one day's argument, 
 we were led to believe we should have 
 other instances furnished when the Court 
 met again." 
 
124 
 
 The Master op the RoLts. "I re- 
 quested that they wouLl give me as 
 many as they could find." 
 
 Sir H. Cairns said, " I gave you the 
 j^assage from Mr. Norton's afft. as to 
 Broadmead and Mr. Vaux. I was satisfied 
 to leave it there... We think there is ano- 
 ther [instance], butyoa may take it that 
 there is only one."* 
 
 Mr. R. Palmer said, that Mr. N.'s 
 statement (Afft. I. 34), viz., that in 174(), 
 the Broadmead ch "had, siince 1733, oeen 
 strict," might lead .Sir H. C. to "infer 
 that Mi\ N. mvant to admit that" Broad- 
 mead was mixed in 1G89; but Mr. N. 
 "did not mean to admit anything of the 
 sort. ... That Broadmead ch., like Mr. 
 Jessey's, is a ch. of which the character 
 was very ambiguous ;" and Mr. N. did 
 not mean " to state anything as to [its] 
 practice. ..in 1689." In his 2nd afft. 
 ph. 3, Mr. N. said that it seemed to have 
 been "at first composed wholly of Psedo- 
 baptists," and that though "from l(i.53 
 [it] had, for some time," both Baptist and 
 Psedobaptist members, " it was called in 
 1(354 an Independent ch., Broadmead Re- 
 cord.^, p. 47, note 6 ; p. 44, note 5. My 
 Id. friend," said Mr. P., " has the book 
 in his hand, and if the citation is not 
 accurate, he can connect me." + 
 
 The Master of the Rolls. "Read it 
 from the affidavit." 
 
 Mr. R. Palmer. "Yes, sir. Mr. Nor- 
 ton's citations are generally so accurate 
 that I do not think I need refer to the 
 book." 
 
 Sir H. Cairns said, "Perhaps my Id. 
 friend will let me put in the qnototion 
 from the book. It is called ' the Inde- 
 pendent Baptized People.' [This was 
 not one of the quotations made by Mi\ 
 Norton, as was evident both from the 
 words, and the difference of page. Mr. 
 N.'s quotations were from pp. 47 and 
 44 This is from p 55. Ed.] 
 
 Mr. Palmer read the note at p. 47, to 
 which Mr. Norton had referred ; and said 
 
 * No evidence was given bydefts. that even 
 this one ch. was at that time mixed, ilr. 
 Norton's afft. was referred to as admitting it ; 
 but it did not do so. The records of the ch. 
 arc lost from about the close of 1687 to 17-20. 
 There were but thirty unbaptized members 
 out of 1G6 in 1679. Does any evidence exist 
 as to whether the ch. was mixed or strict iu 
 1689? Ed. 
 
 t In the notes at pp. 47 and 44, the Broad- 
 mead ch., as Mr. Underhill, the editor, admits, 
 was called " the Independents,'' by Mr. Sewdl; 
 —and " the Independent ch.," (as distinguished 
 from " the baptized ch." at the Pithay,) hy 
 Mr. Hollister. . 
 
 that the editor of the Records had put in 
 the words "the Broadmead and Pithay 
 churches," as the tncanin;/ of "the Inde- 
 pendent and the baptized chs," and that 
 it did not seem to him that the word 
 Independent wna disclaimed by the editor 
 of the Records at all, as applied to 
 Broadmead, in distinction fi-om the '• bap- 
 tized ch," at the Pithay. He did not 
 think the subject " of any importance ;" 
 all he had to say on it was that the ch. 
 seems to have been originally " composed 
 of Paedobaptists," and " to have had the 
 name of Independent ;" that "from 
 1733 it practised strict cmn., and there 
 is no distinct evidence to show what was 
 
 its pi-actice in 1639. But that if the 
 
 fact were that.... [it] did practise the 
 looser princi]de of cmn. in 1689, then I 
 would readily admit that this would 
 probably be one of the things referred 
 to iu the passage I have read ;" that 
 " they recognize a community of interest, 
 notwithstanding a difference of prin- 
 ciple," and that " the meaning of the 
 passage is, ' Let the ch. from which we 
 differ have that liberty which it claims ; 
 we shall have ours, and shall walk as we 
 have received from the Lord, following 
 our own principle and our own pract'ce." 
 
 In 1693, a like assembly confirmed 
 their adherence to the former Cfsn., and 
 resolved " that a Catechism be drawn 
 up," by Mr. W. Collins, Ivimey I. 
 p. 533. " That Catechism was drawn 
 up, and we find this account given 
 of it in the Preface to the Hanserd 
 Knollys' Society's collection (Exbt. VI. 
 p. XV.)...' From his judgment and know- 
 ledge, Mr. Collins.. .was well able to pro- 
 duce a satisfactory work. It has often 
 been reprinted, and continues to be the 
 only catechism of value among Baptists...' 
 Then he says...' The catechism here re- 
 l^rinted, together with the several Cfsns. 
 of Faith, will give a complete idea of the 
 prevailing doctrinal sentiments of the 
 Baj^tist body in the 17th cent."' Mr P. 
 then read from the Catechism the an- 
 swers to questions 102 and 103. The 
 latter states that " the proper subjects of 
 this ordinance'' are "they who have 
 been baptized," &c. Mr. P. again drew 
 attention to the fact that the Catechism 
 emanated from an assembly " of the 
 same character'^ as that of 1689, and 
 also to what had been said of its many 
 editions and value. 
 
 4. The Orthodox Creed of 1678. 
 Mr. Palmer said he thought his learned 
 friend right in saying that it " emanated 
 from the General Baptist body." He 
 had been unprepared " for the suggestion 
 
1^5 
 
 that it was not relevant to the matter for 
 which it was introduced. It was not 
 introduced," he said, "by us, but. ..as 
 part of the defts.' case;" but "there is 
 no where, that I cau see, any su<j[iesii(ni, of 
 n difference of principle or view between 
 the Gl. and the Pr Bpts. on., open cmn. 
 or open membership." He then read 
 the passage in the Orthodox Creed, 
 art. 33, which, he said, " Defts. them- 
 selves introduce iu their Aus., as part of 
 the history of the proceedings ;" namely, 
 that no unbaptized per-son " ought to be 
 admitted to" the L's. Spr. [Gould, Aus. I. 
 ph. 76]; which, said Mr. P., "is quite 
 express and distinct." [See Exbt. VI. 
 p. 152.] 
 
 " The other documents which I have 
 read from, iu every single portion of 
 them which speaks of the matter directly 
 or indirectly, — when they say anything 
 on the subject of the definition of the 
 oh., or as to the qualification for receiving 
 the L's. Spr., — whenever they are not 
 silent, they speak in one sense only, which 
 is [that]... of the pltfs... There is not the 
 slightest ti'ace that at any time it entered 
 into the principles of the Pr. Bpt. body, 
 as such, to countenance this extravagant 
 and most latitudinarian notion, that 
 whatever might have been the original 
 foundation, they might at their option 
 change backwards and forwards on this 
 point,. .which it is admitted on both sides 
 ivas never regarded by any of them as open, 
 in the sense of its beinr/ indifferent, ami 
 variable according to the judgment of men." 
 
 II. Historical illustrations; and 
 
 THE TEACHING AND PRACTICE OF PAR- 
 TICULAR MINISTERS. "There a,re five... 
 and only five j)ersons named as having 
 advocated [free-cmn.] in the 17th cent., 
 which is the more material because it is 
 admitted that the controversy dropped 
 after Bunyan's time, and was not re- 
 vived until the latter part of the 18th 
 cent., at a period considerably later than 
 ...the endowment of this ch.... [They] are 
 Jesset, Tumbes, King, Palmer, and 
 BuNYAN....The passages. ..extracted from 
 the writings of King and Palmer, have 
 no bearing directly or indirectly on the 
 question — not the slightest; therefore 
 we have really only to deal with Jessey, 
 Tombes, and Bimyan. This argument, 
 when the facts are under.stood, also re- 
 coils against those who have brought it 
 forward, and becomes pregnant with evi- 
 dence that the doctrine and pi'actice of 
 the Pr. Bpt. denomination was such as 
 the passages I have refei-red to, ptrima 
 facie prove it to have been, and as its 
 very nafne, and the very existence of the 
 
 denomination, seem to witness.. .Jessey 
 and Tombes were not Particular Bap- 
 tists,* neither was Bunyan ; at all events, 
 not in any sense material to this contro- 
 versy. Although he might with a certain 
 latitude, have the name applied to him, 
 yet... he assumed an isolated, exceptional, 
 and differcnticd position, of his own, 
 making his position no evidence what- 
 ever of the rule or practice of Pr. Bpts. 
 in general.'' 
 
 As to Mr. King, 1650 : Mr. P. asked 
 what there was in his words, as quoted 
 by deft. Gould, Ans. I. ph 40, p. 5<3, 
 preceding, that the " saints should break 
 bread," to "imply that he supposes the 
 saints to be unbaptized ? ' ' and said, 
 " They are entirely neutral with regard 
 to this controversy..." 
 
 As to Mr. Anthony Palmer's treatise 
 of 1654, [Gould, Ans. I., ph. 41, p. 56, pre- 
 ceding] : the learned counsel, after read- 
 ing the extracts, said, " There is not 
 one single word there with respect to 
 baptism one way or the other." t 
 
 As to Mr. Jesse Y : Mr.- P. read an 
 extract from Afft. II. ph. 3, of Mr. Nor- 
 ton, and its references to Crosby, and 
 to Haubury's Memorials relating to the 
 ludejjendents, and said, Mr. Jessey's ch. 
 " was therefore not only an Independent 
 ch., so called as well as so being, but the 
 first founded of all the Independent chs. 
 Mr. Jessey became pastor... [when] still 
 a Pasdobaptist in opinion, in 1637 ;... 
 adopted the Baptist opinion, and... was 
 baptized. ..in 1645; but Mr. Hanbury, 
 the historian of the Independents, says 
 that his cgn. 'were firm, moat of them, 
 for infant baptism.'" Mr. P, then read 
 Mr. Crosby's statement that Mr. Jessey's 
 rules of cmn. continued " the same as 
 before," and that he had " always' some 
 Pasdobaptists in cmn. with him ; and 
 said, Mr. Jessey " continued in the same 
 ch. and chapel, which never altered its 
 character from that time downwards." 
 
 Mr. Tombes " was a minister of the 
 Ch. of England,. ...bfcania incumbent of 
 Bewdley...was deprived at the Restora- 
 tion, and after he was deprived, he 
 continued till the day of his death to 
 adhere to the cmn. of the Established 
 Ch. Therefore, one of these two was 
 the case of an Jndepiendent, the other 
 the case of an Episcopalian minister,... 
 
 * Mr. Palmer evidently meant in the sense 
 of being members of Pr. Bpt. chs. Ed. 
 
 t Mr. Anthony Palmer iippears to have been 
 iu 1(554 a Church of England rector. No 
 evidence is given thnt he was then in any sense 
 a Baptist. Ed. 
 
126 
 
 conforming in his indtvidval practice to 
 [the Baptist] manner of baptism,. ..but 
 not adhering to their ecclesiastical com- 
 munion at all, at any time." 
 
 The Master of the Rolls. " What 
 did Mr. Tombes hold on the subject of 
 ch.-goverument ?... [Was he] a Congre- 
 gationalist ? Mr. Palmeu said he thought 
 not. " From the fact that, according to 
 the evidence, he adhered to the Estab- 
 blished Ch....even after his deprivatit)n on 
 the Restoration of King Charles the 2nd, 
 one would infer he was an Episcoj^alian... 
 [He] was an advocate, in the same way 
 as Robert Hall, of what you may call, 
 anti-denominational views. He regarded 
 almost as anti-Christian those distinctions 
 and differences which led to the sepa- 
 ration of one religious cmn. from another. 
 ...He would have been acting in a manner 
 quite inconsistent with his own principles 
 if he had become a Pr. Bpt., or had 
 joined any other si^ecific denomination. 
 ...In all probability he held himself at 
 liberty to communicate with all who 
 would receive him It is obvious, there- 
 fore, that.. .those two gentlemen. ..occupied 
 a jDosition of their own entirely distinct 
 from the Baptist body, either Gl. or Pr., 
 and although their examples afford evi- 
 dence of the possibility of the combina- 
 tion in the same mind of the doctrine of 
 baptism by immersion, with the doctrine 
 or i)ractice of mixed cmn. ; yet they are 
 no evidence ivhaterer of the i^ractice or 
 jirinciple of the Pr. Bpt. societies on that 
 subject." 
 
 " Now with regard to Mr. Bdntan, he, 
 as well as being a more illustrious man, 
 was also a moi-e pointed and valuable 
 example. My Id. friend,...! think, dealt 
 a little lightly with the subject of the 
 quotations or references which we have 
 given from Bunyan....Itis perfectly plain 
 from the passage read from Offer's Life 
 of Buuyan, where he speaks of Bunyan's 
 chajjel at Bedford being registered as 
 ' Oongrer/ational,' while a lai-ge number 
 of others were registered as ' Baptist'.... 
 that his position was an exceptional one. 
 Mr. Offoi-, who was a great admirer of 
 Bunyan, says that Mr. B.'s church was 
 a Congregational one. ... In his book 
 about ' Differences of Judgment,'.. .works 
 II., p. 616,. ..he as distinctly as a man 
 can, attributes to the Baptists, as such, 
 the view against which he is writing. 
 The title of the work is ' Differences, [Sic] 
 ....in Answer to a book written by the 
 Baptists,' your Honour will observe that, 
 'and published by Mr. T. P. and Mr. 
 W. K.,' that is Paul and Kiffin, entitled, 
 ..." Mr. B. most plainly desci-ibes the 
 
 bk. he is answering, which asserts the 
 doctrine of strict cmn., ...as a bk. ema- 
 nating from ' the Baj>tists.'..Ile imputes to 
 the denomination as a whole, the work of 
 Paul and Kiffin." Mr. P. then read 
 from the Introduction of Mr. Bunyan's 
 treatise, his complaint that " the brethren 
 of the baptized way," had been trying 
 for 16 years to break, as he said, his 
 ch. " in pieces, merely because we are 
 not, in their way, all ba2:)tized first." " I 
 agree," said Mr. P., "with my Id. friend, 
 that the words, ' the brethren of the 
 bajjtized way,' are to be translated 'the 
 Baptists.' " Mr. P. said that Mr. I^unj'an 
 argues " that there is no scrijitural foun- 
 dation for that view,. ..frequently repeat- 
 ing the same phraseology, which shows 
 as often as it is rej^eated, that he is a 
 witness to the fact that the doctrine 
 which he is ojiposing, was the doctrine of 
 the Baptists, as such, at that time. At 
 p. 618 [vol. II.] he says, ' If you and the 
 brethren of your waij, did think it con- 
 venient to show to the world what you 
 held,* if jierhaps by that means you 
 might escape the prison, why might 
 not I ' do the same." Mr. P. then 
 quoted a passage at p. 640, col. 2, bot- 
 tom, saying that his opponents counted 
 " all the godly in the land that are not 
 of our i^ei'suasion, unfit to be communi- 
 cated with ;" also a passage at p. 641, 
 beginning, " But how came Diotrephes 
 so lately into our parts," and ending, 
 "or else withdraw till we had done." 
 Also a passage from p. 648, as to what he 
 wished to be called. " ' Since you would 
 know by what name I would be distin- 
 guished from others,...! choose. ..to be 
 called a Christian.... And as for those 
 factious titles of Anabaptists, Indepen- 
 dents, Pi'esbyterians, or the like, I 
 conclude that they came neither from 
 Jerusalem, nor Antioch, but rather fi'om 
 Hell and Babylon ; for they naturally 
 tend to divisions ; you may know them 
 by their fruits.' We are not discussing 
 here who was right, or who was wrong, . . . 
 [but] whether Mr. Bunyan is a witness 
 to the practice and principle of strict 
 cmn. having prevailed among the Bpts. 
 of that day, or [otherwise]. I leave it 
 to your Honour to say on which side he 
 is a witness." 
 
 " Then, Sir, if that be so, we have really 
 got to the end of the 17th cent., with 
 this state of things, [as to the] Cfsns., 
 
 * As Bunyan was writing in 1673, this 
 must refer to the London Cfsn., and is addi- 
 tional evidence that those who joined in it 
 were all Strict Baptists. 
 
127 
 
 [and as to having] no individual capable 
 of being brought forward, to show the 
 existence of any such liberty as is now 
 insisted on in the Particular Baptist de- 
 nomination, except Jessey, an Indepen- 
 dent, ToMBES, an Episcopalian, Bunyan, 
 a Bunyanite, who says he was a Christian, 
 (and I believe he was a very good one), 
 and King and Palmer, who say nothing 
 at all on the subject." 
 
 III. As to local Associations of 
 cgns., the Baptist Eleemosynary Fund, 
 THE Baptist Building Fund, Colleges, 
 and Missionary Societies, Mr. P. said, 
 that "even independently of the abso- 
 lutely modern character of the whole of 
 that evidence... [and that it] would, be- 
 cause of its date, and of the circum- 
 stances under which it is brought into 
 existence, be very inconclusive, even if 
 it had a direct beaiing on the matter ;'' 
 yet, besides that, " the whole of it re- 
 lates to a species of combined action, 
 which mif/ht very icell take i:)lace hetiveen 
 bodies tvhich ^oere divergent in some of 
 their iirinci'ples, although none of them 
 holding principles mutable at pleasure, 
 according to the will of each particular 
 cgn." 
 
 " Take, for example, the case which my 
 learned friend put in his argument, the 
 case we have shown by our evidence to 
 be the real one. My learned friend said. 
 If, when this chapel was purchased, it 
 was desired to secure the maintenance of 
 strict cmn. in this chapel for ever, words 
 should have been introduced which 
 would have had that effect. We, on the 
 other hand, have shown that in the year 
 1S58, the Managers of the Building Fund 
 thought rather that the onus prohandi 
 [burden of proof] was not on those who 
 considered the chapel dedicated to strict 
 cmn., and that there was no safety for 
 those who wished to act on the contrary 
 view, unless they added, to the general 
 formula, words giving an, e.tprcss poicer 
 to admit pjersons to cmn. on the opieii prin- 
 cipile. But... no one can doubt that if 
 you have a deed expressed either in the 
 one form or the other . . . the terms of 
 the deed would not he mutable at the 
 pleasure of the particular cgn. The 
 mere fact of that cgn. being able to as- 
 sociate in works of a public character, . . . 
 with others which were founded on a 
 different principle, would be no evidence 
 of the variable or mutable character of 
 the particular constitution of any one 
 cgn. It would be evidence only of this, 
 that whatever the differences between 
 them were, these did not extend so far 
 as to prevent that species of combined 
 
 and concerted action that was found to 
 exist... The opinion that you are to sub- 
 scribe only to a society which is exclu- 
 sively composed of persons of the same 
 creed, is so far from being the prevailing 
 opinion, that in the Bible Society... even 
 the doctrine of the Trinity is not in- 
 sisted on.... If you find in bodies of this 
 kind a conbined and mutual action taking 
 place, which does not involve the par- 
 ticular point itself, then you see that 
 whatever may be the true view of the" 
 cmn. question, " yet that is not violated 
 by this species of fraternal, charitable, 
 and combined action which exists : and 
 it would be the greatest mischief in the 
 world to say you are to imply the relin- 
 quishment, the surrender, the compromise 
 of the original principle of any jjarticular 
 cgn., merely from the fact that its minis- 
 ters and its members have been able to 
 meet together, and to subscribe to- 
 gether, ...for the education of young men, 
 for the conversion of the heathen, or 
 even to consult in general assemblies 
 concerning the external common in- 
 terests of the whole denomination ; al- 
 ways recollecting that not one of these 
 bodies has ever claimed or exercised the 
 right of dictation, or authority over any 
 of these cgns." 
 
 " Sir, in addition to these remarks, 
 which seem to me to cover the whole of 
 the ground on that part of the argument, 
 I cannot but remind your Honour that 
 the whole of that, and indeed a great 
 part of the entire line of argument, 
 adopted on the other side, would have 
 been just as applicable in Lady Hew- 
 ley's case, for example, as here; be- 
 cause no doubt it does happen in bodies 
 which have not guarded against the oc- 
 currence, by tests, and other such safe- 
 guards, that the inevitable constitution 
 of the human mind, on these abstruse 
 and difficult subjects, leads to changes... 
 of opinion, of which, when once set in 
 motion, nobody can tell whei'e they will 
 stop. They are contagious, and affect 
 large bodies. Mind catches mind, and 
 in the end the whole of the community 
 becomes leavened with principles or 
 opinions which were not at first per- 
 ceived to involve conclusions contra- 
 dictory to those originally held, but 
 which afterwards turn out to do so; 
 and conti'ary opinions are in due time 
 accepted. That is the case we know of 
 the English Presbyterian body ; taking 
 the decision in Lady Hewley's case to be 
 law. We know that bodies, which ori- 
 ginally held the strictest Trinitarian 
 doctrine, began first, on principle, to 
 
128 
 
 reject texts : and when the question was 
 mooted among them, whether they 
 would apply a test, to prevent the 
 growth of Arian opinions, they declined, 
 in several assemblies, and with the con- 
 cnrreuce of men of great authority 
 among them, to do so. We know, that 
 the consequence of the course so deli- 
 berately taken on the subject of tests 
 was, that the opinion which tbey refused 
 so to exclude, gained way more and 
 more among them, until at last, the wlmle 
 Presbyterian body in Enr/land, and a larr/e 
 section of it in Ireland, was pervaded 
 with Socinian or Unitarian principles, 
 directly contrary to the Ti-initai-ian prin- 
 ciple with which they started. And yet, 
 in f)oint of law, it was held, that that 
 was no kind of reason why the original 
 principle should not be enforced with re- 
 gard to trusts of property which had been 
 created in favour of the denomination 
 formed upon that principle." 
 
 "Sir, there is another consideration ;. . . 
 [no] member of all these bodies.. .is tied by 
 any external authority ivhaterer, to his ac- 
 tual position ; therefore his own mind has 
 full play on this subject ; the influence 
 of his mind on other minds has full play, 
 and there is nothing which aims at check- 
 ing or coercing it. Many, too, of these 
 bodies have no trusts, no endowments, 
 nothing on which the law can take hold, 
 nothing which is incapable of fluctuating 
 with the opinion which may from time 
 to time prevail, however widely that 
 may diverge h-oia the original principles 
 of the body ...[And] unless you have a 
 trust to enforce, — if [a society] depends 
 on voluntary means, supplied by volun- 
 tary subscription, that species of change 
 cannot be in any way controlled. There- 
 fore, under these circumstances, we meet 
 with a number of mutable conditions, 
 naturally affecting the general external 
 history of such bodies, many of which 
 are quite independent of the question, 
 What were the proper doctrines, the cha- 
 racteristic opinions, the original constitu- 
 tion, of the denomination itself? This 
 shows the extreme danger of judging ex 
 post facto, on changes of oiiiuiou which, 
 after years of controver.sy, the influence 
 of particular minds or circumstances may 
 have introduced ; and of forming from 
 their existence any conclusion as to what 
 the original constitution of the body, in 
 which they now exist, was." 
 
 " Sir, those obseiwations, I think, will, 
 on the one hand, affect the question as to 
 the present statistics, which seem to me 
 of no gi-eat value ; and will, on the other 
 hand, make it improper for me to refer 
 
 to such evidence as thei'e is of some in- 
 stances, (in Wales, for example), where 
 a laxer priucij^le having been once 
 adopted, the chs. became almost all of 
 them converted subsequently to the 
 strict principle." 
 
 IV. The controversy in the ISth 
 CENTURY. " 1 will accept (without any 
 inquiry, whether it requires modification 
 or not) the statement that the contro- 
 versy slept from the 17th cent, till the 
 end of the lyth; that then Mr. Booth 
 was a champion who put it to sleep 
 again : and that it did not revive until 
 the time of R. Plall in the 19th." Mr. 
 P. then quoted from Mr. Hall's works, 
 " a summary of ... a History of the 
 Controversy down to that time." from 
 the words, " It is surprisiug,'' to the 
 words, ''at the price of silence and sub- 
 mission ;" (Rejily to Kn. Pref., p. xi.) 
 The extract states that from the time of 
 Buuyan's " Water Baptism," to that of 
 Mr. Robt. Robinson's woi'k on cmn., a 
 century elapsed with " few or no efforts 
 to check" strict cmn., " which had 
 gained so firm a footing previously to 
 Mr. Booth's writing, that he felt no 
 scruple in entitling his defence of that 
 pi'actice ' An Apology for the Bpts,' " 
 and that the feiv free cmn. chs. " were 
 very equivijcally acknowledged to belong 
 to the general body." This, said Mr. P., 
 " is the clear case of a small minority 
 struggling to maintain, yet hardly daring 
 to maintain, against the prevailing sense 
 of the community, a particular dissen- 
 tient opinion." 
 
 '' Mr. Hall was a writer of such 
 ability." said Mr Palmer, " and of such 
 clear sight, that he was aware of the 
 tendency of the views he advocated, and 
 advocated them with a view to the efiecb 
 which he foresaw." Mr. P. then read 
 from Mr. Norton's 2nd Afl't. ph. 3, an ex- 
 tract from Mr. Hall's "Short Statement," 
 p. 46,* stating that, " were the practice of 
 mixed cmn. universally to prevail... the 
 appellation of Baptist might be found, 
 not so properly applicable to churches as 
 to individuals." " He clearly foresaw." 
 said the learned counsel, "' that which 
 he called in one passage, cited from a 
 book read by my learned friend yester- 
 day, ' A silent revolution ;' which was 
 the expression he used, when he was re- 
 commending that the strict members 
 should be allowed to have a separate 
 cmn. of their oion. He said that that 
 would soon work ' a silent rerolution.' 
 He clearly foresaw that the consequence 
 
 ' Hall's Works, HI. 4o2. 
 
129 
 
 of that rcTolution would be, that which 
 Bunyan had so openly advocated, the 
 loss altogether of the distinctive character 
 of the denomination, its fusion and iner- 
 sion into other denominations, and the 
 eventual loss of the dcaoniinational cha- 
 racter altogether.... The qnestiou here is, 
 whether that object is consistent with a 
 
 DEDICATION OF THIS PARTICULAR CHAPEL 
 TO THE USE OF THE DENOMINATION OF 
 Pr. BpTS. meeting at THIS PARTICULAR 
 PLACE ?" 
 
 V. "Now, Sir, with regard to this 
 PARTICULAR CHURCH... Your Houour re- 
 collects... that definition of the ch. of 
 which * baptized believers,' is an express 
 term [Ai-t. ix. in ch. bk.] ; so that what- 
 ever may be said as to any other docu- 
 ment, it cannot be said that the books of 
 thi^ ch. are neutral or silent on that 
 point." 
 
 " The practice, as I have shown to 
 your Honour, (and I will just produce 
 one or two of the f)roofs of it,) the prac- 
 tice has been on that subject, perfectly 
 unmistakable and uniform.'' 
 
 Mr. P. then referred to the admission 
 made by the trustees in the case prepared 
 for counsel in 1845; also to the ad- 
 mission made by Mr. Brock, and the whole 
 ch. on 28th of June, 1847, that it had 
 always practised strict cmn. [See p. 83, 
 preceding, ph. 39.] He, " Mr. Brock, put 
 his practice on the ground that it was extra 
 ecclesiam [outside the chj, that it was 
 an individual act of his own in using the 
 building, by which he did not compro- 
 mise or chancre the character or usage of 
 the cgn. at all. The majority seem to 
 have acquiesced in that view, although 
 there were some who would not, and 
 either eleven or nine, (the exact number 
 is not material,) were excluded because 
 they did not."* 
 
 " The same 9th article which speaks 
 of the visible body of Christ as a com- 
 pany of ' baptized believers,' desci-ibes 
 them also as voluntarily agreeing ' to 
 walk together in obedience to Christ their 
 Head and Lawgiver, in all the laws and 
 ordinances of his house /...we may not alter 
 anything, but do all according to the 
 pattern ;' implying, therefore, that any 
 change from that which was assumed, by 
 those who held it, to be of Divine obliga- 
 tion, is utterly contrary to the basis on 
 which that ch. was formed." 
 
 • The eleven wlio were excluded were not 
 the only persons who did not acqidesce in, 
 that is, were not satisfied with, the new ser- 
 vice. See pp. 64, 65, preceding remarks on 
 answers to ph. xvii. of Bill. Ed. 
 
 Mr. Palmer said, as to " The history 
 OP Mr. Kinghorn's views :...Mr. King- 
 horn... desiring to fortify himself with 
 arguments on both sides, before he, in 
 his own mind, felt that he was master of 
 the subject, corresponded with his father, 
 and manifested in that correspondence a 
 very strong sense of the inconsistency of 
 the practice of open cmn. with the prin- 
 ciples of Pr. Bpts. On the other hand, 
 emancipating himself at the time from 
 the influence of the principles of that 
 particular denomination, he thought 
 there was force in some of the general 
 grounds, on which, as a matter of duty, 
 the opposite view had been advocated, 
 and he desired to inform himself fully 
 and impartially on the matter. There 
 is not one word in all his letters, which 
 implies in the slightest degree whatever, 
 that he thought at that or at any other 
 time, that it would be consistent with his 
 duty to the cgn., that he should remain 
 minister of it^ introducing and practising 
 open cmn. there, even if he should come 
 to a conclusion in his own mind in favour 
 of that opinion ; because it was always 
 open to Mr. Kn , as it would be to any 
 minister, if he came to a conclusion that 
 was inconsistent with his duty and posi- 
 tion, to leave that position and to get a 
 new one... While people are in a state of 
 transition, they do not alter their posi- 
 tions, until they arrive at conclusions 
 which are incompatible with them... The 
 example of Mr. Kinghorn would have 
 amounted to no more than this, if it 
 had appeared, which it does not, that 
 there was ever the slightest tendency in 
 his mind to the adoption of the * opten' 
 conclusion...." 
 
 Of "passages as to discipline, in the 
 different ch. bks.," Mr. P. said, that 
 "the general result of them" is to show 
 that " those who administered, from time 
 to time, the government of this ch.... 
 were so far from introducing the notion 
 of latitudinai'ian cmn., the notion that 
 any one without c\i\i.vch.-membership could 
 communicate, that they seem to have 
 thought it proper to exclude persons from 
 this cmn., both on doctrinal and other 
 grouiuls, and particularly [for] asso- 
 ciating in religious worship with Quakers 
 and with Methodists. ... The fact of 
 that being done, seems to be a jjlain 
 proof that the denominational principle 
 was correctly understood, and strictly 
 acted upon, and that it was held, not 
 merely to be a matter as to which the 
 church itself was strict, but to be a 
 matter, as to which the obligation of 
 strictness extended to every individual 
 
 I 
 
130 
 
 member of that ck. I will say no more 
 on the subject of pai'ticular instances 
 than that I feel quite sure their ten- 
 dency as a whole, and their tendency in 
 detail, is only one way, namely, to sup- 
 port the view of the informants, and 
 not that of the defts. 
 
 " Sii', there is another main argu- 
 ment ;..,that is, that by virtue of the in- 
 herent indei^endence of every cgn., there 
 must be the power of doing this [intro- 
 ducing free-cmn.] That is a mere petitio 
 princi2ni [begging the question], for it 
 will not be asserted that independence of 
 external government is to go so far as to 
 entitle them at their pleasure, utterly to 
 depart from every pi'inciple on which 
 they have been constituted. It will not 
 be argued, that because .they acknow- 
 ledge no Pope, no Convocation, no 
 Synod, no General Assembly, as having 
 any authority over them, that therefoi'e 
 the Court of Chancery is to be con- 
 sidered as usurping the power, and the 
 functions of a Pope or Synod, and im- 
 posing upon them what, by their agree- 
 ment, they exclude, merely because its 
 aid is invoked and given to hold them, 
 in respect of property given and taken 
 in trust, to the fundamental 'principles on 
 which that trust %vas established .. .^\iqj 
 will not pretend to say, I should think, 
 for instance, that it is consistent with the 
 liberty of this cgn. to turn it into a Pres- 
 byterian ch., or an Episcopal ch. It is 
 obvious, the liberty of this cgn. is a 
 liberty which has its limits. Your Hon- 
 our is engaged in investigating those 
 limits, and learning whether those limits 
 include the total eccterminafion and ob- 
 literation of all distinctions, in respect of 
 membership and cmn. ; because, I repeat, 
 the entire effect of the evidence is to 
 show that if they may do what they 
 claim, as to cmn., they may do what 
 they do not now claim, but what their 
 principle, of necessity, involves, as to 
 membership, to-morrow. It is clear they 
 could not make it a Presbyterian ch., or 
 an Episcopalian ch., or a Roman Catholic 
 ch. ; and therefore they cannot do what 
 they like. The question is whether a 
 majority is to be able to alienate it from 
 its original denomination, by introducing 
 a system which, in its present stage, that 
 of open cmn. [in the L's. Spr.], goes 
 far to obliterate the adherence to any 
 standard ; which, if carried on to mem- 
 bership, would obvioiisly make it possible 
 that etery member of this communi/y mi</ht 
 he an unbaptized person. The principle, 
 and the test of arguments founded on 
 prmciple, is fairly discovered in extreme 
 
 cases. On principle, what one may do, 
 all may do. If it be right to admit one 
 unbaptized person, there is nothing to 
 stop the operation of that principle in 
 practice.... And the result practically is, 
 or may be, the alienation of this chapel 
 from the community of Pr. Bpts. alto- 
 gether." 
 
 As to " the EXCLUSION [of part] of the 
 relators and pltfs. and those who agree 
 with them;... it must be obvious to your 
 Honour that the question comes to be 
 this : Shall those who adhere to the 
 
 OLD PRINCIPLES OP THE BODY BE EX- 
 CLUDED, OR SHALL THOSE WHO DEPART 
 PROM THEM BE RESTRAINED ? That is the 
 
 alternative, Sir. It is no perrerseness, or 
 insubordination, or refusal to obey disci- 
 pline, in these individuals — the pltfs., 
 which causes this question to arise in 
 its present form. Mr. Kinghom foresaw, 
 and pointedly stated, what would happen 
 if such attempts were made." 
 
 Mr. Palmer then read a passage from 
 Mr. Kinghorn's last work on cmn., pub- 
 lished in 1827, entitled " Arguments 
 against the Practice of Mixed Cmn.," 
 pp. 51 — 53, commencing at the words, 
 " Another objection." Mr. Kinghom 
 there says, that "if a strong party 
 should rise up" in a church composed 
 wholly of Baptists, in favour of "the 
 admission of the unbaptized to cmn." the 
 members opposed to it " would be com- 
 pelled to say,... 'if this point is carried, 
 we must leave you.' They would say 
 further, 'you knew the general senti- 
 ments of the ch. before you entered it, you 
 knew that we had always received only 
 those who were baptized ; you requested 
 us to receive you ; and now you would 
 exclude us who agreed to admit you. 
 They would also probably add, as with 
 good reason they might,... if your in- 
 tention is to take measures which will 
 expel us from our home, we shall not be 
 able to suppress the feeling that you 
 have robbed us both of our privileges 
 and of our property. "We have often 
 heard the Unitarians censured for keep- 
 ing possession of the places of worship, 
 and other property, of the old Presby- 
 terians, after they had introduced a new 
 doctrine, and driven away those who 
 could not give up the faith of their 
 fathers ; and if you follow their example, 
 and by breaking the constitution of our 
 churches, exclude those who persevere 
 in the sentiments on which they were 
 formed, and which hitherto they have 
 maintained, though the two cases differ 
 in magnitude, yet the disingenuousness oi 
 the conduct is of the same nature.'' 
 
131 
 
 " It 13 remarkable," said Mr. Palmer, 
 " that the passage which I have read 
 prophetically describes what has now 
 taken place. When Mr. Brock was 
 elected, he actually signed* a written 
 engagement, that he would not disturb 
 this question. When Mr. Gould was 
 oi'dained he did not indeed do that ; but 
 I think it appears from the evidence, 
 that in the sermon preached on that oc- 
 casion, strict cmn. was set forth with 
 distinctness as the doctrine and practice 
 uniformly of this ch.t 
 
 " Well, the majority admitted, (as my 
 learned friend with his usual candour 
 has admitted), the truth of that passage 
 in Mr. Norton's afFt., which echoes only 
 what Mr. Kinghorn has said, that neither 
 party looks on this point as a matter of 
 indifference, (I have here something in 
 Mr. Gould's handwriting, in which he 
 takes as high ground from his own jpoint 
 of view, as the other party does, each 
 viewing it as a matter of positive obliga- 
 tion to act on their own principles,) the 
 question is : which are to be excluded ? 
 ...Those who persevere in the sentiments 
 which distinguished the congregation when 
 they became the possessors of the property, 
 or those who, conning in with full notice 
 and knowledge of those sentiments, and of 
 that constitution, subsequently, with the 
 help of a majority, endeavour to change it J 
 
 " It is said to be a breach of dis- 
 cipline on our part not to acquiesce in 
 the vote of the majority, although, as far 
 back as 1677, we have it on record that 
 those who practised strict cmn. made it 
 a matter of conscience to do so. No one, 
 in the face of history, can represent it 
 as a matter of perverseness, self-will, or 
 caprice. It is a matter of conscience. 
 It has been known to be such from first 
 to last, and if this Information should 
 not succeed, then those who on con- 
 scientious grounds adhere to that which 
 
 * Mr. Brock himself wrote thus in the eh. 
 bk., and though he did not add his name, yet 
 the effect of his baud-writing was precisely 
 the same as if he had done so; that is, " This 
 matter having led the ch. to resolve, that such 
 difference was by no means incompatible with 
 my acceptance of their invitation, so long as 
 I undertook not to moot the question of open 
 cmn. at St. Mary's, I did accept it on tlte olst 
 of May, [1833J." 
 
 t Mr. Palmer probably referred to the state- 
 ment made in the name of the ch. at Mr. 
 Gould's ordination. See p. 15, col. 1, pre- 
 ceding;. 
 
 from the beginning has existed, until it 
 was violated by Mr. Brock iu 1845, will 
 be turned out from their otvn ch. and cgn., 
 to make way foj' the new opinions of 
 others, at the mere will of a majority." 
 
 VII. The Prater. " Sir, I have done, 
 in substance ; but I desire to make an ob- 
 servation on two passages in the Prater, 
 which we do not wish to be misunder- 
 stood about. My learned friend, .con- 
 sidered that it asked for exclusion from 
 any presence in the building or worship 
 whatever, of those who were not baptized 
 in the manner therein mentioned. This 
 is not the meaning of the passage, and 
 if there are any words which may be 
 thought to convey such a meaning, 
 they may be easily omitted and easily 
 changed. 
 
 " The other passage is in the 5th ph., 
 which asks that Mr. Gould may be re- 
 moved. We have no pei'sonal feeling of 
 hostility against Mr. Gould, and we 
 have no wish whatever to remove him. 
 If we can attain our object of vindi- 
 cating the constitution of the chapel, 
 and if Mr. Gould can acquiesce in that, 
 it will give sincere pleasure to all for 
 whom i appear, that Mr. Gould should 
 remain the minister. J But the Informa- 
 tion was of necessity, so framed as to 
 disable the defts. from alleging that the 
 pltfs. had come into Court without 
 enabling the Court to give full effect to 
 the principle, and to follow out that 
 principle, if it were found necessarily to 
 require a change of minister " 
 
 The Master oi? the Rolls. " I will 
 look through the papers before I deliver 
 judgment. Let me have any of the 
 books that you think it necessary I 
 should refer to. I should like to have 
 the Hanserd KnoUys' Book. I do not 
 want the works of Robert HaU. I have 
 them." 
 
 [The reports of the speeches of Coun- 
 sel from which the above abstracts are 
 made, coincide in everything material, 
 with those printed by Mr. Gould, in hia 
 volume entitled " Open Communion and 
 the Baptists of Norwich." Ed. 
 
 t Counsel, in making this statement, acted 
 on the general impression which was derived 
 from the nature of the brief, not from express 
 direction ; and though no ill-will was felt to- 
 v/ards Mr. Gould, it is not likely, after 
 what had occurred, that the strict members 
 would have held that Mr. Gould was the most 
 suitable person to continue to be their pastor. 
 Ed. 
 
 1 2 
 
132 
 
 ROLLS' COURT. 
 
 Trinity Term, 
 
 May 28, 1860. 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS. 
 
 %\t %Mni-§mm\ 1). iottlJr. 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 The Master of the Eolls. — Tlie question brought before me, on this 
 Information, is whether, havmg regard to the trusts of a Deed establishing, for 
 the use of Particular Baptists, the chapel in the City of Norwich, that building 
 may be opened and employed for the reception of communicants who have not 
 been baptized by immersion upon a piofession of faith, although in all other 
 essential particulars, whether in faith, in doctrine, orin holmess of hfe and 
 conversation, they concur with those who are the full members of that 
 church. In other words, whether strict communion is to be the future rule in 
 the practice of this chapel, or whether the communion is to be open to all those 
 who profess the same doctrme, and act in such a manner as to show that their 
 professions are not mere empty words, and who may apply to participate in 
 such communion, although they have not been baptized by immersion on a 
 profession of faith. 
 
 The question has been argued before me with great leammg and ability, and 
 at considerable length ; but the question I have to determine is, in my oijinion, 
 confined witliin very narrow limits. It does not lie within my provmce 
 (nor have I any desire), to look beyond the law of the case, or to con- 
 sider what may be the consequences of my decision on the large and influ- 
 ential class of dissenters comprised within this denomination, and which has 
 always contained among its members men possessed of great learning and 
 varied attainments. Neither am I at liberty to sjjeculate upon, or to 
 examine, the various passages of Scripture which relate to this subject, for the 
 purpose of ascertainuig what might be, in my opinion, if the matter were res 
 integra, the practice most in accordance with Divine writ. I have simply to 
 determine a legal question, which is. Whether, having regard to the terms of 
 the deed founding this chapel, free communion is to be henceforth interdicted 
 in the practice of its members. 
 
 The words of the deed are these : — " Were purchased for and intended as a 
 place of public worship for the congregation of Particular Baptists within the 
 
133 
 
 said city of Norwich for the time being ; and that they (here they mention the 
 names of the trustees) and their heirs then were,...and at all times thereafter 
 should stand..seized of the said messuage and premises in trust, to and for the 
 use and benefit of the congregation of Particular Baptists witliin the said city 
 of Norwich for the time being, and that the same premises should..be always 
 held and enjoyed for and as their place of public worship." That is the whole 
 of the trust of the deed. 
 
 The trust, therefore, being "for the use and benefit of... Particular Baptists," 
 I am hound to inquire whether the doctrine and faith of Particular Baptists, 
 excluded the practice of free comiminion. 
 
 Before examining this question, it is proper to observe, that the mode in 
 which this free communion is administered at present in this chapel, and the 
 full extent toivhich it is proposed to extend the administration of it for the future, 
 in case the practice be not stopped by the Injunction of this Court, is this : — The 
 sacrament is so administered, that it does not involve any necessity on the part 
 of those members of the church who dissent from that practice, that they should 
 jjarticipate in any communion which is administered to believing and orthodox 
 Christians who have not been baptized by immersion ; neither does it make it 
 necessary that the persons who abstain from so participating, should be com- 
 pelled to abstain from the communion administered to members of the church, 
 who have one and all received the rite of baptism by immersion upon a 
 profession of faith. The practice is, that separate and appropriate occasions 
 are fixed for the communion exclusively of those who have been baptized by 
 immersion after a profession of faith, while other fitting occasions are set apart 
 for the communion of orthodox and devout Cluistians adopting the doctrines 
 and feith of the Particular Baptists, without regard to the distinction whether 
 they have been baptized by immersion or not. 
 
 The object of this suit is to restrain tlie minister and those who concur with 
 him, from using the edifice in question for the purpose of administering the 
 communion to such persons, at such periods of time, and on such occasions, as 
 do not interfere with the convenience or religious observances of those who 
 insist upon strict communion. 
 
 The question, then, that I have to determine is, whether the minister of this 
 church shall be at liberty to administer the sacrament to sincere and orthodox 
 Christians professuig the same faith, without regard to the circumstance of 
 whether they have been baptized by immersion after a profession of faith, 
 but so doing it, as not to interfere with the stricter brethren. In other words, 
 I have to determine whether the employment of the building by the minister 
 for this purpose, is such a perversion of the objects and trusts for which it was 
 established, that it is a violation of those trusts which tliis Court wUl interfere 
 to prevent. 
 
 In order to determine this, the first question I have to consider is, whether it 
 is a fundamental principle of the fxith of Particular Baptists, that no person 
 should be allowed to participate in the communion, unless and until he has 
 been baptized by immersion, after a profession of faith. 
 
 Five Confessions of Faith have at various times been promulgated, emanating 
 from assemblies or congregations of Particular Baptists. These are not put 
 forward by the framers of them as binding the whole body to which they are 
 addressed, but they are addressed to the whole class of Particular Baptists, as 
 containing the doctrines which the persons assembled considered to be a fair 
 and true exposition of their faith, and which, as such, might tend to the union 
 and support of their churches, and to the dissemination of their doctrines, and 
 also to the removal of erroneous opinions and prejudices entertained towards 
 them by other classes of Christians. Tliese Confessions were signed by the 
 persons who attended the assembhes, as a test of their approbation. Their 
 views are well expressed by themselves, in the publication of the Narrative 
 of the Proceedings of the Assembly in 1689, to which I shall presently have 
 occasion to refer. These Confessions, therefore, are of high value in the con- 
 
134 
 
 sideration of this question, and it may be fairly assumed, that nothing that 
 was considered to be a fundamental doctrine of their faith would be omitted 
 from these Confessions. An attentive examination of these Confessions has 
 not enabled me to discover anj-thing in them which amounts to an assertion 
 that the communion ought never to be administered to any one who has 
 not been baptized by immersion upon a profession of faith. The nearest 
 approach to this doctrine, is Article 39, in the London Confession of Faith, 
 which is in these words :— " Baptism is an ordinance ; " then it refers to 
 Matthew, and Mark, and John, and the other passages where it is referred to : — 
 " Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be 
 dispensed upon persons professing faith, or that are made disciples, who, upon 
 profession of faith, ought to be baptized, and after to partake of the Lord's 
 Supper." But evsn this does not include the assertion of the principle con- 
 tended for by the Informant and Plaintiffs, and the omission of it from 
 the rest of the Confession, is pregnant with the implied admission that the 
 assertion of that doctrine was not, by the persons wlao framed or assented to 
 that Confession, considered to be a fundamental principle of the faith of 
 Particular Baptists. 
 
 If I turn from the Confession of Faith to the written opinions of the most 
 eminent writers of the Baptist persuasion, I find that, even ui the earliest times, 
 several of the most eminent professors of that faith, not only did not hold 
 this to be an essential and fundamental doctrine of their faith, but have openly 
 supported and written in favour of free communion. In 1645, Mr. Henry Jessey, 
 and in the following year, Mr. John Tombes, seem to have adopted the 
 doctrine of free or mixed communion. And in 1672 and 1673, the justly 
 celebrated Jolui Bunyan employed his most graphic and vigorous pen, in 
 support of the san:3 doctrine. The majority, no doubt, of the ministers and 
 congregations of the Particular Baptists were, at that time, strongly opposed 
 to this doctrine, and Mr. Kiffin, a gentleman of great learning and authority, 
 who was John Bunyan's great opponent on this question, felt so warmly on 
 the subject, as sometimes to allow his zeal to overstep what woidd, in modem 
 controversial writings, be considered the just limit of Christian charity, and 
 therein exhibited a strong contrast to his opponent ; but even Mr. Kiffin, and 
 the other ministers of that class of Particular Baptists, took no steps to exclude 
 from their communion persons who, like John Bunyan, adopted the opinion 
 of free or mixed communion. It must, therefore, be considered that it was 
 not by those persons, even when heated Avith the warmth of controversy, con- 
 sidered to be a doctrine of a fundamental character, or so essential as to 
 constitute one of the necessary elements in the composition of the faith of a 
 true and sincere Particular Baptist. 
 
 The next point which, by the examination of the Articles on this subject, I 
 find to be established is, that although in all essential and fundamental doctrines, 
 all churches and congregations of Particular Baptists concurred, yet that, in 
 matters not poMaking of that character, not only no one congregation, but not 
 even any assembly of congregations, considered itself at liberty to dictate to any 
 other church or congregation which might dissent from it. On the contrary, a 
 fundamental doctrine of the Particular Baptists seems to have been, that each 
 separate congregation, constituted a distinct church in itself, forming, with the 
 other congTCgations entertaining the same opinions, the class of Particular 
 Baptists ; and, together with aU other classes of orthodox Christians, constituting 
 the great church of Christ. Accordingly, this principle is distinctly laid down 
 in the Narrative of the Proceedings connected with the Assembly in 1689, and 
 the Confession of Faith then agreed to be published. I read this from " Ivimey's 
 Histoiy," page 489, of vol. i. of the edition which was handed up to me. After 
 stating what they met together for, and that they began by solemnly seeking 
 the Lord by prayer, they state, they " did conclude upon these followuig pre- 
 Hminaries, and lay them down as the foundation of this our assembly, and 
 rules for our proceedings ; whereui all the messengers of the churches aforesaid, 
 
135 
 
 in city and country, as well for the satisfaction of every particular church, aa 
 also to prevent all mistakes, misapprehensions, and inconveniences, that might 
 arise in time to come concerning this general assembly, do solemnly and 
 unanimously profess and declare : — 
 
 " 1. That we disclaim all manner of superiority and superintendency over 
 the churches, and that we have no authority or power to prescribe or impose 
 anything upon the faith or practice of any of the churches of Christ. Our 
 whole intendment ia to be helpers together of one another, by way of counsel 
 and advice, in the right understanding of that perfect rule which our Lord Jesus, 
 the Bishop of our souls, hath already prescribed and given to his churches in his 
 word, and therefore do severally and jointly agree." 
 
 I omit the second for the present, and proceed to the third : — 
 
 " 3. That if any particular offence doth arise betwixt one church and another, 
 or betwixt one particular person and another, no offence shall be admitted to 
 be debated among us, till the rule Christ hath given in this matter be first 
 answered, and the consent of both parties had, or sufficiently endeavoured. 
 
 " 4. That whatever is determined by us in any case, shall not be binding on 
 any one church, till the consent of that church be first had, and they conclude 
 the same among themselves. 
 
 5. That all things we offer by way of counsel and ^advice, be proved out of 
 the word of God, and the Scriptures annexed." 
 
 It would, therefore, follow, from the establishment of the principle here 
 announced, that in all matters — at least not being fundamental — it was part of 
 the constitution and essence of each church or congregation of Particular 
 Baptists, that they might regulate their practice as they thought fit. The 
 inference is irresistible, that, as the practice of free or mixed communion, 
 was not a fundamental pomt of faith, the practice must be subject to the 
 regulation of each church or congregation, and accordingly, this is distinctly 
 laid down in the second article of the Narrative, which I have already re- 
 ferred to, and wliich I omitted ia reading the former paragraphs for the purpose 
 of introducing it here. The paragraph is this : — 
 
 " 2. That in those things wherein one church differs from another church in 
 their principles or practices, in point of communion, that we cannot, shall not 
 impose upon any particular church therein, but leave every church to their own 
 liberty, to walk together as they have received from the Lord." 
 
 Tliis is, in my opmion, conclusive on this point. It follows, then, from what 
 I have stated, (for this distmctly refers to the practice of churches in point of 
 communion), it follows from what I have stated that, in my opinion, it is 
 established that each congregation was, from the earliest time, at liberty to 
 regulate its practice, either to strict communion, or to free or mixed com- 
 munion, as it might seem best to such congregation. 
 
 That would dispose of the present question, were it not for the consideration 
 of the Usage which has prevailed on this point in the chapel at Norwich. This 
 congregation has adopted the practice of strict coimmunion, from its fi/rst insti- 
 tution until within a very slwrt period of the present time. I have, therefore, 
 to consider whether that usage has precluded this congregation from altering 
 that practice, and from now adoptmg the practice of free or mixed communion. 
 On this point the deed does not help the plaintiffs, because the words of it say 
 nothing about maintaining the existing practice. The words are confined to 
 the maintenance and worship of the congregation of Particular Baptists, and 
 the doctrine of communion, as I have stated, is not an essential or funda- 
 mental doctrine of the faith of Particuhir Baptists. It must, in my opinion, 
 arise from a misapprehension of the doctrine of the Courts of Equity, with 
 reference to usage, that any one can be brought to the opinion that previous 
 custom wlU, in such cases, bind the present congregation. 
 
 Having regard to that doctrine, I am at a loss to understand, on what 
 
136 
 
 principle it can be fairly contended, or by what argument it can be reasonably 
 maintained, that a practice not involving fundamental points of faith, and not 
 prescribed by the deed of endowment, can have become so fixed by custom, as 
 to be incapable of alteration, if the majority of that congregation shall be of 
 opinion that such alteration will be more in accordance with the faith they 
 profess, and more acceptable to the Great Being whose ordinances they assemble 
 to observe. Usage is only important, in a legal point of view, where there is 
 an_ absence of any instrument of endowment, or where the words of the 
 instrument produced are ambiguous ; in such cases usage constitutes presump- 
 tive evidence of the trusts on which the charity was estabUshed. But when 
 the deed of foundation is produced, and when that deed is precise, that pre- 
 sumption is excluded. Here, we possess an accurate knowledge of the object 
 of the foundation, in the words of the deed of endowment. The words of 
 the deed of endowment are precise. They involve all that is essential for the 
 faith and maintenance of a Particular Baptist congregation, but nothing further. 
 And if I am right in the conclusion to which I have come, that the practice of 
 strict or free communion, forms no part of what is essential for the faith and 
 maintenance of a, congregation of Particular Baptists, it follows, that no rule 
 on this subject is prescribed by the deed of foundation. 
 
 I am therefore of opinion that tliis congregation is at full liberty to alter its 
 practice in respect of communion, if such should be the oi^inion of the 
 majority of its full members. 
 
 One ai-gument was addressed to me with some force, and which obviously 
 presses strongly on the minds of the plaintiffs, and on which it is desirable I 
 should make a few short obserA^ations. The argument is this ; " If this practice 
 of free communion be adopted, not merely will strangers who have not been 
 baptized by immersion, be admitted into the church, to participate in free com- 
 munion, but in a short time even unbaptized persons will be introduced to 
 the full membersliip of the church itself." This is an argument, in my opinion, 
 fallacious in itself, and one which it is impossible for this Court to regard. 
 
 Assuming that the introduction of unbaptized persons into the full mem- 
 bership of this church, will be contrary to the trusts on wliich the chapel was 
 founded — and assuming, also, that the effect of the introduction of free com- 
 munion will be to induce the persons entertaining that opinion to strive to 
 introduce unbaptized persons into the membership of the church, stiQ, unless 
 the practice of free communion, taken by itself, is a breach of trust, this 
 Court has no right or power to interfere. When the breach of trust occa- 
 sioned by the introduction of unbaptized persons into the full membership of the 
 church, is committed, it will be ample time to call on this Court to interfere 
 by injunction, and prevent its continuance ; but until it is committed, this 
 Court cannot interfere, by its decree, to restrain something, not wrong in 
 itself, but wliich may possibly lead to something which it thinks ought to be 
 prevented. 
 
 In making these observations, however, I beg to be distinctly understood, 
 as expressing no opinion whatever on a point not befoi'e me ; or whether the 
 practice of free communion will be likely to produce that result, or whether, if 
 produced, this Court would interfere. It is sufficient for me to know that 
 this is not the point before me, and that the defendants disclaim any intention 
 of actmg in the manner imputed to them. 
 
 The result is that, in my opinion, the case of the plaintiffs fails ; and I wiU, 
 at the desire of either party, do this — I will either make a declaration that, in 
 my opinion, according to the true construction of the deed of the 24th of 
 November, 1746, the full members of the church or congregation of Particular 
 Baptists within the city of Norwich, are entitled to adopt the ^jractice of free 
 communion, or of strict commimion, as they shall, from time to time, think 
 fit to determine ; or, in the other branch of the alternative, I virill dismiss the 
 Information simply ; but in neither case will I give any costs. 
 
137 
 
 Sir Hugh Cairns. — So far, Sir, as the defendants are concerned, we should 
 prefer a simple dismissal of the Information, if your Honour thought it right 
 to do so. 
 
 The Master of the Eolls. — Very well, I will simply dismiss the Informa- 
 tion, without costs. 
 
 Mr. Palmer. — I am quite sure it is not necessary for me to ask whether 
 your Honour's attention has been distinctly directed to that matter which was 
 the subject of the latter part of the fourth paragraph of the prayer of the 
 Information. 
 
 The Master of the Kolls. — I attended to that, but then I considered the 
 argument was solely confined to the questions I have adverted to. 
 
 Mr. Palmer. — What I meant was, about the exclusion of the plaintiffs. 
 Your Honour did not say anything on that subject, but I do not tliink it is at 
 all likely that you have overlooked it. 
 
 The Master of the Rolls. — I do not consider that the plaintiffs are ex- 
 cluded. On the contrary. Sir Hugh Cau-ns expressly stated, that the plaintiffs 
 purposely abstained from communion in consecpience of the admission of others 
 than members to the communion, and that the defendants would be very glad 
 if they came back ; but if they abstain entii'ely from communion notwith- 
 standing, the necessary rules which follow on such conduct must be adopted in 
 this case as well as in any other. 
 
 Sir H. Cairns.- — It is part of the rules of the church. 
 
 Mr. Palmer. — I thought the matter had not escaped your Honour's atten- 
 tion, and I only, for the satisfaction of my chent, mentioned it, as he wished 
 me to do so. 
 
 Mr. Haddan. — Sir, the gentleman whom I appear for, Mr. Allen, has not 
 taken any part in this controversy. He is not a member of the congregation, 
 and has resided for some time at a distance from Norwich. The prayer of the 
 bill is, that the defendants, with the exception of Mr. Gooderson (who is 
 supposed to agree with the plaintiffs) should be removed from being trustees. 
 By my answer, I submit to be removed ; and if your Honour will make an 
 order removing my client, he would desire that it should be so. 
 
 The Master of the Rolls.— I wiJl do whatever Mr. Palmer wishes about 
 it. It will not affect or prejudice your right to carry the Case further. 
 
 Mr. Palmer. — I have no wish that any order of that Limited nature should 
 be made on the Information. 
 
 The Master of the Rolls. — Then I shall simply dismiss the Information. 
 
 Mr. Haddan. — There is no power to remove the trustees, unless it is done 
 by the Court. 
 
 Mr. Lindley. — Sir, I appear for one of the trustees. The costs of the 
 trustees will come out of the property of the chapel. 
 
 The Master of the Rolls.- — What property is there ? 
 
 Mr. Lindley.— I understand there is some. 
 
 The Master of the Rolls. — They must be provided for in some way or 
 other. I suppose they have property in their possession. 
 
 Mr. Lindley. — I understand that is so. 
 
 The Master of the Rolls.— They will be at liberty to deduct their costs 
 in passing their accounts. I cannot make any order on the subject. 
 
 Sir H. Cairns. — If there is any formal order requii-ed about the change of 
 trustees, it had much better be done by the ordinary summons in chambers. 
 
 The Master of the Rolls. — I have not, in this case, made the costs follow 
 the event, as I almost invarial)ly do, because I considered this was a question 
 of considerable importance that the parties could not very well avoid bringing 
 before the Court, and that neither party would ask for costs against the other. 
 Therefore it would be better at once to state that I think it desiralJe that my 
 opinion should be obtamed at the expense of both sides, who, I presume, 
 liave some contribution from their friends for the purpose of meeting the costs. 
 Mr. Palmer. — No doubt, Sir. 
 
138 
 
 The cliief importance of the Judgment is this : that it aids a movement 
 which subverts the constitution of Baptist churches, puts an end to their dis- 
 tinctive church order, and excommunicates, in whole or part, those who adhere 
 to it : that it permits property, which tliose churches, for about two centuries, 
 have been providing for their use and benefit, to be used for putting an 
 end to their distinctive existence, for opposing the principles on which they 
 were founded, and excommunicating those who adhere to them. No result 
 more opposed, in itself, to what is right and fit, can easily be conceived. 
 
 But it is sometimes difficult, in a case which would be clear, if facts and 
 theu" true bearing were well known, for a Court of Equity fully to ascertain 
 what are the facts, and their true force. Part of the evidence, if not false, may 
 be so given as to lead astray. Tlie question at issue, and the points on which 
 the cpiestion turns, may be wrongly, and yet appear to be, correctly stated. 
 And, from this confusion, the judge's eye, though keen for truth, may yet 
 select for guidance that whicli brings (as when the motion of an engine is 
 reversed), to a conclusion the opposite of that to which the proper thought 
 ■would brmg. 
 
 His Honour seems to have thought that some " misapprehension of the 
 doctrine of the Courts of Equity, as to usage," had misled the plaintiffs ; but 
 his Honour's own view of that doctrine, seems to be the same as theirs. They 
 could feel no doubt as to what was, in itself, just ; and " the doctrine of the 
 Courts of Equity" seems, if there be full apprehension of the facts, to 
 require the same judgment, as, in their view, Equity itself does. 
 
 I. The doctrine of the Courts of Equity, as stated by Lord Lyndhurst in 
 Lady Hewley's case, wi.s confirmed by the House of Lords ; and is the more 
 important because that case was refen'ed to by the present Attorney-General, 
 Sir Richard Bethell, when at tlie bar, and also by Mr. Roundell Palmer, at 
 the hearing of this Case, as having an important bearing on it. Its prmciples, 
 however, are of general application, and commend themselves as naturally 
 right. 
 
 Lord Lyndhurst said, " Tloe ivill of the founder is to be observed." " If 
 it be expressed clearly in the deed or instrument of foundation, there can be 
 no difficulty. If expressed za doubtful or general words, recourse must be had 
 to [extrinsic circumstances, such as the knotmi opinions of the founder, the 
 existing state of the law, the con hnwporaneous usage, or the Hke." " If the 
 terms which are made use of are olascure, doubtful, or equivocal, either in 
 themselves, or in the appKccUioii of them, it then becomes the duty of the 
 Court to ascertain by evidence....\fh.&t was the intent of the founder of the 
 charity, — in what sense the particular expressions were used." " I look upon it, 
 then, that these principles are clear and established — that they admit of no 
 doubt whatever." Lord Lyndhurst had, in that case, to decide the meaning of 
 the terms, " godly 2rrmchen-sP In order to do this, he first inquu-ed, What 
 were " the particular religious opinions o* Lady Hewley, the foundress ;" 
 and he said, " Is it possible to come to the conclusion,.. ..that she intended to 
 found a charity, and bestow her property, for the purpose of preaching doc- 
 trines directly at variance ivith her own ? And this...with respect to points... 
 which she herself ranat have considered as essential." " It is almost impossible 
 to suppose that such could have been her view and intention." These were the 
 grounds of his decision. 
 
139 
 
 Thb Master of the Rolls appears to have recognized these principles. 
 During Mr. Pahner's opening speech, he said, " What I must look at principally 
 is, What was the doctrine at the time of the foimders f Which implies that he 
 recognized their opinions and contemporaneous usage, as part of the evidence 
 of theii' intention, and of the meaning of the terms of the deed which define 
 the trust. In giving Judgment, his Honour said that the meaning of those 
 terms is "precise ;" that "we possess an accurate knowledge of the object of 
 the foundation, in the words of the deed of endowment ;" thus implying that 
 there was no doubt, or question, as to the meaning of the words. And yet, in 
 order to decide whether they meant, that only strict communion should be 
 practised, his Honour himself appealed to Baptist usage ; relying on evidence 
 like that on which the case of the plaintiffs was founded. There is, therefore, 
 no " misapprehension" as to " the doctrine of the Court of Chancery," — none as 
 to the principles upon which its decisions are founded. It is in the application 
 of these principles, that the difference exists. 
 
 II. The words of the Deed. What are they ? Are they, as to meaning, 
 " doubtful or equivocal, either in themselves, or in the aptplication of them ?" 
 And if they are, " in what sense," judging from " the particular religious 
 opinions," and " contemporaneous usage" of "the founders, " were the particular 
 expressions used ?" By putting these questions we follow in the exact steps, 
 not only of the principles laid down, but of the inquiries founded upon them, 
 by Lord Lyndhurst ; and that in a rw^MZ-gr judgment, and one which is recognized 
 to be law for this case. 
 
 1. What are the ivords of the Deed ? His Honour says, " The words of it say 
 notliing about maintaining tre exisHng practice. The words are confined to the 
 mamtenance and worship of the Congregation of Particular Baptists." The 
 writer begs to submit, that the latter of these two statements is opposed to the 
 former. For the congi-egation, denotes this definite congregation ; which, as aU 
 admit, was independent of, and distinct from every other. The words of the 
 deed, therefore, if they say, as liis Honour states, that the object of the trust is 
 " the maintenance and worship of the congregation," did require the maintenance 
 of " the existmg practice" in all thmgs deemed by itself essential or funda- 
 mental to its constitution and worship ; jnst as the word "godly," in Lady 
 Hewley's Trust, required the maintenance of what she herself thought essential 
 to godliness. 
 
 In a sentence occurring soon after the one just quoted, his Honour, instead of 
 the words ''the congregation," uses "a, congregation;" thus making a total change 
 in his statement of the nature of the trust ; for aU see at once the difference 
 between a man, that is, any man out of eight hundred miUions or more, and 
 the man to whom a deed refers ; and they see, too, how unjust it would be, to 
 decide that property, vested in trust, for the sole use of the man named, is 
 rightly enjoyed, if ariy man, let him be but a man, has it ; although his use of 
 it, be the utter exclusion of the man named. His Honour's later statement was 
 this : " The words of the deed of endowment are precise. They involve aU 
 that is essential for the faith and maintenance of a Particular Baptist congre- 
 gation, but nothing further." The words of the deed, the writer submits, not 
 only involve, but clearly express, m,uch more than this. The words are not 
 " a congregation," but " the congregation ;" " the said congregation ;" the one 
 which purchased the property, and put it in trust for its own " place of public 
 worship," and for its own " use and iDenefit." 
 
 The words which his Honour read, and which he said were " the whole of 
 the Trust of the Deed," were neither the only words wliich show the will of 
 the founders, nor those which show it most fully. Those words state that the 
 premises were " intended...for the congregation of Particular Baptists within 
 the said city of Norwich for the time being." But other words a Httle before 
 them, say that the premises were intended as a place of worship for the said 
 congregation," which " paid" the purchase money ; and other words, just after 
 them, say, " that the money advanced and paid,..had been raised and paid by 
 
140 
 
 the members of the said congregation," the one then existing in the city of 
 NoiTvach. " And to the intent that...the premises might at all times thereafter 
 be kept and preserved for the use and benefit of the said congregation ;" that 
 is, of tlie then existing congregation which purchased them ; and provision is 
 then made that new trustees be api)ointed by the " men members of tJie said 
 congi'egation for the time bemg." 
 
 His Honour's statement, tlierefore, that the words of the deed "involve nothing 
 further" than what is essential for " a Particular Baptist congregation," is not 
 correct ; for they involve, and do so expressly, what was essential to this congre- 
 gation ; just as, supposing money to be left to a definite Wm. Jones, a claimant 
 must show not merely that he is a Wm. Jones, but the Wm. Jones intended. 
 
 The trust, as Mr. John Evans said, in 1846, (see p. 11, preceding) was made 
 for " a specific existing church," and " the actual chiu'ch must retain its 
 identity in all essential particulars." If, therefore, " the church" for wliich the 
 chapel was intended, held baptism to be essential to communion ; then, as all 
 admit, the trust cannot be, according to the doctrine of Chancery, diverted 
 from that purpose ; and it matters not whether other churches, and among 
 them those which were mixed in communion, were called Particular Baptist 
 churches, or not. 
 
 It is singular that the ground of objection should relate to a point so simple, 
 as the diflFerence between " a" and " the ;" and should require no more than 
 assent to what seems self-evident ; namely, that if an estate be left to one 
 certain man or body, the claimant must prove not only the same 7ianu, but that 
 he or it is the same man or body there mentioned. 
 
 2ndly. The next question is : Are the words—" The said congregation of 
 Particular Baptists in the city of Norwich for the time being" of doubtful 
 meaning, either in themselves, or as to the question of communion ? In 
 themselves, they are, as his Honour says, " precise," and even more so than he 
 states ; they expressly and Math p)recision say that this church, as it then 
 existed, was the object of the trust. But though precise in themselves, they 
 leave to be ascertained what were the essentials of the fxith, constitution, and 
 worship, of this church. At the least, those essentials iuclude whatever was 
 needful in order to claim the name of a " Congregation of Particular Baptists ;" 
 but whatever there might be above and beyond this, which it esteemed essential, 
 that, too, was as much a part of its essentials, and as needful to its identity, as, 
 those which it had in common with ail Particular Baptist churches. For it 
 could not without them be " the said congregation." 
 
 The words "for the time being," could not be meant to give leave to alter 
 what, by tliis church, was deemed essential, and not to be altered ; for that 
 would be leave to destroy all essentials, and the church itself ; they viust have 
 referred, as in other Deeds, to this ; that though p)rinciplcs must not change, 
 the persons, composing the chiu^ch, might and would. Those words permitted 
 the kind of change, and no more, which, from time to time, would arise from 
 holding and following what the church, at the time of the deed, held to be 
 essential to itself. 
 
 The question, whether its fundamental rules permitted mixed communion, 
 depends upon what they really were, and this must be shown by evidence. 
 Sufficient proof to decide this point, might perhaps arise from inquiring, 
 whether, then, any church was deemed a " congregation of Particular Baptists" 
 if it practised mixed communion ; for if not, this church could not have given 
 itself that name, without ipso facto, forbidding mixed communion. But if it be 
 proved that churches, whether they were mixed or strict in communion, were 
 ahke called by that name, then the words of the deed compel and require further 
 proof, as to whether this clmrch, (for which, and which only, the trust was 
 intejided) practised strict or mixed communion, and whether it held such prac- 
 tice to be an essential part of its practice or not. 
 
 His Honour's own view of the " doctrine" of Chancery leads to this result. 
 He denied that the usage of this church could forbid mixed communion, if its 
 
141 
 
 strict practice was one " not involving fundamental points of faith,* and not 
 prescribed by the deed of endowment ;" but he does not deny that if it is 
 prescribed directly or indirectly by the deed, and was fundamental to the 
 practice of this church, that then it must not be altered. 
 
 3rdly. If the church was strict, there is left a third inquiry ; it is this : — 
 
 Can proof be given that strict communion was deemed by this church, an 
 essential part of its practice, or essential in order to maintain its faith. For 
 if proof be given of this, then, since its practice and faith were the funda- 
 mental parts of the church, strict communion was prescribed by the words of 
 the deed which devoted the property to " the said!'' church. 
 
 As to actual practice, his Honour decided, that " this congregation has 
 adopted the practice of strict communion from its first institution, until within 
 a very short period of the present time." That is, he decided that the prior 
 immersion of all who commune, was made by the church which founded this 
 trust, an indispensable and essential p>(M't of its worship. Yet, nevertheless, his 
 Honour, in effect, held that, " having regard to the terms of the deed," it is clear 
 that it did not intend mixed communion to be " interdicted in the practice of 
 its members ," — did not intend when putting the chapel in trust as a place for 
 its own worship, and that only, to forbid the violation of what was essential to 
 that ivorship : — did not intend, to forbid the adherents of opposite worship, to 
 expel in part from use of that chapel, those wlio adhered to that worship. That 
 his Honour could reconcile these two decisions, — the one that the church was 
 strict ; the other that it meant to permit the violation of strict communion, 
 and the injury of its adherents, when putting a chapel in trust for its own 
 worship, is surprising. To reconcile them seems impossible. Lord Lyndhurst 
 decided Lady Hewley's case, on the ground that it was " almost impossible " 
 that she should " found a charity for the purpose of preaching doctrines 
 directly at variance with her otmi," and that on a pomt " considered essential." 
 But his Honour's decision is, in eifect, that much more than this was possible : 
 — that the founders of this trust might not merely found it to aid in upholding 
 a system of worship "at variance" with their own, in a point deemed by them 
 " essential " to that worship, but also, whilst declaring the chapel to be for 
 their cnvn worship, which they say in their articles, must not be altered, might 
 intend, notwithstanding, that they themselves, or others who adhered to that 
 worsliip, should, at the pleasure of those who dared to alter it, be deprived of 
 a part or the whole of their otvn use of that chapel. White and black are not 
 more opposite than the intention that that chapel should be used for their oion 
 worship only, and the intention that it should be used for the violation of it. 
 
 The solution of this contradictory decision seems to be this : that the 
 Judgment is based upon a wrong assumption. It assumes that the words of 
 the deed prescribe nothing more than is common to all particular Baptists, and 
 his Honour imagining that he finds proof that a church might practice free 
 communion and yet be a, congregation of Particular Baptists, decides, accord- 
 ingly, that those who deem free coraniunion to be essential to true worship, 
 and who think strict communion a sin, are a congregation of Particular Baptists, 
 and therefore have power to enjoy this trust, although it is expressly stated to 
 be for the worship of those, who, his Honour decides, held sentiments the 
 reverse. It is one out of many examples of the strange results to which false 
 premises may lead. It is well, when what appears to be clearly a false con- 
 clusion, can be traced to its soui'ce. Tliis makes what is clear in itself, doubly 
 clear. In a case of such great importance there is reason for profound regret 
 that the contradiction involved in his conclusions, did not lead the learned 
 Judge to doubt the premises on which one of them was based. 
 
 The Defendants, by Sir Hugh Cairns, stated to his Honour that Strict 
 
 • His Honour, no doubt, included in his sense of faith, not merely abstract doctrines, but 
 couscientious convictions of what was right in practice : for the one may be deemed as 
 " fundamental'' as the other. 
 
U2 
 
 Baptists have ever held that strict cormnunion is " made incumbent by the 
 will of God," that it is " not left open to the pleasure of men ;" and that in 
 then- view those who practise free communion " violate, the laws of God, (and) 
 every consideration...of orderly church-government" There was, also, abundant 
 evidence given by the Plaintiffs that all Strict Baptists deem strict communion 
 an essential part of Divine worship, and that they themselves are excluded from 
 communion by the admission to it of the unbaptized. Proof was given from 
 the articles and records of tliis church, that baptism was deemed by it essential 
 to membership, and the Lord's Supper to be exclusively a church-ordinance, 
 — " an ordinance delivered to the church," and to be observed in it ; that it 
 deemed a defence of infant baptism, and the maintenance of general redemption, 
 to be alike grounds for exclusion ; that it required agreement with itself in 
 " doctrine, worship, and discipline," as terms of communion ; and that whatever 
 it held to be God's will, it held also to be sacred and unalterable, saying, " we 
 may not alter anything ;" and, therefore, there can be no doubt or question, 
 and liis Honour admits it, that this church did hold both baptism and par- 
 ticular redemption to be essential to communion. 
 
 Taking the true wording of the deed, therefore, — taking as the basis of 
 decision its own declaration that the chapel was intended for " the said" con- 
 gregation, which held immersion and particular redemption to be essential to 
 communion, then, according to his Honour's own view of " the doctrine" of 
 Chancery, the opinion of the present Attorney- General, Sir Eichard BetheU, 
 given in 1847 (see p. 11, preceding) is the true one : it was this,— that the chapel 
 " was intended for the benefit of persons holdmg the principles of strict com- 
 communion ; and, upon the authority of Lady Hewley's case, the benefaction 
 cannot be diverted from its original purpose." 
 
 With proof so decisive that the strict practice of this church was held to be 
 an essential part of its worship, there was no absolute need for the Plaintiffs to 
 seek further p-oo/ from the use, in 1746, of the expression, "Congregation of 
 Particular Baptists." After having proved what are the peculiarities of Mount 
 Sinai, a writer needs not prove that some rising ground which is not even a 
 mountain, cannot be Mount Sinai. Yet if it be maintained that such rising 
 ground is a mountain, and may be Mount Sinai, it strengthens the proof to 
 show that it is not even a mountain. So it strengthened the argument from 
 the records and practice of this church, if it could be shown that a mixed 
 church was not, in the strict sense, even a congregation of Particular Baptists. 
 It was shown that mixed communion, as pleaded for and practised then, ex- 
 tended to mixed membership, so that this modem custom of mixed-communion 
 in the Lord's Sujjper only, joined with strict communion as to full membership, 
 could not then be had in view by the founders of tliis trust. The question as 
 to that time, is whether mixed membership churches were called " Congregations 
 of Particular Baptists ;" and, as the Lord's Supper was held by all to be a 
 privilege of church members, it must be inferred that if mixed membership was 
 deemed inconsistent with a title to be called a " Congregation of Particular 
 Baptists," a mixed Lord's table would, in its measure, be esteemed so too. 
 
 It was shown that Mr. Bunyan and Mr. Brown about a century apart, 
 renounced the names of " Anabaptist," and of "Baptized Churches" as factious 
 or sectarian ; that writers of note, Mr. Grantham, Dr. Wall, Dr. Gale, Mr. Neal, 
 and Mr. Crosby, spoke of the churches called Anabaptist, Baptist, Baptized, 
 or Antipaedobaptist , as all limiting church-feUowship to Baptists. It was shown 
 that the London Confession of 1646 and following years, declared that baptism 
 was essential to memberrship, and that the Lord's Supper is to come " a/fer" 
 baptism ; also that one of the pastors said of these churches that they com- 
 muned in it with none but the baptized ; also that the Confession adopted in 
 1677, and again in 1689, aflBrmed that of 1646 ; and that the Baptist Catechism 
 declared that the proper subjects of the Lord's Supper are those who have 
 been baptized. This was strong presumptive proof that this church must 
 have supposed when using the term " Congregation of Particular Baptists," in 
 
143 
 
 its trast-deed, that that name would, of itself, exclude the practice of mixed 
 membership, and would exclude, as a part of that practice, mixed communion 
 at the Lord's table. Sir Hugh Cairns himself admitted, when speaking of Mr, 
 Bunyan's church, that a mixed church is not, " in the strict sense of the term," 
 a Baptist church. 
 
 But though the distinctive use of the name " Congregation of Particular 
 Baptists," to denote churches limiting communion to Baptists, strengthened 
 the argument of the plaiutiflfs : the disproof of that distinctive use, could not 
 have proved the case of the defendants ; because proof that both strict and 
 mixed churches were called by that name, would merely prove that the name 
 was common to both as the members of a class, it could not prove what was 
 the practice or intention of this church as an individual of that class, in a point 
 of essential difference between it and other members of the class ; and it was 
 hy this, and for this, individual member of the class, as distinguished from aU 
 others, that the trust was founded. Suppose, for instance, that a gift is made 
 by deed to a certain person of the name A. B., and that a claim is made by a 
 person who does not in reality bear that name. The want of that name is 
 sufficient to disprove his claim. But if a person has that name, this would 
 not prove that he was the intended man ; because he might have the same 
 ncmie, and yet not be the intended individual of that name. So a free 
 communion church might be a Particular Baptist church, and yet not be 
 essentially the same church which was mentioned. Can any intelligent person, 
 much less his Honour, entertain a doubt of this ? Could he say that, as 
 to grammar, there is no diiierence between the indefinite article " a," and 
 the definite article " the ;" betv,reen liis own expression, " a Particular 
 Baptist congregation," and that of the deed — " the said congregation," which 
 purchased the premises ? Could he say, as to logic, that nothing can be 
 essential to one individual of a class, beyond what is common to all indi- 
 viduals of that class ? That nothing is peculiar, for instance, to Mount ^tna, 
 the burning mountain of Sicily, beyond what is essential to every mountain 1 
 To suppose that his Honour would assert this, is impossible, it would be to 
 expose himself to universal ridicule. 
 
 His Honour must, therefore, perforce admit, that he is wrong in assuming 
 that he has to examine " nothing further" than the " essentials" common to 
 the class, and has not to examine the essentials peculiar to this individual, as 
 distinct from other individuals of the class. He cannot but admit Archbishop 
 Whately's statement, in his Logic, p. 50, that " the notion expressed by a 
 common term is merely an inadequate, or incomplete notion of an individual ;" 
 that " if I omit the mention and the consideration of every circumstance which 
 distinguishes ^tna from any other mountain, I form a notion which inade- 
 quately designates JEtna ;" a notion which " does not imply any of its pecu- 
 liarities." His Honour could not prove what are the complete essentials of 
 that burning mountain of Sicily, by merely proving what was essential to make 
 any rising ground a mountain. In this Cause, however, his Honour does not 
 get so far as proving a certain lull to be a mountain ; not so far as proving 
 that the alleged hill existed : that is, he neither proves that a church practising 
 free communion in the Lord's Supper only, was then called " a Particular 
 Baptist church," nor that such a church existed. Even Mr. Gould in his 
 Introduction to his Edition of the Case, says that he is " now convinced" that 
 the practice of admitting all beUevers "to the table, in distinction from 
 admitting them into the membership of a church, is of more recent origin" 
 than " open membership." 
 
 But his Honour does not prove that even rabiedi-m^mbership churches were 
 then called Particular Baptist churches. He says that he could not discover in 
 the Confessions referred to, an assertion that " the communion ought never to 
 be administered to any one who has not been baptized ;" a remark which is 
 like the argument that infant baptism is not prohibited in Scripture. For the 
 Confessions, in stating what is God's will, declared all deviations from it to be 
 
144 
 
 forbidden. His Honour said that the words : " disciples ought after [bap- 
 tism], to partake of the Lord's Supper," did " not include the assertion of 
 the principle contended for by... the plaintiffs," meaning, apparently, the prin- 
 cijjle that the unbaptized ought not to commune ; but undoubtedly these words 
 did include it ; for the Confession denied the lawfuhiess of anything " not com- 
 manded ;" and, in practice, the churches did not, Mr. Cox says, admit any to 
 the Supper who were not baptized. 
 
 His Honour next said that there were individual Particular Baptists, such as 
 Jessey, Tombes, and Bunyan, who " did not hold this [that is, strict communion] 
 to be an essential and fundamental doctrine .of their faith," a remark which 
 did not even touch the question. What was a " congregation of Particular 
 Baptists," and his Honour did not attempt to show that the church of England 
 of which Tombes was a member, was called ' ' a congregation of Particular 
 Baptists," nor that those of Jessey and Buuyau were so. He then said that 
 Mr. Kiffin overstepped the limit of " Christian charity," and " exliibited a, 
 strong contrast to Bunyan," (a remark which, judging fi'om the writmgs of the 
 men, may perhaps with reason be thought partial ;) but his Honour said that, 
 notwithstanding Mr. Kiffin's zeal, he and other Strict Baptist ministers " took 
 no steps to exclude from their communion persons like John Bunyan." His 
 Honour adduced no proof of tliis, but if he had done so, the point before him 
 was the admission, not of baptized, but of unhaptized persons ; and it is an 
 undisputed fact, and one involved in their very sentiments as to communion, 
 that these muiisters and theu- churches did exclude the unbaptized from com- 
 munion. All that his Honour attempted to infer from the sentiments of these 
 individuals was, that a person (not a church) might be " a true and sincere Par- 
 ticular Baptist," that is, might be baptized and hold particular redemption 
 individtially, and yet hold free communion ; a conclusion which proves no- 
 thing as to the composition of " a congregation of Particular Baptists." A 
 horse is a horse, though in the midst of a flock of sheep, but " a flock of sheep" 
 does not mean a body of horses, bullocks, sheep, &c., all mixed together. 
 
 His Honour next said, that he found that " in all essential and fundamental 
 doctrines, all churches... of Particular Baptists concurred." If he meant in all 
 things commonly deemed indispensable to salvation, they not only concurred 
 among themselves but with Presbyterians and Independents also. But the 
 question relates to the essentials of scriptural church order. As to these, they 
 did not all concur ; nor did a strict church, with a mixed church. 
 
 His Honour next remarked that " on matters not" essential, " no one con- 
 gregation, [nor] even an assembly of congregations, considered itself at liberty 
 to dictate to any other church." A fact admitted on both sides, and as to both 
 essentials and non-essentials ; and it is one which proves to demonstration, 
 that it is unlawful to make a mixed church dictate to, and override the senti- 
 ments of, a strict chm-ch ; as his Honour clearly does, if he destroys what was 
 essential to a strict church, on the ground of what was practised in a mixed 
 church. This is to make the mixed church a judge, in its own interests, of what 
 a strict church ought to do ; and to give it an authority, as destructive to the 
 liberty of that strict church, as the authority of the Pope ; — an authority to 
 destroy its constitution and appropriiite its property. 
 
 His Honour referred also to the Preliminaries of the Assembly of 1689, 
 which declare that the assembly disclaimed "all manner of superiority... and 
 authority," and also, " that wherein one church diflers from another... in point 
 of communion...we shall leave every church to their own liberty," &c. He 
 referred to these as proof that " at least in all matters not being fundamental, 
 it was part of the constitution and essence of each church.. .of Particular 
 Baptists, that they might regulate their practice as they thought fit ;" and said 
 that the " inference is irresistible, that as the principle of mixed communion 
 was not a fundamental pomt of faith,...each congregation was, from the earliest 
 time, at liberty to regulate its practice either to strict or mixed communion." 
 Was communion with all believers one of these points of difference ? The 
 
145 
 
 assembly merely declared the entire independence of each church, — its freedom 
 from all control by the assembly; just as they might have declared it free 
 from control by the Pope. This freedom extended to all things pertaining to 
 the constitution of any and all of them, but the infringement of it was most 
 to be feared in the cases in which they differed as to church order. Mixed 
 membership churches are assumed and admitted to be, in general, self-govermd ; 
 but their self-government does not prove them to be " Congregations of Par- 
 ticular Baptists." His Honour's argument, distinctly stated, is equivalent to 
 this : aU self-governed churches are Particular Baptist churches ; a mixed 
 church is a self-governed church ; thei'efore it is a Particular Baptist church. 
 But the first premiss is false ; and therefore instead of drawing an irresistible 
 conclusion from it, he can draw no conclusion from it at all. Every self-governed 
 church is not a Particular Baptist church. Tlie point at which his Honour 
 aims,— ^that is, to prove th^ a mixed church was at that time esteemed to be 
 " a congregation of Particular Baptists," must be proved, if at all, by showing 
 that it was recognized as such, or customarily called bij that name. But his 
 Honour had not one clear and indisputable example of this to produce. 
 Neither Mr. Sjjilsbery's church, nor the Broadmead church, had been proved to 
 have been mixed, when recognized. But if Broadmead had been proved 
 to be mixed in 1689, the mere circumstance that a church which was not 
 wholly composed of baptized believers was, for general purposes not affecting 
 church communion, placed, without a separate name, in a list of congregations 
 baptized, could not have justified a decision that a mixed church was then 
 held to be, in the strict sense of the term, " a Baptist church :" a decision 
 which would be contrary to the defendants' own admission. 
 
 But it must still be remembered that if his Honour had proved that a 
 mixed church was then esteemed to be " a Particular Baptist church," that 
 proof would not have justified his Honour's Judgment ; because strict com- 
 munion is admitted by him to' have been the practice of " the said" church of 
 the deed ; and as that practice, in common with every other practice believed 
 by it to be from God, was held by it to be unalterable, and necessary to its 
 Divine constitution, therefore to alienate the use of the chapel in any degree 
 from those who adhere to this practice, and give it to those who adhere to the 
 ojjposite, is manifestly inequitable and unjust. 
 
 III. The Judgment is in error as to the nature and extent of the 
 
 INNOVATIONS, AND RELATES ONLY TO A PART OF THEM." It limits the question 
 
 to tJiose unbaptized persons who " in all other essential particulars, whether in 
 faith, or doctrine, or holiness... cone ur witli those who are full members." It 
 takes no notice of the resolution to admit E. Bayes " as a member" when 
 unbaptized ; nor of the proof it affords that the mixed communion of the de- 
 fendants is not wholly distinct from the admission of the unbaptized to 
 merabership ; nor is it clear that it permits tJiose unbaptized persons to commune, 
 who do not hold " the faith of Particular Baptists " even as to baptism itself. 
 
 Those who are actually admitted, are believers of any kind, including those 
 who hold general redemption and other doctrines opposed to those of Particular 
 Baptists. One effect of his Honour's not having recognized this fact is, that 
 his Judgment relates only to a part of the case, and might have been different 
 had it embraced the whole. On the other hand, the Judgment, on account of 
 not sanctioning the admission of any persons who do not " profess the same 
 doctrine" as Particular Baptists, does not give the scope needful for the consistent 
 practice of free communion even to the extent of the Lord's Supper. Had his 
 Honour sanctioned communion in it with those who do not profess the same 
 doctrine as Particular Baptists, he, no doubt, foresaw that Socinians, Ariarjs, 
 and others, might be admitted ; and possibly felt that this would certainly be 
 contrary to the meaning of the deed. But the admission of even such persons 
 to communion, would not be more contrary to the term " Particular," than the 
 admission of the unbaptized, is to the temi " Baptist ;" wliicli terms are both 
 used in the deed. 
 
14<) 
 
 His Honour said, as to admission to membership, that that " breach of trust," 
 if such, had not been " conuuitted." But whether or not E. Bayes waa 
 actually received to full membership, the resolution respecting her, required 
 her admission " as a member." And this, besides being a fact, and one wliich 
 was before the Court, was important as proof that the defendants were pre- 
 cluded by their own resolution from pleading that their sentiments did not go 
 to the extent of mixed membership. 
 
 IV. The Judgment is also in error as to the effect of the innovations 
 UPON the rights and interests of those who adhere to the former 
 
 PRACTICE of the CHURCH. 
 
 His Honour decided that the church was strict when the trust was founded. 
 The founders of the trust, therefore, being strict, and also the church for 
 which it was founded, the introduction of a change which would deprive those 
 who adhere to its strict practice of any fonner right, is so evidently contrary 
 to the intention of the founders and the object of the trust, that though his 
 Honour decided that the majority have potver to make mixed communion in the 
 Lord's Supper their practice, and at all times, if they please, he deemed it "proper 
 to observe" that the proposed mode of practising it was such as did " not 
 interfere with the coyivenience or religious observances of those who insist on 
 strict communion." His Honour had before him ample evidence to the 
 contrary, but he seems to have followed too readily the statements made by 
 the defendants and their counsel, on this point, without weighing carefully the 
 facts and admissions which disproved them. The ground of his statement 
 was merely this, that a new strict service monthly was offered to the 
 members who adhered to the strict constitution of the church. If they 
 declined to accept this, his Honour held that absentees must be excluded " in 
 this case as well as in any other ;" and yet held that the new practice does not 
 interfere with their religious observances. 
 
 His Honour was under an entire misconception. Had the strict members ac- 
 cepted that service, they must have consented to the mockery of professing to 
 govern a church upon two p>rinciphs, the one true and the other false, at the 
 same time : — they must, according to their strict principles, have consented to 
 cease from duty, — the duty of insisting that the Lord's Supper should not be 
 observed by the church contrary to the rules of strict communion :-^they must 
 have sanctioned, and even by means of the sacred supper, double dealing and 
 inconsistency — the double dealing and inconsistency of those members who 
 while they professed mixed communion to be their solemn duty, and strict 
 communion to be a sin, jiroposed monthly to violate that duty and to commit 
 that sin : — they must have owned the usurped siiperiority of some of the 
 members, shown in excluding them from meetings, to all of which they 
 had a perfectly equal right of admission : - they must have consented to receive 
 the Lord's Supper frmn one, and unth others, who denounced them in that 
 service to be committing sin, the sin of schism : — they must have consented to 
 forbid adinission to the church for the future of every neiv convert who held 
 their strict sentiments, for new converts were to be received only at the service 
 on the first Sunday of the month, when free communion is practised : — and 
 they must therefore have consented to the speedy and inevitable reduction of 
 the strict members to nothing, or next to nothing, and to the probable extinction 
 in a short time of all trace of their sentiments, in a church founded for the 
 exercise and maintenance of them. Instead of not interfering, therefore, with 
 the " religious observances" of these members, it involved the vu-tual destruction 
 of them in that church ; the degradation and extinction of the strict members 
 themselves, and also a compromise of their principles, such as every conscien- 
 tious mind must hate and shun. 
 
 The above remarks are sufficient to show that the Judgment is wholly and 
 in every part unsound : that, as to facts, it is erroneous ; as to reasoning, false 
 in premiss, unfoll owing in conclusion ; as to result, opposed to the very 
 intention of the foundeiv^ : that, instead of being according to " the doctrine " 
 
147 
 
 of Chancery, it is ojjposed to it ; instead of effecting the purpose for which 
 Courts of Equity, so costly, exist, it effects the contrary ; that it makes 
 them the strength of what is inequitable ; and that unless reA'^ersed, it will 
 be a lasting discredit, both to them, and to England. It remains to notice — 
 
 V. The effect of the Defence upon tue Judgment. Evidence given 
 by affidavit, though it aflfords opportunity for clear and exact statement, affords 
 also opportunity for laboured attempts to bewilder and mislead : and unless 
 cross-examination takes place before the Judge who decides the case, the result 
 may only add to liis bewilderment. 
 
 The Defence is chiefly founded upon three fictions ; first, an assumed 
 distinction between what constitutes a title to the LordJs Supper, and a title 
 to membership, which the words and deeds of the majority prove they do not 
 heartily believe in ; next, a declaration or implication that the strict members 
 are not injured; and thirdly, an assertion that every Particular Baptist church 
 deems it lawful for a majority to alter its constitution. 
 
 The DEPOSITIONS which support the Defence contain many things, which are 
 either contrary to evidence, or have no evidence to rest on. 
 
 The ARGUMENT of the Defence uses these depositions to prove, not what the 
 said Particular Baptist church which purchased the premises held and practised, 
 but what any church might practise and still be a Particular Baptist church of 
 some kind ; and thus substituted what was not, for what loas, the question 
 FOR DECISION. The errors of the Judgment were evidently suggested by 
 these peculiarities of the Defence ; his Honour followed in the steps of Sir 
 Hugh Caims ; and the wrong, therefore, done by the Judgment, arises cliiefly 
 from the nature of the means used to obtain it, and the failure of the Court 
 to judge correctly of the facts and evidence before it. 
 
 The first of the above grounds of defence is of the gravest importance. 
 It is, in brief, this : that the unbaptized, though received to the Lord's iSuj^per, 
 are not received to full membership : that the unbaptized ought to be received 
 to the former, ought not to the latter ; and that the true definition of a church 
 of Christ is, that it consists of bajAixed believers. The right, however, claimed 
 for the majority, (said to hold such sentiments,) to alter the practice from strict 
 to mixed communion in the Supper, is made to rest on their alleged right, if 
 they thought fit, to make the same change in membership also ; because mixed- 
 membership churches, it is said, were in 1746 called Particular Baptist 
 churches ; and this, if true, is held to justify, legally, the admission of the unbap- 
 tized to the Supper, which is involved in mixed membership. But it cannot 
 do so without justifying the further change to membership also. The 
 effect of alleging that defendants, as a question of fact, feel bound to ex- 
 clude the unliaptized from membership, was to prevent the Judgment from 
 extending to that point, and by narrowing the question to the Supper, to give 
 a better chance of defeating the Information, of retaining possession of the 
 chapel, of exxluding all conscientious Strict Baptists, and of saddling the 
 plaintiffs with the expenses on both sides. But by resting the alleged right to 
 open the table, on an alleged right to open the church membership also, de- 
 fendants provided for themselves the opportunity, if the Judgment too should 
 rest on this foundation, of saying, after they had obtained these temporary 
 ends, " The Judgment involves our right to pi'actice full membership, and now 
 we are at liberty to do so. If, therefore, the alleged ojiposition of the defendants 
 to full membership were not genuine and true, the reader must admit that the 
 course is such as admits of no question, and of few parallels in Protestant annals. 
 Sir Hugh Cairns said, as one "representing substantially" the free com- 
 munion majority of the church, " We say that no person is or ought to be a 
 member of this congregation, according to its present practice, unless " baptized. 
 "The only thing we contend for is the right of the majority... to say that...be- 
 lievers...not baptized... may be invited.. .to the Lord's Siq^jjer." As to article 33 
 of the London Confession, which declares that Christ's " church on earth is a 
 company of visible saints...being baptized" &c., he said, " 'With.the definition of 
 
 K 2 
 
148 
 
 a visible church ive entirely agree ; but.. .it may be still within the competency 
 of a particular congregation to invite into communion" the unbaptized : p. 107, 
 Can words be more express ? 
 
 But the conduct of the majority for a long time, had proved that they as 
 much admitted the title of the unl^aptized to membership in Christ's " church 
 on earth," as to the Lord's Supper ; and, more than this, that they rested the 
 title of unbaptized believers to the Lord's Supper, on the very ground that they 
 are either actually or virtually church numbers. Mr. G^uld, on March 11, 1857, 
 (p. 17, preceding), said, " baptism is not a church ordinance, whilst the Lord's 
 Supper is. Baptism is obligatory on the individual believer, the Lord's 
 Supper upon the church ;...upon the ' members' of ' the body of Christ' dwelling 
 in any place ; and according to the New Test;^ment constituting ' the church/ 
 in that place.. .That which makes them members of that body, [Divine life], 
 determines their duty ;" that is, to observe the Lord's Supper. Of Mr. Gould, 
 therefore. Sir Hugh Cairns' statements were not true. Such of the majority 
 as joined in the missionary communion in May 1857, (p. 19, preceding), 
 joined with the members of Independent, Wesleyan, and other bodies, on the 
 very ground of their being " members of Christian churches." The majority 
 had also long recognized Independent, and other churches, consisting in part of 
 unbaptized persons, as sister churches, and their members as true church 
 members ; (p. 42, preceding). They passed a resolution requiring K Bayes to 
 be admitted " as a member" when unbaptized ; and, therefore, it is certain that 
 if the majority had any principle at all, that principle admitted the scriptural 
 right and title of the unbaptized to membership. Was this case, then, 
 founded in this respect on a fiction or a fact ? 
 
 Having obtained a judgment of such kind as that plea was intended to 
 obtain, what view do the defendants themselves take of the result ? It is thus 
 stated by Mr. Gould, in his Introduction to " Open Communion," pp. cxli — 
 cxliii. The italics are by the editor. " I wish to refer to a remarkable fact 
 in the pleadings, which otherwise might escape the notice of the general reader. 
 The Defence which was set up, and the Judgment which was pronounced, rested 
 upon documentary evidence of the practice of open membership in Particular 
 Baptist churches." He goes on to admit that all the churches which at first 
 practised mixed communion at all, carried it to mtmhership, and says, " I 
 rejoice in the tendency of the churches in the ji'i'^sent day to return to the usage 
 of their forefathers, as being most accordant with the teachings of the Holy 
 Scriptures ;" and then at the close of the paragraph adds, " This is the liberty 
 for which I have conteiuled—Si liberty which may, in the course of j'ears, intro- 
 duce again into the church at St. Mary's the custom which we have now 
 exploded, or which may he used to give a neto development to the church, in 
 harmony with the Scri])tural knoivledge and convictions ef its members." 
 
 If indignation be ever virtuous and right, surely it must be right to feel it when 
 reading the above lines ; and equally on reading the additional words from 
 the same work : " The cordial goodwill of my flock, and their hearty prayers, 
 have sustamed me throughout my work." With the above facts in view, it 
 seems incredible that the free-communion members, whom Mr. Gould calls his 
 flock, could possibly pray for the success of an attempt to persuade the Court 
 that their sentiments did not involve the right of the unbaptized to membership. 
 A -second fiction was, that the strict members were not injured by the 
 change, and were bound by the former rules of the church to acquiesce in it. 
 Sir Hugh said, " We offer them the opportunity of having, to the same extent 
 that they ever had, a strict-communion service :" p. 106. Also that " the rules of the 
 church," that is, as they existed before the introduction of open communion 
 into the church, required the exclusion of the strict members from membership, 
 if they would not join in a new service, to the neglect of the old and regular 
 service of the church, and to the future shutting out from church-membership 
 of every new convert holding their own sentiments : p. 137. In short, he maintained 
 the gross fallacy that the rules of a Strict Baptist church required the exclusiou 
 
149 
 
 of its own strict members, if they did not consent to the subversion of its own 
 strict practice. 
 
 The third fiction was one of equal boldness. Sir Hugh, though he admitted 
 that the advocates of both strict and mixed communion held, respectively, that 
 their systems are the law of God, yet, instructed by the Defendants, professed 
 it to be a fact, that both parties had claimed for a majority the right to violate 
 it ; that both parties had held that it is within tlie power of a majority to 
 decide whether what each holds to be God's will should be observed or not : pp. 
 105, 116. Upon the asserted prevalence of this ungodly maxim, that man may 
 break tvhat God has bound, was rested the plea, that this church, even suppo- 
 sing it to have been strict, meant to permit a majority to make it open ;.and 
 that in devoting property to what it deemed the xvorship ordained by God, it 
 thought it " perfectly immaterial " whether that worshi^j were observed or not, 
 and meant to concede to the majority a ''right to alter that practice ;" that is, 
 a right to violate what, in its view, God had made inviolable. To aid this 
 fiction there was still another. It was that this " is peculiarly the case ;" — in 
 other words, that there is a peculiar licence taken to alter God's will, in churches 
 self-governed : as if to be free from men were to be lawless towards God ; as if 
 liberty of conscience were the loss of conscience ; and as if to obey God 07ily, 
 were to be reckless whether he were obeyed or not. 
 
 2. The Depositions on the part of Defendants contain so many groundless 
 statements, that it was almost impossible to prevent the Court from being in- 
 fluenced by them. In Defendant Gould's first answer, for instance (pp. 53 — 
 67 preceding), there are many such statements as the following, all designed 
 to serve the purpose he had in view. For instance, in ph. 15, he says that "in 
 1646 there were in London above [or about] forty-six congregations of Particular 
 Baptists."* In phs. 20, 23, 56, he has asserted that Mi-. Spilsbery was a well- 
 known advocate of open membership, and that his church practised it from its 
 formation till 1652 or later; and Mr. Gould still asserts this, though unable to 
 prove it, and notwithstandmg evidence to the contrary. See pp. 54 — 110 pre- 
 ceduig.t 111 ph. 22, he states that, in open-membership churches, " baptism 
 
 * Mr. Gould bas published a book entitled, 
 " Open communion and the Baptists of Nor- 
 wich — 1860." The body of the work, ex- 
 tending to 324 pap;es, contains the speeches 
 of Counsel at the hearing ; the substance of 
 which speeches fills, in this pamphlet, about 
 34 pages. His Introduction contains a 
 review hy himself of the whole case, and also 
 some documents added as appendices. In 
 his review, he endeavours to mend the evi- 
 dence. At p. 114 of his Introduction, he 
 gives Robert Baillie, of Scotland, as his au- 
 thority for the above statement, and says 
 that he has " nothing to do but to moderate 
 between Baillie and JMr. Norton," the latter 
 being " a disputant of two centuries later;" 
 thus implying that his own statement is the 
 same as that of Baillie, although it asserts as 
 fact, what Baillie did ftot even conjeciure to 
 be so. He also puts Mr. Norton personally, 
 instead of Mr. Norton's avthoritits, in oppo- 
 sition to BailUe^ Those authorities are no- 
 ticed at pp. 84, 85, preceding. Dr. Featley, 
 to whom Baillie referred as his authority, 
 said that the Anabaptists of England boasted 
 of forty-seven churches, but he spoke only of 
 eight congregations, seven English and one 
 French, as being "m London," in 1644. See 
 ' The Dippers Dipt," pp. x., and 177, 178. 
 Baillie, speaking of forty-six churches, con- 
 
 jectured that they were " within and about 
 London." He said, " This sect was said to 
 be grown into no less than forty-six churches, 
 and that, as I take it, witliiu ar,d about 
 London." He did not knoiu whether they 
 were all within and about London, or not. 
 But ]\Ir. Gould, instead of conjecturing, 
 swears, that about, or, if the office copy be 
 correct, above forty-six, were, not in and 
 round, but "i/i London." By admitting that 
 Baillie is his authority, he confesses that he 
 has made a solemn oath, conveying an im- 
 pression which is unsupported by any evi- 
 dence of the truth of what it aifirms. 
 
 t At pp. 117—127 of his Introduction, 
 Mr. Gould makes a new attempt to justify 
 his statements as to Mr. Spilsbery and his 
 church. He quotes Mr. Stovel, as saying in 
 his Memorial, that this was a church "not 
 at first excluding believers not baptized;" 
 and remarks that " the very tradition of such 
 a fact in the church has its histoiic value." 
 But tradition is not proof. He admits that 
 "the private records of the early history of 
 this church are missing or lost" (p. 118); 
 and that " we have no history of this congre- 
 gation, subsequently to its Jbrmafion, duriny 
 the pastorate of Mr. Spilsbery " (p. 125). He 
 admits also that he had not seen the work by 
 
150 
 
 has been administered always by immersion only," and to those who " profess 
 faith," although not only are P«dobaj)tist members, in those churches, at liberty to 
 sprinkle theii- infants, but some of those churches — the one at Bedford, for 
 instance — have had 2^(istors Avho administer that rite. In the same ph., Mr. 
 Gould alleges that these churches have " considered the practice of open mem- 
 bership or of open communion to he...02)e7i to modification." Mr. Gould's own 
 counsel, however, felt it needful to admit that those churches held this practice 
 to be made binding by God, and not oj^en to modification by men : p. 1 13. In ph. 
 23, he says tliat an open membersliip congregation was, " about 1635, formed in 
 London, under the ministry of Mr. Henry Jessey ;" and, in ph. 38, says that 
 this church was "formed by " Mr. Jessey " of the members " of the Indepen- 
 dent church of which he had been pastor. He appeals to Crosby ; but Crosby 
 says, on the contrary, (i. 309 — 312), that Mr. Jessey did not become pastor of 
 the "Independent congregation" till 1637, and that "in this vineyard" he 
 laboured "unto the day of his death" [1663]; that he was not baptized till 
 
 Mr. Spilsbery, from which extracts are given 
 in a note at p. 54 preceding. That work 
 shews that Mr. Spilsbery regarded correct 
 views of baptism as essential to church -mem- 
 bership, and actual immersion as having to 
 precede visible church order. Mr. Gould 
 quotes some passages from that work which 
 he finds in a reply to it ; but they prove no- 
 thing which justifies his assertion that the 
 church was mixed. He also makes extracts 
 from an ancient manuscript, which Mr. 
 Crosby (1. 101) says was " said to be written 
 by Mr. William Kiifin," and which Mr. Gould 
 had lying before him. Under date of May, 
 1640, it states, he says, that Mr. Jessey 's church 
 divided, " just half being with Mr. P. Bare- 
 bone, and the other half with Mr. H. Jessey :" 
 and that Mr. Richard Blunt, one of those 
 who '' had sober conference about [baptism] 
 in the church," was sent over to Holland to 
 receive baptism, " none having then so prac- 
 tised in England to professed believers." 
 Under date of 1G41, the manuscript is said 
 to state that " those persons that were per- 
 suaded baptism should be by dipping the 
 body, had met in two companies, and did in- 
 tend so to meet after this:" that " all these 
 agi-eed to proceed alike together ; and then 
 manifesting (not by any formal words) a 
 covenant, . . .these two companies did set apart 
 one to baptize the rest, so it was solemnly 
 performed by them." It states that Mr. 
 Blunt baptized Mr. Blacklock, and these two 
 the others. Then follow fifty-three names, 
 among which, Mr. Gould says, " I find Rich- 
 ard Blunt and Mark Lukar." He says also 
 that a paper found among Mr. Jessey's 
 manuscripts, states that Richard Blunt and 
 Marke Luker were among those dismissed, on 
 Sept. 12, 1G33, by the first Independent 
 church, in order "that they might become an 
 entire church.. .amongst themselves ;"andthat 
 after the names of tlie persons dismissed, it 
 is said, " Mr. Eaton, with some others, re- 
 ceiving a further baptism." By these two 
 manuscripts, Mr. Gould says, " it is demon- 
 strated that Spilsbur)''s church was originally 
 an open-membership Baptist church," But, 
 first, these manuscripts do not seem to agree. 
 
 For how could it be said that none had been 
 baptized in 1C40, if Mr. Eaton and other se- 
 ceders from this first Independent church, had 
 been baptized in ] 63.3 ? And, if the manuscript 
 ascribed to Mr. Kifiin means that Mr. Blunt 
 did not leave the Independent church till 
 1640, how could he have left it in 1633? 
 But even if it could be proved that the bap- 
 tism of any of Mr. Spilsbery's members was 
 delayed till the ordinance could be received 
 by a kind of apostoHc succession from Hol- 
 land, this does not help the Defendants, for 
 their view of mixed membership involves the 
 reception of those who reject believers' bap- 
 tism altogether. A little after 1641, there is 
 decisive evidence tliat Mr. Spilsbery's chm'ch 
 did not commune with the unbaptized ; for, 
 in the prefaces to the London Confession, in 
 1644 and 1646, it declared itself to be "in 
 communion" with Mr. Kiffin's strict chiu-ch, 
 and to be " one " with it in " fellowship and 
 communion." In the Confession itself, it 
 defined a church to consist of " visible samts 
 baptized-,'' and in the same year, Mr. Cox 
 said of these seven London chOTches, includ- 
 ing that of Mr. Spilsbery, " We do not 
 communicate with any in the use of the 
 Supper, but disciples baptized." In 1652, Mr. 
 Spilsbery himself said, in the Epistle entitled 
 "Heart Bleedings," that Scripture nowhere 
 approves of any churches but tliose which 
 are " baptized in his [Christ's] name." Yet, 
 in the face of this evidence to the contrary, 
 Mr. Gould still defends his assertion, that, at 
 those times, Mr. Spilsbery's church practised 
 open membership and open communion. He 
 admits that the above language of Mr. Cox is 
 " plain and conclusive as to his otcn practice," 
 but says, " it does not compromise his bre- 
 thren:" p. 133. Yet Mr. Cox was avowedly 
 giving to persons in the country, " a more full 
 declaration of the faith and judgment of bap- 
 tized believers,''' as set forth in the Confession 
 of seven clmrches in London ; and being a 
 well-informed witness, and one recognized by 
 those churches to be faithful and true, his 
 testimony, as to their practice, is unimpeach- 
 able and conclusive. 
 
151 
 
 June, 1645, and "maintained the same'" kind of "church communion" after 
 his baptism as before it. Mr. Gould (in the Introduction to his " Open Com- 
 munion," p. 135) merely attempts to shew that this Independent church, after 
 Mr. Jessey became a Baptist, ranked " as a Bajatist congregation." But what 
 he had said about the formation of a new church is, to all appearance, wholly 
 unsupported.* In ph. 26, Mr. Gould said that the date at which Mr. Kiffin 
 withdrew from Mr. Spilsbery's church was 1653, and that no church limited 
 communion to Particular Baptists till that year ; though the signature of Mr. 
 Kiffin to the Confession of 1644, in connection with a different church, was 
 sufficient to shew that the date of 1653 was incorrect.f 
 
 * As proof that the church, after Mr. 
 Jessey's baptism, ranked as a Baptist church, 
 Mr. Gould says p. 135, " in 1651, Mr. Jessey 
 had for his assistant or co-pastor, Henry 
 Forty," who in that yeai-, 1651, signed the 
 London Confession of churches '• called Ana- 
 baptists." MiT. G. refers to Ivimey II. 66, 
 for proof that Mr. Forty was then Mr. Jessey's 
 assistant or co-pastor. What Mr. Ivimey 
 says is, that "Mr. Forty was pastor of a 
 church in the West of England in 1656,'' and 
 that "it is probable he had been before this 
 settled in London, as his name appears to an 
 edition of the Confession of the seven churches 
 in 1651." Also, that "he was a member of 
 ilr. Jessey's church " at some time, but does 
 not say when. Mr. Crosby (III., 100) says it 
 was after " Mr. Jessey died," that is, after 
 1663, that Mr. Forty was " a member of that 
 congregation ;' and Mr. Walter Wilson (1. 50), 
 who corrects Crosby in one point, confirms 
 him in this. Mr. Ivimey does, indeed, say 
 that '■'■perhaps '' Mr. Forty assisted Mr. 
 Jessey " while he was rector of St. George's 
 parish," that is, before 1660. But the time 
 when Mr. Forty was a member of the church 
 seems to have been about ten years after Mr. 
 Jessey's death, that is, in 1673 or 4. For 
 Jlr. Forty, after the Restoration in 1660, was 
 for twelve years in Eseter jail. Mr. Ivimey 
 says that he settled at Abingdon in 1675 
 (II. 66), and Mr. Crosby that, " when a differ- 
 ence arose in [Mr. Jessey's] chm'ch about 
 mixed communion " (which, Mr. Gould says, 
 arose " in 1673-4 "), those who were against 
 mixed communion '■^fell in with Mr. Forty, 
 then a member of that congregation," and 
 that " upon Mr. Forty's call to the church 
 at Abingdon [1675], his people joined with 
 Mr. KifSn's congregation." Mr. Ivimey does 
 not state, as aj'act, that Mr. Foity was ever 
 either an "assistant or co-pastor" of Mr. 
 Jessey, and Mr. Jessey did 7iot sign the 
 Confession of 1651, — indeed could not have 
 signed the 33rd article, declaring a church to 
 consist of persons " baptized," without con- 
 demning himself. Mr. Gould, therefore, 
 seems to have ouly added another to his for- 
 mer unfounded assertions. He speaks of the 
 Hexham Kecords as containing evidence that 
 Jessey's church was regarded as a Baptist 
 church ; but he gives no quotations. It is 
 there called " the church meeting hi Swan- 
 alley, Coleman-street, Loudon." See pp. 345, 
 346, 349. 
 
 t Mr. Gould, in the Introduction above- 
 named, p. 131, mentions two dates as given 
 by Mr. Ivimey for the supposed tune of Mr. 
 Kifhn's withdi'awment — 1653, in his Life of 
 Kiffin, p. 17; and 1640 m his History, II., 
 297. In vol. Ill, 312, is a third date, namely, 
 1638. Such variations are to be regi'ctted, 
 but, as Mr. Gould says (p. 97) that Mr. Ivi- 
 mey's Histoiy abounds in " blunders and 
 contradictions," he cannot plead dependence 
 on him as a reason for adopting a date so 
 manifestly wrong. Mr. Gould now says that 
 "the original records of this [Mr. Kifhn'sJ 
 chm'ch are lost," p. 131 ; that if Mr. Ivimey's 
 statement means that Mr. KifSn, in 1653, 
 " for the Jirst time organized a Baptist con- 
 gregation, it is certainly incorrect, as the 
 Confession of 1644 proves ;" but he adds, " If 
 it means that, in 1053, Kiffin organized a new 
 congi-egation, / think it may be true.'' But 
 Mr. Ivimey says that Mr. K. both " left Mr. 
 Spilsbery and became the pastor of a Baptist 
 chmxh " then ; and therefore Sir. Ivimey 
 could not refer to a second new church, for 
 ]\Ir. K. did not leave Mr. iS/ulsbery's twice, 
 ilr. Gould says that " soon after 1640," as 
 the date of these two events, is, " of course, 
 incorrect, as Kiffin was not a Baptist at that 
 date :" (note p. 131). But Mr. Kiffin's own 
 testimony implies the contrary. In his work in 
 defence of strict communion, " London, 1681 " 
 (see Ivimey 111., 315 — 317), he said that, on 
 coming to the conclusion that the "order 
 laid down by Christ and his apostles, and 
 practised by the primitive Christians in their 
 times," was "that after conversion they were 
 baptized, added to the church, and contmued 
 in... breaking of bread and in prayer,'' he felt 
 hhnself " bound to be conformable " to it, 
 and had " continued in the profession of the 
 same for these forty yeai-s." By " these forty 
 years," he evidently meant about that time ; 
 the expression would be correct if he had 
 been a Baptist for rather more than that 
 time. The above statement proves also that, 
 so soon as he adopted Baptist sentinients, he 
 was baptized, and at once practised strict 
 communiun also. The exact time when this 
 occm-red is proved by another statement, 
 which also rested on the authority of Mr. 
 Kiffui himself. Mr. Crosby, I. 149, gives 
 the following " accoimt collected from a 
 manuscript of Mr. William Kiffin," omitted 
 by Mr. G., p. 121: "/» the year 1638, Mr. 
 WilUam Kiffin, and Mr. Thomas Wilson and 
 
152 
 
 In ph. 31, Mr. Gould asserted, as a fact, that open communion in the 
 Lord's Supper had "always been considered," by those adopting it, to 
 be " entirely distinct from the practice of open membership," and the tburteen 
 witnesses before mentioned (Crisp, &c., ph. 8), supported his statement on oath 
 (pp. 55, 93, preceding). Yet Mr. Gould noio admits, in his Introduction, p, 
 142, that the reception of unbaptized "believers in Christ, to his table, in dis- 
 tinction from admitting them into the membership of a church" was yiot the 
 " original practice." To say, as Mr. Gould says in ph. 35, and the said fourteen 
 witnesses say in ph. 10, that the question of communion " has been an oi^ten one, 
 expressly recognized as such, among Particular Baptists," is like saying that the 
 question whether there is a God, is an ojjcn one, and has been recognized as 
 such among mankind ; because it has been discussed, and many fluctuations, to 
 and from atheism, have occurred. The words " open question," denote that the 
 truth of the proposition referred to is deemed, by all among whom it is said to 
 be 02JCJI, to be open to question or questionable. They do not convey the idea 
 that deep and decided convictions of opposite kinds exist on the point. And 
 therefore to say that those who believe most firmly that strict communion is 
 God's will, have recognized the question, as to whether it is so or not, to be an 
 open one, is like saying that they deem it an open question whether there is a 
 
 others, being of the same judgment^'' as to 
 baptism, "were, upon their request, dismissed 
 to the said Mr. Spilsbery's congregation.^^ 
 So that his own testimony impUes that he 
 was baptized in 1638, about forty-three 
 years before 1681, and that Mr. Spilsbery's 
 church, which he then joined, was a Strict 
 Baptist church. 
 
 Mr. Gould says that Mr. Kiffin was not 
 baptized till " after January, 1611-2," p. 129 ; 
 and that he was still "a member of Mr. 
 Jessey's church in the early part of the year 
 1644," p. 130. lie states, that in a man- 
 uscript " account of divers conferences " on 
 baptism, held in Mr. Jessey's church from 
 January to March, 1643-4, Mr. Kiffin is 
 mentioned as "one of those who were con- 
 cerned." But Mr. Kiifiii might be concerned 
 in them merely as a friend and as a former 
 member of the church. Mr. Crosby mentions 
 Mr. Kiffin's share in these conferences (I II.4), 
 yet relies fully on the above statement, " col- 
 lected from a manuscript of Mr. Kiffin," that 
 he was dismissed from Mr. Jessey's church 
 in 1638. There is also other evidence. Mr. 
 Kiffin was one of " the Anabajytists'" who, on 
 " Oct. 17, 1642," held a debate on baptism 
 ■with Dr. Featley, and at that time spoke ot 
 himself as a preacher. He caimot be supposed, 
 after his baptism, to have regarded his call 
 to the ministry by Mr. Jessey's church 
 (Crosby 111. 3) as any longer valid ; for he is 
 said to have left Mr. Spilsbery's church on 
 the ground that unbaptized persons ought 
 not to preach. Yet at that debate in 1642, 
 he is described by Qv. Featley as saying, " I 
 am more lawfully called to preach the word 
 than you." " I am called by saints." "Christ 
 gave the power of ordaining to his church." 
 In an earlier part of the debate, he is said to 
 have asked, " What is a true particular visi- 
 ble church?" and on Dr. Featley 's replying 
 that it is one in which the sacraments are 
 "lawfully and rightly administered,'' he is 
 
 said to have replied, Baptism " is not rightly 
 administered in your church :" Dippers Dipt, 
 pp. 1 — 19. This is strong presumptive evi- 
 dence, at the least, that tie had received a 
 call to preach from a church in which baptism 
 was, in his view, "rightly administered.'' Was 
 this j\Ir. SpilsL-ery's church, or was it the 
 new church of which he was pastor in 1644? 
 There seems to be no reasonable doubt that 
 it was the latter. Mr. Gould gives an ex- 
 tract from the manuscript account of the 
 conferences in Mr. Jessey's church in 1643-4, 
 which says that the " issue was, the couvic- 
 tiou of sixteen members against pscdobap- 
 tism," and their withdrawment from the 
 church, " as not satisfied we were baptized, 
 or a TRUE CHURCH ;'' which fact strengthens 
 the evidence that ]\Ir. Kiliin, who took part 
 in those conferences, did not then regard it 
 as a " true church," and that he had received 
 ordination by a Baptist church liefore " Oct. 
 17, 1642." There is also proof that, in 1643, 
 he was already connected with the church 
 with which he was connected in 1644. For, 
 in his autobiography, after saying that, " in 
 1643," on recovering from a severe illness, 
 ho went into Holland, he adds, " But, coming 
 home again, I was greatly pressed by the 
 people with whom I was a member, to continue 
 with them, which I did,... spending my time 
 chiefly in studying the word of God, until I 
 had spent the most part of what I had got," 
 wli'ch was, he says, " at the end of the j'ear 
 1G4.5.'' It seems certain, therefore,tliat the new 
 church was formed as early as 1643, and al- 
 most certain that he was the pastor of it in 
 "Oct., 1642,'' and that it must have been 
 formed between that date and 1638. Mr. 
 Uiiderhill's statement in a note to the Broad- 
 mead Records, p. 31, that it was formed 
 " jwobably about 1640," as Mr. Ivimey says 
 in vol II. 297, is sustained by this evidence; 
 and it appears that Mr. Gould, in endeavom- 
 iug to excuse one inaccuracy, has added 
 others. 
 
158 
 
 Gocl. To say tli it Paley deemed the being of a God an " open question" be- 
 cause be discussed the proofs of that being, would convey a meaning wholly 
 untrue. 
 
 In ph. 44, Mr. Gould says that Robert Hall was a ^^ Particular Baptist," and 
 he still asserts it, although Mr. Hall said (see Mr. Norton's evidence, p. 81 
 preceding), that his own view — the view that " Clu'ist died for all men," was 
 the doctrine of " general redemption."* 
 
 * Mr. Gould, in liis Introduction, p. 117, 
 note *, admits it to be "//te fact, tluit Mr. 
 Hall held the doctrine that Christ died for 
 all men," but maintains that, because Mr. 
 Hall held tlie di:)ctrine of particular election, 
 his view of the death of Christ was not the 
 doctrine of general redemption. He says, 
 " The doctrine of particular redemption, as 
 held by Lamb, was defined as ' Christ's dy- • 
 ing for all, and God's election of some.' That 
 was the doctrine held bv Mr. Hall.'' The 
 Mr. Lamb referred to was Mr. Thomas Lamb, 
 a popular Baptist preacher, from about 164"2 
 or 3 to about 1G72: (Crosby IIL 51—56; 
 Ivimey IL 38'!). He was pastor of a church 
 of General Baptists., meeting in Bell-alley, 
 Coleman-street, London. Of this there is 
 the following proof. The church is mentioned 
 more than once by T. Edwards, in his Gan- 
 grasna, 1646. At p. 76, he says that Mr. 
 Henry Denne was " made a member of 
 Lamb's church, which meets in Bell-alley ;" 
 that he " was sent forth by Lamb's church... 
 to preach universal t/race ;" that he sometimes 
 preached in th it church, and that his " usual 
 theme" was "Christ's dying for all — for 
 Judas as well as Peter.''^ At p. 92, he says 
 of the speakers in Lamb's church, " All of 
 them preach universal redemption.''' Robert 
 Baillie, of Glasgow, in 1646, as quoted by 
 Mr. Gould (Intro, p. 116), says of the Bap- 
 tists, " Whatever iDe the condition of the 
 seven churches, certainly M(r.J Lamb's con- 
 gregation, the greatest, as they say, and most 
 fruitful of all their societies, without compa- 
 rison, is pestered with this gangren [of Ar- 
 minianisui] ; the great preachers in that 
 flock, M[r.J Oats and M[rJ Den, make it 
 their ordinary theme, that Christ died for all 
 — for Judas as well as for Peter.... These 
 men be the chief apostles and evangelists of 
 the Anabaptistic churches," &c. Mr. Gould, 
 after quoting these and other remarks, asks, 
 " Was Lamb's congregation one of the seven 
 churches which published this [the London] 
 Confession? The language of Baiihe points 
 
 to that conclusion, and Ivimey adopts it 
 
 IL 295, 386." Ivimey was clearly in error. 
 By the words, " their churches," no doubt 
 Baillie meant " the Anabaptistic churches" 
 at large , and his words seem to distinguish 
 Lamb's church from the seven churches, 
 rather than to class it with them. Besides, 
 he says that Mr. " Spilsbery writ against the 
 tenets" of Lamb's church. Mi-. Ivimey 
 speaks of the charge of Arminianism made 
 against Lamb as " satisfactorily refuted by 
 the titles of some of his works preserved by 
 Crosby:" Ivimey II. 388. Crosby mentions 
 
 but three. One of these, dated 1642, is en- 
 titled, " A treatise of Particular Predestina- 
 tion, wherein are answered three letters ; the 
 fir.st tending to disprove particular predesti- 
 nation ; the second to shew the contradiction 
 betwixt Christ's dying for all and God's elec- 
 tion of some," &c. ]\Ir. Crosby says that, in 
 two of these works Mr. Lamb " labours the 
 same argument, ...that is, the reconciling of 
 particular election with universal redemp- 
 tion:" Crosby III. 56. This was also the 
 view of Mr. H. Denne, above mentioned: see 
 Crosby I. 305. So that Edwards, in 1640, and 
 Crosby, in 1740, called the doctrine held by 
 them, that Christ died for all men, " uni- 
 versal EEDEMPTiox," although it was 
 held in connection with the doctrine of elec- 
 tion. 
 
 It seems clear from the signatures to the 
 London Confession, that Lamb's cli. was not 
 one of the seven ; for not one of the names of 
 Lamb, Oats, or Denne, is in any of the edi- 
 tions of it. Besides this, Adam Taylor, the 
 historian of the General Baptists, says (vol. 
 I., p. 99, note), that Luke Howard was for a 
 time a member of Mr. Lamb's church, and 
 that in his " Looking-glass for the Baptists," 
 published in 1672, Howard says that, in a 
 great contest between the General and Parti- 
 cular Baptists in Kent, in 1644, Lamb and 
 Barber were the leaders of the General Bap)- 
 tists. Mr. Adam Taylor, who wrote in 1818, 
 said also (I. 99), "Several late authors have 
 classed the congregation in Bell-alley among 
 the Particular Baptist churches,... yet we, 
 without hesitation, rank them among the 
 General Baptists. ..With respect to Mr. H. 
 Denne, we have the authority of his friends 
 and disciples for ranking him among the 
 General Baptists." J\Ir. Underbill, in his 
 Introduction, p. x., to the Fenstanton Re- 
 cords said, in 1854, of Mr. H. Denne, "Such 
 were the views of this worthy servant of 
 Christ, and on ichich the General Baptist 
 churches of the midland counties irere pri- 
 marily founded.' It seems, therefore, that 
 the views which Mr. Gould calls particular 
 redemption, were the very views on which 
 some, at least, of the leading churches of the 
 General Baptists, wei-e founded ; and that 
 the untruth of Mr. Gould's denial that this 
 was fjeneral redemjjtion, is exposed by the 
 veiy reference he makes to Lamb in support 
 of it. Simply because Jlr. Norton had quoted 
 correctly Mr. Hall's <rw//(/?/? statement, that 
 this is the doctrine of ^crttraZi-edemption, Mr. 
 Gould says, " To .seize upon that phrase to 
 defame the illustriou.? dead, may accord with 
 Ml". Norton's conceptions of accuracy of quo- 
 
154 
 
 Though no ]yroof, when asked for, could be given (see pp. 123, 124 jjreced- 
 ing) that " several," (as Mr. Gould alleged in his Ans. I. ph. 82), or even any 
 of the members of the Assembly of 1689 were from churches "practismg open 
 membership, with all believers, or open communion " hmited to the Lord's 
 Supper ; and though proof was given by the Plaintiff's, that other differences as 
 to communion did exist m the churches from which those who met came, yet 
 the improved statement of Mr. Gould seems to have produced more effect than 
 the proved statements of the Plaintiffs ; for His Honour took it for granted 
 that the Assembly must have meant by the words, " wherein one church differs 
 from another church... in point of communion," communion with all believers at 
 the LonFs table ; and he spoke of those words " ais conclusive " proof that 
 each " congregation of Particular Baptists might regulate their practice as they 
 thought tit " on that point, and yet remain a Particular Baptist church still.* 
 The solemn declaration of Mr. Gould, of five trustees (p. 63 preceding), and of 
 fourteen co-witnesses (ph. 19, p. 94), that prayer, praise, and preaching, as used 
 in "piiblic toorship," were in 1689, and have generally been, by Particular 
 
 tation, but must excite the indignation of 
 every honourable mind." Thei-e is, indeed, 
 trath in his following statement, that " Un- 
 scrupulous partizauship," where it exists, "is 
 never slow to toi-ture the evidence at its com- 
 mand, and to cast its venom at reputations 
 which it cannot hope to destroy :" Intro, p. 96. 
 
 * Mr. Gould, in his Introduction, shews 
 more clearly than before, that neither he nor 
 Ms friends can give proof that even one of 
 the churches fi-om which the members of 
 that assembly came, was at that time open, 
 either in membership, or at the Lord's table 
 only. Neither Mr. Crisp, a minister of the 
 Broadmead chm-ch, Bristol, nor Mr. Gotch, 
 though both of them witnesses on Mr. Gould's 
 behalf, give proof that Broadmead practised 
 open membership in 1689. No one is justi- 
 fied in swearing that to be true, of which he 
 knows nothing. Mr. Gould says, Intro, p. 106, 
 as to "the jjractice of the congregations re- 
 presented in the Assembly, I do not intend to 
 enter upon that evidence in detail, but to 
 refer to one celebrated instance — the 
 CHURCH AT Broadmead, Bristol." 
 
 And what evidence does he give as to 
 this chui-ch? None whatever. He says, 
 " Mr. Norton does not venture to assert that 
 it practised strict communion until 1733 ; so 
 that this church, 7Wrtcfj«(K// open membership 
 in 1G89, becomes an unexceptionable wit- 
 ness," &c. M.Y. Norton is wholly ignorant of 
 its practice in 1689 ; therefore^ says Mr. 
 Gould, the church was mixed. He says also, 
 p. 107, " Mr. Palmer honourably admits it to 
 be so," and he refers to the place where Mr. 
 Palmer says, " //" the fact were that tliat 
 chui'ch...did at that time [1689] practise the 
 looser principle of communion." Mr. Gould, 
 pp. 103 — 105, quotes what Mr. Norton said 
 of this assembly, as editor of Dr. Howell's 
 work on communion, in 18-14. In one part 
 of the passage quot«d from p. 338, edn. I ; 
 p. 260, edn. II., a misprint of "compatible," 
 for ^^incompatible,'' had given asensecontraiy 
 to that which Mr. N. intended. In anotlier 
 pai't of it, Mr. N . said, " That none of the 
 
 churches " from which those who assembled 
 in 1689 came, " received tlie unbaptized as 
 members, is evident from the fact that they 
 speak of themselves as being all ' baptized 
 churches ;'...but that some of them were fa- 
 vourable to the admission of the unbaptized 
 to the Lord's Supper, appears fi-om the fol- 
 lowing minute" — the second preliminary rule, 
 as to dift'erences " in point of communion." 
 Mr. Norton was not then aware that all 
 the open churches of that period seem to 
 have practised open membsrshipi, and he did 
 not notice the fact that other differences as 
 to communion did actually exist. On the 
 ground of that rule, and that only, he said, 
 too unguardedly, " This assembly, there- 
 fore, must be considered as having, for the 
 Jirst time, recognized the custom of admitting 
 the mibaptized to the Lord's Supper as 
 an allowed practice among the accredited 
 chm-ches of the Particular Baptist body." 
 But what can be thought of Mr. Gould, who 
 while himself admitting that open commu- 
 nion, limited to the Lord's Supper, is of com- 
 paratively " recent origin," can quote Mr. 
 Norton's former mistake on the point, as 
 proof of the existence, in 1689, of a practice 
 which both now state to be of "more recent 
 origin :" p. 1 42. 
 
 Mr. Gould refers, at p. 108, to the church 
 at Steventon, Bedfordshii-e, as one which 
 sent members to the Assembly of 1689, and, 
 instead of giving proof that it was a mixed 
 church then, quotes Mr. Norton as saying 
 (Howell, p. 867), upon the authority of Mr. 
 Ivimey, II., 53 — 55, that " Steventon was 
 enrhj formed .. .on iliQ same principle" as the 
 churcli at Bedford. But what was it in 1689 ? 
 Mr Norton sees nothing in Mr. Gould's In- 
 troduction, more than in his affidavits, to 
 enable Mr. G. to say, as he does, at p. 105, 
 " The reader, in this Introduction, has evi- 
 dence that congregations practising open 
 membership were recognized, both before and 
 at the Assembly of 1689, as Particular Bap- 
 tist churches." 
 
155 
 
 Baptists, considered to be entitled to be called church acts in every sense in 
 which the communion of the Lord's Supper is so, could not convey to His 
 Honour a true impression ; nor could the declaration of the same phs., that "the 
 term 'strict communion ' has aluuys, at least since... 1689, been considered by 
 Particular Baptists to relate exclusively to admission to the Lord's Supper." 
 
 This was the kiiid of evidence put in by the Defendants. Their papers are 
 full of such statements. It is needless to mention others, except on the subject 
 of redemption. The words of the trust-deed made it needful for the Plaintifls 
 to shew that "Particular Baptists" were so called because they held the doc- 
 trme of particular redemjjtion, and also to shew what the doctrine " then was." 
 The words " or limited," were used, from the first, in the Information and Bill, 
 ph. 3, to explain to the Court that " Particular " denoted a limited, as opposed 
 to a general redemption ; and the words of the Bill, describing that doctrine to 
 be that " Christ, by his death, did purcha$e salvation for the elect" were taken 
 from the London Confession of 1646, article 21 (see p. 51 preceding). Mr. 
 Gould, in his first answer, ph. 11, confirmed these statements. He said that 
 " the name Particular Baptists was derived from the doctrine called particular 
 or limited redemption;... to the eifect that... Christ, by his... srtC7-i/?ce of himself, 
 purchased salvation for all... the elect." He followed, in this statement, the 
 sense, and in part the words, of the Confession of 1677- — 1689, chapter 8, sec- 
 tion 6 (see p. 53 preceding). In ph. 101 of the same answer, he again admitted 
 that "particular or limited redemption... <7ien was'' precisely what the Bill de- 
 scribed it to be, and admitted that this "appears," or is proved, by the London 
 Confession, and "better" by that of 1677 — 1689 (p. 61 preceding). But some 
 sense of danger seems to have occurred, and Mr. Gould, in his third answer, 
 made assertions, page after i^age, at variance with the statements of his first 
 answer. Yet he begins this third answer by confirming his first, and saying 
 that terms in this are used in the smses in which they are used in the first. He 
 does this at the very moment when he is going to give to the term particular 
 redemption a neio sense. There, its meaning is said to be that Christ's death 
 purchased salvation for the elect ; here its meaning is said to be that Christ 
 "made atonement for the sins of the whole world;" and that, not atonement 
 itself, but the aiyplication of atonement is redemption (Ans. III., ph. 7). There, 
 both the London Confession and that of 1677 — 1689, are said to have taught 
 the former doctrine ; here they are said to have taught the latter (Ans. III., 
 phs. 19, 23). Here, in ph. 22, Mr. Benjamin Cox, in the face of his own state- 
 ment that " only " Christ's sheep " have their sins washed away in [his] blood " 
 (Appendix, sec. 5), is said to confirm Mr. Gould's words, in his third answer, 
 touching the Loudon Confession. Even Dr. Owen is said or implied to have 
 held the doctrine of the third answer, although he opposed it as wholly untrue 
 (Ans. III., ph. 42). Mr. Kinghorn is treated in like manner, and on the sum- 
 mit of this mountain of truth or untruth (which it is, the reader will judge) is 
 placed the bold statement that it was particular redemption which Mr. Gadsby 
 and Mr. Stevens referred to, when they spoke of Arminianism,. 
 
 But more suprising still, than even these statements, is the iact i\\?\i fourteen 
 other witnesses, most of them men well-informed, and men of note and high 
 station, should bind themselves by an oath, and agree to assert that the sub- 
 stance of what Mr. Gould says on this point, in his third answer, is true : — that 
 it is a fact that a " majority of particular Baptists has hitherto " held " the 
 doctrine of particular redemption, as defined" by Mr. Gould in this last answer; 
 in other words, that what Mr. Gould defines to be particular redemption, 
 has really been always esteemed to be so by a majority of Particular Baptists : 
 —that the view that Cluist " made atonement for the sins of the whole world," 
 and that this atonement " is applied by ivay of redemjMon to the " elect, has been, 
 from 1633 " hitherto," by at least a majority of those who have been at any 
 time called Particular Baptists, held to be particular redemption (Affidavit, 
 phs. 21, 22).'^ 
 
 * The word "limited," which was from I ever for Mr. Gould's third answer. That 
 the first in the Bill, gave no occasion what- | Answer, though it makes atonement general, 
 
156 
 
 Such statements, it may be thought, instead of misleading the Judge, would 
 make him distrust wkitever was said by those who made them. They might 
 have done so, indeed, if the truth on all points had been clear ; but to make 
 it so, was next to impossible, on account of the number of such statements. 
 And if Christian profession, combined with office, diploma, name, or fame, was 
 assumed to make it impossible that an oath had been taken on statements 
 unsupported by fact, the reader can see what would be the result of such 
 depositions as these. 
 
 3. The Defendants' counsel, in their argument, used these depositions (the 
 errors of which were, most of them, fitted for such use), to shew that to hold 
 communion with those who were not Particular Baptists, was a thing not " im- 
 possibk for a Particular Baptist congregation to do " (p. 106 preceding, c. 2, 
 top) ; although the true question was. What were the essentials of the faith, the 
 worship, and the order of this church ? The correspondence, both as 
 to reasoning, and as to the question assumed to be the one at issue, between 
 the Judgment and the Defence, shews how much the evidence of the Defendants 
 had to do with this result. 
 
 VI. Or THE EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFFS, on the Other hand, the Judg- 
 ment took little notice, although its testimony was unshaken (see p. 124, pre- 
 ceding). The proof which it gave, for instance, that in and before 1746, the 
 churches called Particular Baptist were spoken of as distinguished by commun- 
 ing solely Math Baptists, was not even noticed ; and though His Honour ad- 
 mitted the proof that, in this church, baptism was really essential to communion, 
 he destroyed its influence by declining to make the practice of this church — 
 the very and only church for which the trust was founded, a ground at all for 
 deciding what was intended to be practised there. 
 
 VII. The Costs. Mr. Lindley seemed to imply that the Trustees of the 
 cha-pel had funds at their disposal. They have none. Mr. Gooderson paid, it 
 is said, his own costs just before he died. Both the Defendants and the Plain- 
 tiffs were made, by the Judgment, each liable for the whole of their o%vn ex- 
 penses. Those of the Plaintifls are said to be light when compared with those 
 of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs sincerely thank their friends for having so 
 nobly contributed means for the discharge of their obligations. 
 
 VIII. Eesult of the Judgment. About forty members have been ex- 
 cluded. Mr. Gould says (Intro, p. 88), that the church, on July 15, 1860, 
 " resolved unanimously " " that while this church holds it as a fimdainental 
 principle that members withdrawing themselves " (the italics are by the editor) 
 "from its fellowship, in breaking of bread and in prayers, terminate their 
 membership by their own act, it is nevertheless desirous of afibrding to them 
 every reasonable opportunity of reconsidering their conduct, before it proceeds 
 to seal their act upon them ; and, therefore, in the case of the absentees from 
 public worship and communion at the Lord's table, reported... Ap. 26, 1858,... 
 it requests brethren James King" and others "to continue their labours, and 
 report.'' Mr. Gould also says that on July 30, 1860, "the deputation reported 
 ...that forty-one persons [had] notified their intention iiot to return to the fel- 
 lowship of the church ;" that " four of that number attended the church-meeting, 
 and two of them addressed the church ;" and that on the motion of Mr. Tillyard 
 and Mr. Newbegin, it was " carried unanimously 'that this church,... having 
 learnt that [the forty-one] do not intend to return to its fellowship, declares 
 their membership to be terminated bij their oion act' " 
 
 Sutton, Surrey, Nov. 9th, 1860. 
 
 Bays that atonement for all is " applied, by 
 way of redemption.'''' to the elect, and this 
 leaves redemption- even as Mr. Gould there 
 defines it, limited still. Jlr. Gould's remarks 
 ara foundod on z. new expressiou — "limited 
 
 atonement" introduced by himself into his 
 third ansvi'er. and treated there in the same 
 manner as if it hud been used in the Bill, 
 (See p. 69 preceding, ph. 4). 
 
157 
 
 Afft., affidavit. Ans., answer. Appx., appendix. Art., ai'ticle. Asson., association. Bk,, 
 book. Bpt., Baptist. Cfsn., Confession. Cgn., congregation. Chap., chapter. Cli., church. 
 Cmu., communion. Col., column. Cs.-exn., cross-examination. Deft., defendant. Ed., editor. 
 Edn., or ed., edition. Exbt., exhibit, i. e., book or paper exhibited in this suit. GI., general. 
 Govt., government. Kn., Kinghorn. L., line. Ld., learned. L's. Spr., Lord's Supper. Min., 
 minute. P., page. Ph., paragra])h. Pltf., plaintiff. Pr., particular. Eedn., or rdpn., redemp- 
 tion. Ref., references. Ees., resolution. Sec, section. 
 
 At pages 61 — 68, G., F., A., Gn., denote Gould, Five united defts., Allen, Gooderson. 
 
 In the FOi.LOWiNG Index, for greater brevit}', o. denotes open; s., strict. ; c, communion; 
 m., membership ; mbrs., members ; mxd., mixed ; P. B., Particular Baptist. The capitals standing 
 before the j(?r/;(/-es denote — B., Brock; G., Gould; N., Norton; P., Palmer; E., Russell; C, Cairns; 
 M., Master of the Rolls ; showing that the figm-es following, to tlie nest semicolon refer to remarks 
 by them respectively. 
 
 Admitted, what : — as to title to this chapel, G. 
 36, 39 ; C, 106 :— that this ch. had always 
 been s., B. 12, 79 ; P. 102, 129 ; M. 135 ; ch. 
 admits this, 12, 15, 79 ; Defts. G. 61, 79 ; R. 
 104 :— that o. c. excludes S. Bpts, B. 8 ; P. 104 ; 
 Affts. 83, 89 : — that o. c. and s. c. are held to 
 be God's law, C. 113 : — that members must be 
 baptized, C. 106, 107, 114; — that a mixed ch. 
 is not a Baptist ch., 25, 86, 110: — what Mr. 
 N. is said to admit, C. Ill, 112. 
 
 Advice of eight ministers, 5, 25 — 27: — and Con- 
 fession of 1689, G. 66, N. 86, ph. 10. 
 
 Affxd.\vits for Defts.: 5, 89 — 95; Answers 
 made aifts., 89, 91, 95; G atft. II., on Assons., 
 &c., 89; G. and Alexander, as to protesting 
 members, 91 ; Cozens, Fletcher, Tillyard, Ann 
 Colman, Brightwell, and Sarah Browne, as to 
 this ch., 91 — 93; Cozens the younger and Cul- 
 ley, 93; Crisp and thirteen others on c. and 
 redn., 93 — 95; Smith, Allen, Lush, 95. 
 
 Affidavits fok Pltfs: 75 — 89; N.'s first, 75 
 —84; N.'s second, 84—86; Wilkin, 86; Moore 
 and four othei-s, practice of this ch. under Mr. 
 Kn., 87 ; Guyton and four others excluded, 
 1847, 87 ; Willis and Tliuuless, 87 ; Wilhs and 
 six others, on innovations of 1857, 88, 89; 
 Wright, Cooper, Collins, on c. and redn., 89; 
 Foreman and eight others on c. and redn., 89: 
 — cross-examination on affidavits, 95 — 98. 
 
 Amicable proposals, 30, 38, 47, 50, i>2, 67. 
 
 Angus, Dr., his advice, &c., 25. 
 
 Answeks : Mr. Gould's first, 53 — 67 ; second, 
 67; third, 68 — 76; of other defendants, 61 
 —68. 
 
 Alteration of strict communion : G. 59 ; in this 
 ch. defended, C. 106, 115; M. 135. 
 
 Ai'bitration : Mr. Gould's plan of, 29, 67; dis- 
 cussed, 30 — 47; sent to Mr. N., when asking 
 
 to see ch. books, 30; defects of, 31, 33—36; 
 Mr. N.'s consent not needed, 35, 39; this plan, 
 not arbitratiou itself, objected to, 31, 33, 34, 
 42; never altered, 47; withdrawn, 47; Mr. 
 G. defended, C. 117. 
 
 Arbitration : Mr. N.'s proposals, 41 — 17 ; rejected, 
 42, 45 ; misrepresented, 47. 
 
 Arbitration, wliy none, N. 84, C. 117. 
 
 Arminians: c. with, 43; defended, G. 45. 
 
 Articles of this ch. : held by all the members, 51 ; 
 on faith, 77; on redn., 71; on membei'ship, 51. 
 59, 79, P. 102, 129; C. 114; nothing left to 
 man, or to be altered, 51, 69, 79; on L.'s Spr. 
 51, 59, 79; P. 102, C. 114; ch. discipline, 51, 
 59: — said to be renounced 1775, G. 60, C. 115; 
 but inconsistently, N. 63, 64; assent to denied 
 to be requii'ed, G. 63; compared with Cfsns., 
 C. 116. 
 
 Assemblies: had no power, N. 76; P. 99, 101; 
 and 0. c. chs., G. 56 ; 94. 
 
 Assembly, 1677, as to o. c. chs. 58, 94. 
 
 Assembly, 1689: rules of, G. 59, N. 76, 144; P. 
 123, M. 135; and this ch., G. 59, 63; N. 76, 
 P. 100, C. 108: any from o. c. churches, C. 
 109, P. 123, 124, 164; on unbaptized preach- 
 ers, G. 59. adopted Confession of 1677, 59, 63. 
 
 Assembly, 1692: stops contention, 59. 
 
 Assembly, 1693; Baptist Catechism, 59, 124. 
 
 Associations, G. 56, S9, 90; 94; 97; C. Ill, P. 127. 
 
 Attorney General, Memorial, 46 ; reply, 48. 
 
 Authors quoted by Mr. N., 75. 
 
 Baillie, R., quoted, G. 57; N. 84; C. 111. 
 Bamptield's churcli Sabbatarian, 76. 
 Baptism, what : 50; G. 53, Defendants 61, N. 77. 
 Bpt. chs., not mixed, 25, 81, 86, C. 110, P. 128. 
 Baptists, the, said to be strict by Bunyan, 
 Wall, Gale, &c., 82, 83, R. 104; C. 111. 
 
158 
 
 Baptists. See " Strict," " Particular,'' &c. 
 
 Baptist Fund, the Particular, 79; treasurers' 
 affidavits., 9.5; P. 101, 127; C 112. 
 
 Bpt. Building Fund, N. 80, P. 102, 127; C. 111. 
 
 Baptist Union, model deed, N. 81. 
 
 " Baptized church," this, N. 78, P. 102. 
 
 Baptized churches were all strict, N. 78. 
 
 Bayes, E., received unbaptized, 1.5, 16, 42, 4.3, 52, 
 65; P. 10.3, C. 116; baptism, 31, G.5; P. 103. 
 
 Believers, who are? 17, M. 104; have saving 
 faith, 43, 50; N- 77; G. receives all who 
 profess to be, G. 45, N. 84, R. 105; all com- 
 mune here, 16, 17, 52, 66, 84; P. 103, K. 104. 
 
 Bethell, Sk R., opinions by, 10, 11. 
 
 Board of Particular Baptist ministers, 97. 
 
 Booth, Abraham, 56; on c, 81, 82; P. 101, 128, 
 C. 110; and Mr. Hall, 83, G. 111. 
 
 Boyle, W. R. A., Esq., opinions, 11. 
 
 Breaches of Trust, 34, 45, 46, 52, 83, 84, 88. 
 
 Brewer, J., his protest, &c., 9, 64, 65. 
 
 Brine, J., on redemption, 79, 80 ; on communion, 80. 
 
 Broadmead ch., Bristol, when mixed? G. 54, C. 
 109, HI; P. 123; called Independent, 54, 85; 
 strict from 1733, 82, C. Ill, P. 124. 
 
 Brock, W., pastor, 7, 8; pledge, 8, P. 103, 131; 
 alleged breach of pledge, 8, N. ; o. c. in 
 his own house, 8, 24; in this chapel, 8, 48, 
 52, 64, 83, P. 103 ; said the church was not in- 
 volved, 9, P. 103; reply to protest, 9; admitted 
 that the church was always s., 12, 79, 83; re- 
 signs, 14; as to redemption, 68. 
 
 Brown, J., for o. m., 78, 81, 82, 142, P. 101. 
 
 Bunyan, J., for o. m. as a duUj, 56, 82, P. 99, 
 103; M. 134; renoimced theBcq}tist name, 78, 
 86, 142, C. 113; his o. c. then " singular," N. 
 78, P. 101; called the s. churches "the Bap- 
 tists," &c., 78, 82. 
 
 Bunyan's a "Congregational" church, 82, 85, 
 P. 99, 126; C. 110; predobaptist pastors, 82. 
 
 Buttfield, W., for s. c, N. 78, P. 102. 
 
 Catrns, Sir H., his speech, 105 — 119. 
 
 Cases laid before counsel, 9, 10, 11. 
 
 Catechism, Baptist, N. 77, P. 124. 
 
 Cautions to Mr. N., 30, 33. 
 
 Chancery, why appealed to, 30, 48, 49. 
 
 Change.s alleged in Pr. Baptist chm'ches, G. 59. 
 
 Chapel rebuilt, 74, 92 ; altered, 74, 75, 93. 
 
 Charitable Trusts' Act, sec. 64, 40. 
 
 Charities' Inspector at Nor\vich, 40. 
 
 Charity Commissioners on the case, 40 ; exemp- 
 tions may be referred to them as arbitrators, 
 40; proposed as, 41, 46; rejected, 42, 45; on 
 the other endowments, 41, 46; suggest a me- 
 morial, 46. 
 
 Church books, four, 67 ; leave asked to examine, 
 20, 21; answer delayed, 21, 30; leave asked 
 again, 30, 31 ; refused, 21, 32; extracts sent, 
 38 ; nature of, 39 ; books examined by order of 
 Court, 49, 84 ; contain no record of open com- 
 munion, G. 61, N. 78. See "Articles." 
 
 Church minutes rcquh-e agreement in doctrine 
 and worship, 51, 77, P. 103, C, 115, 116; ex- 
 clude members for holding gl. redn. and infant 
 baptism, .52, 77, 78, 80, G. 64, P. 103, C. 115; 
 forbid to countenance false doctruie and wor- 
 ship, 77, 78, P. 129. 
 
 Ch. of England is s., 100; had Bpt. mbrs., 85; 
 coumiunion with members of it, 88, P. 103. 
 
 Church, this: members and transient members, 
 76, 99; in practice alwui/s strict, see " Ad- 
 mitted ;" independent of all others, 51, G. 63; 
 N. 76; it limited all ch.-cmn. to Pr. Bpts., 51, 
 N. 7bi ; 87, 98 ; the proof disputed, 64 ; s. c. 
 was essential to its constitution, N. 79; it tole- 
 rated opinions in favour of o. c, G. 74, N. 79; 
 a said ibrmer majority of opinions for o. c, 92, 
 G. 61, 74; not so, "very few," 98; practice 
 then as before s., 87, 97, 98, G. 62, P. 102; it 
 requu-ed proof oi faith, &c., 77, 78, 97; held 
 pr. redn., N. 80; the unbaptized are now re- 
 ceived to permanent as well as occasional com- 
 munion with it, 88, See '' Church-books," above. 
 
 Colleges, Baptist, 7, 8, 95, P. 129. 
 
 Communion included memhership, N. 81 ; did so 
 in this ch., N. 78, P. 102, C 116 ; differences of 
 cmn. as to seventh-day sabbath, laying on of 
 hands, and smging, 76. See " Open." 
 
 Confession, London: as to s. m. and s. c, G. 56, 
 57; P. 120, M. 134; joined in by Spilsbery and 
 Kiffin, G. 57, P. 99, 120; C, 107; referred to 
 by Tombes, G. 55, N. 86 ; by Marshall, G. 57 ; 
 on redemption, G. 57, 70; N. 86. 
 
 Confession, Somerset, G. 57, 58, 90, C. 107. 
 
 Confession of 1677, 1689: G.56— 59; afft. 94; as 
 to cmn., C. 107, 113, P. 121, N. 107, 113, 
 notes; on redn., G. 70, 71;N. 71, 80, 113, note; 
 on saving faith, N. 77; not adopted by chs., N. 
 76, P. 99, C. 107, 108; said to be by this ch., 
 G. 63; was so by its messengers, G. 63, C. 108. 
 Appendix of 1677, G. 57, 58; afiSdavit, 94, 
 C. 108, P. 122. 
 
 Confessions of Gl. Bpts.: Orthodox Creed, G. 58, 
 P. 100, 124; C. 108; other Confessions, 70. 
 
 Confessions, use of, N. 76, C 107, 108 ; M. 133. 
 
 Congregation meant church, 51, 61, 76. 
 
 Congregational cbm-ches, G. 53, N. 77. 
 
 Congregational government, 51, 63, 77. 
 
 Congregation ofPr. Bpts., a mixed ch. different 
 from "one, N. 81 ; said to be one, C. 105, 116 ; 
 this the ground of defence, C. 106, M. 136. 
 
 " Congregation of Pr. Bpts., the," 51, 61, 80, 89. 
 
 Costs of suit, M. 137, N. 156. 
 
 Covenant of church, 59, 60, 77, 80, P. 102. 
 
 Cox, B., appendix, 70, 85, P. 121 ; redn., 71. 
 
 Crosby, " the Baptists " strict, N. 83. 
 
 Cross-exajiination, 95 — 98, C. 114. 
 
 Curtis, Dr., o. c. and Calvmism, 82. 
 
 Declarations, 1857, 28, 29, 84, 88, C, 117. 
 
 Deeds, see " Triast;" other deeds, 91. 
 
 Defence Committee, statements, 49. 
 
 Defence, effect on Judgment, 149. 
 
 Defendants, who ? 50 ; object of, 5. 
 
 Depositions, want of accm-acy, 149. 
 
 Devonshire-square church, o. m., 26, 55. 
 
 Distinct, o. c. said to have been from o. m., 6, 
 G. 55, Crisp 93, C. 109, 147; denied, N. 78 ph. 
 20, 81 ph. 33, 86 ph. 4, 148, P. 119; at v.ari- 
 ance with views and proceedings in this ch., 
 39, 40, 42, G. 17; the contraiy now admitted, 
 G. 14S, 152. 
 
 Doctrine of Chancery, M. 135, N._138. 
 
 Double practice of open communion and strict 
 communion, 8, 97 ; in this church, 4, 24, 146. 
 
 Episcopalians received, 88, P. 103. 
 
 Essential, strict communion, to this church, N. 
 
159 
 
 79, 83 ph 38, 89, 142, 144; said to be not 
 so, M. 135. 
 
 I^vans, John, Esq., opinion, 11. 
 
 Exclusion from ch. : Keif, 10, 36; often, 12, 83 
 ph. 40, 87; P. 103; threatened, 1857, 22, 49, 
 84 ph. 47; 89 ph. KJ; P. 104; of forty-one, 
 1860, 156; of S. Bpts., by o. c. from ch. and 
 sp?-., 23, 83 ph. 38, 89 ph. 5, 146; from spr., 
 8, 23, 88, P. 104; not so, M. 137. 
 
 Faith, sa%'ing, 43, 45, 77 ph. 13. 
 
 Fictions of the Defence, 147 — 149. 
 
 Forty-six Pr. Bpt. churches in London, 1646, 
 
 53, 57, C 107 ; denied, 84, P. 120, 149. 
 Foster, Dr. J., o. est., 80, 82, C. 114. 
 Fuller, A., 68, 73, 95, 96, C 114, N. 155. 
 Fundamental. See " Essentials." 
 
 Gadsby, W., particular redemption, 71. 
 
 Gale, Dr., ''the Baptists" s., b3, 142, P. 101. 
 
 General Redn., 51 ph. 3, G. 01; defined, N. 79 
 ph. 25, G. 70. See " Church-books," " Hall." 
 
 Gill, Dr. John, on redemption, 79, 80. 
 
 Gooderson, Dft., 50, 61, 104; death, 67. 
 
 Gould, G., Deft., pastor, 14, 52 ; address on cmn., 
 17; on schism, 21; as to Dechirations, 1857, 
 28; complaints of Mr. N., 32, 36, 37, 38, 47; 
 objections to Chancery, 33, 38. See " Ad- 
 mitted," "Affidavits," "Answers," "Arbitra- 
 tion," &c. 
 
 Grantham, T., General Bpt., 78, P. 101, C 113. 
 
 Hall, Eobt., advocate of o.c, 7, G. 56, P. 102, C. 
 Ill; definition of o. c, 81 ph. 31; aims at a 
 revolution, 7, 8, C. 114, P. 128; proposes o. c. 
 and s.c. in same ch., 8, 114; advocates o. 
 membership, 10, 82 ph. 33, P. 103 ; as to redn., 
 G. 68 ; held gl. redn., 81 ph. 32 ; 114 note, 153 : 
 this denied, C. 114; s. c, extent of, in Mr. 
 Booth's time, 83 ph. 37, C. Ill, P. 128; ex- 
 tinction of Baptist churches. P. 128, 129. 
 
 Hearing, the, 98 — 131. 
 
 Hewley's Case, Lady, 102, 127, 138. 
 
 Hinton, J. H., 81 ; advice to Mr. G., 26. 
 
 Hobson, Paul, on redemption, 70. 
 
 How, S., Baptist pastor of Independent ch., 53. 
 
 Hymns: Watts, Evans, on redemption, 71, 80. 
 
 Inconsistencies of o. c. mbrs. : in i.'s *S^;r., prac- 
 tise both o, c. and s. c, 4, 8, 24, 146 ; in mem- 
 berskq), s. c, 17, 19, 42, 148; exclude from all 
 comnnmion some believers, 17, 22, 25 — 27. 
 
 Independence of this ch., 51, 63, 76 ; said to sanc- 
 tion change, C. 106; M. 134, 135; this denied, 
 P. 130, N. 149; said to be invaded by Chan- 
 cery, C. 119; not, P. 130. 
 
 Independent chs., 77; Bpt. mbrs., N. 85, R. 104. 
 
 Independents reed, to comnmnion, 88, P. 103. 
 
 Infant sprinkling: exclusion for defending, see 
 " Church Minutes ;'' in o. m. cgns, 54, 93. 
 
 Information and Bill filed, 49, 50 — 53. 
 
 • amended, 68. 
 
 Innovations, what, 145. See " Breaches." 
 
 Introduction, 3 — 6. 
 
 Jessey, Hy., practised cm., 54 — 56, M. 134; as 
 a command, 82 ph. 33 ; his church Independent, 
 85 ph. 3; P. 99, 125; what is true of, 144, 150, 
 151 ; extinct before 1746, 82 ph. 34 
 
 Judgment, 132 — 139; remarks on, 138 — 156. 
 
 Keach, B; and E., their churches, rules of com- 
 munion as to laying on hands, 76. 
 
 Kiffin, W., for s. c, G. 56, N. 151 note ; why he 
 left Mr. Spilsbery's, — not o. c, as said by G. 54 
 phs. 25, 26 ; C. 107 ; but uubaptized ^^jreacAers, 
 94, N.86, P. 120; joined in Cfsns., G, 57, C. 
 107, 108; P. 120; censure of, M. 134; pro- 
 tested against, N. 144. 
 
 Kiffin, W., his church, when formed, 54, 94, N. 
 86, 151 note ; said to be t\\Qjirst strict ch., 54, 
 55, 94; not so, N. SO, P. 99, 120, 121 ; its strict 
 membership now subverted, 26, 55, 94, C. 110. 
 
 Kindersley, Sir R. T., opinion, 9, 83. 
 
 King, Daniel, 56, C. 110, P. 125, 127. 
 
 Kinghorn, Jos., pastor, death of, 7, 8; on cmn. 
 opposed R. Hall, G. 56 ; said of his system, 
 " manv faiths, no baptism," 80 ; when young, 
 undecided, G. 61, 74, 92; C. 115, P. 129; 
 afterwards firm, 98 ; alleged deference of this 
 ch. to Mr. Kn, 62, 92 ; views on cmn. with Gl. 
 Bpts., 74, 80 ph. 27; called a coiu-se like the 
 pressnt, robbery, 79 ph. 23, 130; on redn., 
 his alleged views, G. 68, 72, 73 ; real views, 
 72, 73, 80, 95, 96 note. 
 
 Landells, Mr. W., advice, 25. 
 
 "Limited," in the original Bill, 51. 52, C. 100, 
 118: N. 155 note; pr. called limited redn. by 
 G. 53 ph. 11, 61; denied by him to be so, 68, 
 69; limited redn, called " monstrous bigotry," 
 G. 68. 
 
 Lord's Supper and membership : the argument of 
 defts. applies to both, P. 119; said to be dis- 
 tinct, 6, 55, 93; not so, 78, 86, 89, P. 99, 103, 
 119 ; admission that open membership is re- 
 quired by open communion, 39, 40, 42, 49. 
 
 Majority, the power designed to be given to one, 
 C. 105, 106, 116; P. 130, N. 149:— was there 
 one for o.c. in Mr. Kinghorn's time ? 92 : — R. 
 Hall's advice to, 7, 114. 
 
 Marten, A. G., Esq., his speech, 119. 
 
 Members excluded, 10, 12, 156. 
 
 must be baptized, C. 106, 107, 114. 
 
 -, when admitted, 18, 48, 62, 146. 
 
 of all churches, o. c. with, 19, 88. 
 
 , office and duties of, 8, 77, 146. 
 
 , protesting, forced to be absent from 
 
 L.s' Spr., B. 8, 23, 88 ph. 1 ; treatment of at 
 ch.-meetings, 29, 88, 89; charged with schism, 
 21, 22 ; their exclusion stopped by filing the 
 bill, 48, 49, 89 ph. 17 :— protests, 1845, 9 ; 1847, 
 13 ; 1857, 28, 88 ph. 13, G. 91, C. 1 17. 
 
 Membership, open : all o. c. Baptists practised in 
 1746, 81 ph. 33, C. Ill, G. 14s, see " Distinct," 
 " L.'s Spr. ;" included o. c. as to L.'s Spr., 55 ph. 
 32 ; was it open to modification ? 54, 93 ; not so, 
 N. 86 ; churches adopting it said to be always 
 deemed P. B. chs., 55, 93, N. 81, 116 note, 
 154; C. 112 ; approved by members of this ch. 
 and by then- acts, 15, 16, 88; 19, 39, 40, 42, 
 49; by defts.' pleadings, P. 119; said to be re- 
 jected, C. 100, 109, 147 ; M. 133 ; now rejoiced 
 in, G. 148 ; said not to be before the Court, 
 M. 136, 146. 
 
 Methodists, cmn. with, 45, 84, P. 103. 
 
 Missionary cmn., 19, 84, 88. 
 
160 
 
 Noel, Hon. B. W., advice to Mr. G., 26. 
 Neal, D., quoted, »3, P. 101, C. 113. 
 
 Open communion : what, 3; wrongly defined, 55, 
 93 ; includes all believers, 81 ph. 31, 84, 88 ph. 
 3 ; extinguishes all sects, N. 81 phs. 3) , 33 ; P. 
 99; held to be of Divine authority, 4, C. 113; 
 was it deemed " open to modification," ")5, 93 ; 
 was not so, 8G ; introductiun into this cli., 8 — 
 50; no record of in first ch.-bks., 61; mere 
 opinions in favour of tolerated, 74, 79 ph. 23 ; 
 mooted in this ch., 75, 92 ; o. c. members have 
 not modified their opinions, 75, 93. See Ad- 
 mitted, Inconsistencies, L.'s Spr., Majority, 
 Membership. 
 
 Open communion, was it an open question? 55, 62, 
 94, C. 107; denied, 86, 152, C. 114, P. 120. 
 
 Open-cmn. chs. said to be Pr. Bpt. chs., 55, 93 ; 
 differ from, 81 ph. 32, 112 note; may exist 
 without one P. Bpt., 81 ph. 31. 
 
 Orthodox Creed, 58, C. 108, P. 124. 
 
 Owen, Dr. John, what is pr.redn.? 68, 73, 79,95,96. 
 
 Palmer, Anthony, 56, C. 110, P. 125. 
 
 Palmer, E., Esq., opening speech, 98 — 104 ; reply, 
 
 119—131. 
 Particular, use of term, 79, C. 107. 
 
 Baptists, 51, 53, 79, 93, P. 98. 
 
 • Baptist churches, 53, 57 ; are o. c. chs. 
 
 so? 55, 81, 9.3, R. 104, C. 112, 116. 
 Particular Redemption defined, 51, G. 53, defts. 
 
 61 ; wrongly, 68—70, 95, C. 118 ; held by this 
 
 ch. 71 ph. 32, 80; cannot be a term of cran. 
 
 with 0. c, 43, 45, 64, 80, 82 ; views of Hobson, 
 
 70 ; Kinghorn, 72, 73, 80; Gill, Brine, 79, 80 ; 
 
 Owen, 73, 80 ; Gadsby, Stevens, 71 ; Hall, 68, 
 
 81; Fuller, Q%, 73; ''monstrous bigotry," 68. 
 
 See " Limited." 
 Paul, W., writer for strict communion, 56. 
 Plaintiffs and relators, who, 50. 
 Pledges, Mr. B., 8; o. c. members, 05. 
 Prayer of Bill, 52, 105, C. 106, 117, P. 131. 
 Preachers, unbaptized, 54, 59, 94, 120. 
 Preaching, prayer, praise, compared with L.'s 
 
 Spr., 55, 94 ph. 9; said to be ch. acts, 63, 94 
 
 ph. 19; denied, 78 ph. 19, 97, 154. 
 Presbyterian chs. had Baptist members, 85, 104. 
 Presbyterians, old, see '' Hewley ;" received to 
 
 cmn., 88. 
 Price, Dr. T., his advice, 27. 
 Protests by members, see " Members ;" by a 
 
 trustee, 14, 83, 87. 
 
 Question at issue, 6, P. 104, 129, 130 ; C. 106, M. 
 132, 133, 136; N. 139—142. 
 
 Remarks on Judgment, 138 — 156. 
 Revolution, silent, of Hall, 7, 8, 114. 
 Robbery, 79 ph. 23, 83 ph. 38, P. 130. 
 Robinson, R., for o. c. ; latterly a Socinian, 56, 82, 
 
 C. no, 114. 
 Russell, G. L., Esq., speech, 104, C. 115. 
 Ryland, J., for open membership, 56, 82, C. 110. 
 Saving faith, 20, 43, 77. 
 
 Schism, charge of, 21, 22, 89 ph. 14. 
 
 Singing, differences on, 59, 76; not a ch. act. only, 
 14, 78 ph. 19. 
 
 Societies and open communion, 90, 94, P. 120. 
 
 Socinus,firstadvocate of open communion, 81, 113. 
 
 Spilsbery, J., was for s. c. and m., 54 note, 110 
 note, 149 note, P. 120; said to be for o. m., 54 
 ph. '23, 85 ph. 2, C. 107; joined in London 
 Confession, G. 57, N. 85, P, 99, 120; C. 107. 
 
 Spilsbery, J., his church ihe first Pr. Bpt. ch., 53, 
 C. 109; practised s. c, 85, 110 note, 149 note, 
 P. 120; not o. m., as alleged by G. 54, 55, 57; 
 C. 110. ' . » 
 
 Steane, Dr. E., 5, 81 ; advice, 27. 
 
 "Strict Baptists :" the term first used, 56, 82; 
 till then called " The Baptists," &c., 82, R. 
 104; their sentiments, 82. 
 
 Strict communion: what, 3, 82; wrongly defined, 
 G. 55, 93; said wrongly to applv to L.'s Spr. 
 only, 63, 94; held as a Divine and fundamental 
 law, 4, 79 ph. 21, 83 ph. 38, C. 113; in 1746 
 almost universal, 82, P. 100; always practised 
 by this ch., 79, see " Admitted;" said to be left 
 to the discretion of the ch., 66, C. 105, 106 ; not 
 so, N. 149. 
 
 Strict members. See " Members," " Exclusion." 
 
 Strict service, neio, for strict members, 17, 18, 39, 
 
 48, G. 66 phs. 156, 160; said to meet the case, 
 66; did not do so, 89 ph. 15, R. 105, N. 146, 
 148; what it involved, 18, 30, 31, 48; rejected, 
 
 49, 66 twice; rejection made ground of exclu- 
 sion, C. 117, i\L 104, 133, 137. 
 
 Suit rendered necessary, 3, 89 ph. 17; object of 
 defts. in, 5; importance of, 5, C. 105, N- 138; 
 persons who support the defts., 4, 5; many 
 churches interested in, 4, 49. 
 
 Teachers, public, Mr. Hall on, 7. 
 
 Tillvard, R., pamphlet, 34. 
 
 "Time beintj," C. 106, 118; N. 140. 
 
 Tombcs, J., for o. m., G. 53, 55, 57; N. 82, 86, 
 144; P. 99, 125; C. 109, M. 134. 
 
 Trust-deeds : four, 60, 84 ; the original, 50 ; vio- 
 lated by 0. c, 52 ph. 21, N. 81—83, 139—143; 
 P. 98, C. 106; M. 132; said to be silent, C. 
 118; more recent trust-deeds, 60. 
 
 Trust-deeds of other chapels, 80. 
 
 Trustees: who, 52 ph. 23; 84 ph. 52; Mr. Wilkin 
 and Mr. Norton take opinion, 9 ; appeal to all, 
 and tbree meetings of, 1845, 10; their case for 
 counsel, 10; Mr. N. takes new opinions, 11; 
 appeal to all, and meeting, 1847, 13; refusal of 
 most to stop innovations, 45, 52; due appoint- 
 ment of 60, 119. 
 
 Turner, D.„for o. m., 56, 82, C. 110. 
 
 Usage of this cgn., 51 ph. 15, 64, 79, 80, P. 102; 
 legal force of M. 135 ; in this case, N. 138, 139. 
 
 Wales, mixed churches, 54 82 ph. 34. 
 Wall, Dr., 79. 82, 85, P. 101, 113, 142. 
 Watts' hymns on redemption, 71, 80, 92. 
 Wheeler, T. A., on singing 14. 
 Wilkin. S., his opinions. 75, 86, 93. 
 Woollacott, C, advice, 27, C. 117; afft. 93. 
 
 BRrsC'orijrrinter, Hunnor-strett, Finsbury.