they must speedily become extinct by adhering to this plan; new controversies have sprung up among them, and though, with a new principle of cohesion and repulsion, they may still maintain themselves as a distinct body, the history of Presbyterianism as a sect deducing itself from the time of the great separation from the Establishment, in 1662, must be considered as very nearly closed." Monthly Review, New Series, Vol. LXXXI. p. 411. Thus, Sir, from the testimony both of opponents and friends, it appears, that those who now call themselves "English Presbyterians," have departed very far, both in faith and church discipline, from the founders of their chapels.

Perhaps it may be said, "what if those by whom these chapels were built, should have made no provision whatsoever for Presbyterianism, or any other ism-if they should have wisely avoided attempting to impose fetters on the human mind, or to stay the progress of religious truth, but, duly appreciating the liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free, should have been contented to leave those who were to follow them free, to obey the convictions of their own minds-to form their creeds, not by the authority of Church or State, but by the light of their own religious enquiries, and the honest dictates of conscience!" In reply to this I would observe, that I happen to be acquainted with the contents of the original deeds of some of the "English Presbyterian Chapels," now occupied by Unitarians, and they do make provision both for Presbyterianism and what some would call "rigid Calvinism." They state that these chapels are set apart for the use of "Protestant Dissenters of the Presbyterian persuasion," and require that the ministers should preach according to "the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England," or "the Assembly's Catechism." The following is an extract from one of these deeds now before me :

“The said edifice, or building, so erected as aforesaid, to be used and employed for and as a meeting p'ace and conveniency of an assembly of a particular Church or congregation of Protestants dissenting from the Church of

the

England for the free exercise of their divine and religious worship therein weekly, on the Christian Sabbaths, or Lord's days, and other days statedly and occasionally. The minister or ministers of the said congregation, to be a Protestant able minister or ministers of the gospel of the Presbyterian persuasion, and to pray and preach God's word, administer the sacraments of the New Testament, and perform all offices and duties belonging to that sacred function there, so as such minister or ministers of the said congregation, who, for the time being, shall officiate there, be sound in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, and such as hold and profess the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England, required to be subscribed by the Pastor or Pastors, the Teacher or Teachers of such congregation."

How far the original trust deeds of Cross-street Chapel correspond with the above extract I cannot pretend positively to assert. Mr. Kay, however, admits their agreement in one part, namely, that the "distinctive appellation which the trusts of the chapel recognize" is, "the Presbyterian congregation of Cross-street Chapel ;" but he carefully avoids taking notice of the doctrine required to be preached within its walls. As Mr. Newcome and the founders of the place agreed in religious sentiment with their brethren of that day; as the deeds of chapels built about the same time as Cross-street chapel, by the same denomination, very much resemble each other ;—and as "Mr. Mottershead found his congregation, about ninety years ago, rigid Calvinists;" there is strong presumptive evidence that the original trusts of the place make provision for the preaching of truths according to the "doctrinal articles of the Church of England," or "the Assembly's Catechism." If, Sir, on enquiry, and I am willing to suppose you have not yet ascertained this fact, you find that my assumption is true in reference to Cross-street Chapel, as well as the "English Presbyterian Chapels" in general, you will not “reluctantly quit occupations of a pleasanter character, to notice the letters under the signature of " Another Orthodox Dissenter," or of any other, because he represents that the possession

of Orthodox Chapels and Endowments by Unitarians, is a "perversion of property to the amount of several thousands annually."

I most sincerely acknowledge, Sir, the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and rejoice that we live in a land, and at a period when any man may publicly worship God in that manner he considers most scriptural. The descendants of Orthodox Presbyterians are fully entitled to embrace and profess the doctrines they think proper, and to lay aside all form of Church discipline if they choose, and to adopt every lawful means for the propagation of their sentiments; but surely, as men of "integrity of conduct," and especially assuming the name of Christians, they ought not to retain places and endowments that were intended by the pious dead for very different purposes. There is a chapel in Yorkshire that was built, some time ago, at the expense of the inhabitants of the township. Lately the majority of the hearers wished to have an Independent Minister, but the minority referring to the trust-deed, found that it required the Church prayers should be read there. This was considered decisive by the majority, who withdrew, and at the expence of 16007. erected another chapel, in which the worship of God is conducted according to the custom of the Independents. If Unitarians, and the present " English Presbyterians," had acted on this honest principle, the present controversy would not have existed.

66

66

The English Presbyterians," Sir, of this day, may consider themselves more enlightened, and greater lovers of liberty than their forefathers, and treat with contempt the religious system they loved; but the late Dr. Taylor, of Norwich, who differed from them in doctrinal sentiments, speaks of them in strong terms of commendation. When addressing the Dissenters in Lancashire on a particular occasion, he says: "The ministers ejected in the year 1662, were men prepared to lose all and to suffer martyrdom rather than desert the cause of Civil and Religious Liberty. They were excellent men, because excellent, instant, and fervent in prayer. Those who knew them not might despise

them, but your forefathers, wiser and less prejudiced, esteemed them highly in love for their work's sake. You were once happy in your Heywoods, your Newcomes, your Jollies, &c. &c. who left all to follow Christ. But Providence cared for them, and they had great comfort in their ministerial services. The presence and blessing of God appeared in their assemblies, and attended their labours. How many were converted, and built up in godliness and sobriety, by their prayers, pains, doctrines, and conversations! Let my soul for ever be with the souls of these men."*

Permit me, Sir, to conclude this letter with the following quotation from the venerable John Howe, who, after having fully described the character of Mr. Newcome, concludes thus:-" He was a burning and a shining light! O, Manchester, Manchester! that ancient famed seat of religion and profession, may Capernaum's doom never be thine! May thy Heyrick, Hollingsworth, NEWCOME, and thy neighbours, Angier and Harrison, and divers more, never be witnesses against thee!"

I am, Sir, your's very respectfully,

Stand, near Manchester, Dec. 3rd., 1824.

RICHARD SLATE.

To the Editor of the Manchester' Gazette.

SIR,-The controversy which is now agitated at Manchester between the Orthodox and the Socinians, or as they choose to call themselves, the Unitarians,† has attracted much notice, and excited general interest. The Orthodox question the right of the Socinians to the old Dissenting

• Dr. Taylor's Scripture Account of Prayer.

+ As the name of Presbyterian has been again revived by some of this sect as their distinctive appellation, it may be worth while to show how far one oftheir own Ministers considers it appropriate. In a sermon preached at the opening of the Renshaw-street chapel, in Liverpool, by Mr. Grundy, the late minister of "The Presbyterian Congregation in Cross-street," there is the following passage :--"Arian and Socinian are the terms generally assigned to us: and these, til llately, were frequently considered as synonimous with Deist or Infidel. The term Presbyterian is now commonly used; but, I confess, some difficulty appears to me to

Chapels, because, it is well known, that the founders of those places were hostile to their creed, and, it is presumed, that the trust deeds sanction very different sentiments. In reply, these gentlemen do not produce their trust-deeds, and they are very cautious and backward to give any information about them. Professing to be the friends of free inquiry, they take the liberty of rejecting any opinions, though they may be recorded in the old parchments, and of receiving any other opinions, though they might be held in detestation by their pious ancestors; and, at the same time, they think it right to hold the chapels which those writings were intended to secure, and to enjoy the endowments which those ancestors bequeathed. They say, that whatever might be the original constitution of a place of worship, it must be governed by the will of the majority; and if there are any who do not approve of that government they must submit or secede; and this, they tell us, is the true principle of Protestant dissent. If so, it is natural to ask-what is the authority or use of a trust-deed? what regard is to be paid to the will of a testator? and what security is there for the right occupation of trust property, and the right application of testamentary benefactions? And it is incumbent on our opponents to meet these questions more directly, and to answer them more satisfactorily, than they have yet done. But it is not necessary to expose the illegality and injustice of this principle, as that is already accomplished very successfully by Mr. Hadfield. I wish, rather, to draw the attention of your readers to the following statement of facts.

At Stainland, a populous village in the parish of Halifax, a chapel was built in 1754, by the inhabitants, at their own

attend the use of it: because, it has either no definite meaning as to opinions or discipline, or if it have any meaning, it signifies something which we are NOT. The phrase Rational Christian is, in one respect, objectionable. It is deemed invidious and savouring of pride. Though it ought to be understood, that, when the term is used, it does not mean rational as opposed to irrational; it denotes persons who make reason their guide in religious principles and doctrines, in opposition to those who consider religion as an affair of feeling. Since we must have some discriminating appellation, would that we could unite in the use of one term, so defined as to include us all, the term Unitarian.”