^{page 162 note 1} The letter is printed in H. Stogdon, Poems and letters (ed. N. Billingsley), 1729, 56. There can be no serious doubt about supplying the name of John Ball, omitted in the printed version of the letter. For Hubert Stogdon, see D.N.B.; Billingsley (Nicholas), A sermon occasioned by the death of Mr. Hubert Stogdon … with memoirs, 1728; M.R., iv. 57 ff., 121 ff., 247 ff.

Four works frequently mentioned are referred to briefly as follows:

A.G. = Alexander Gordon, The Story of Salters' Hall. First published in 1902 this was reprinted in his Addresses Biographical and Historical, London 1922, 123–53.

C.O.L. =Edmund Calamy, 1671–1731. An Historical account of my own Life, 2nd ed., 2 vols., London 1830Google Scholar.

M.R. = Monthly Repository.

^{page 163 note 1} For the ‘Heretical’ beliefs of those stigmatised as Arians see Samuel Clarke (1675–1729), The Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity, 1712, from which the ferment about the Trinity at this time chiefly germinated, not only in Devonshire, but also in Northern Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere. For a brief clear statement see F. J. Powicke, Unit. Hist. Soc. Trans., i. 103–4, 125–8. See also Griffiths, Olive M., Religion and Learning, 1935Google Scholar and Waterland, Daniel, Works, 1843, p. 79Google Scholar (note f). It is no part of this paper to deal with the theological doctrines that gave rise to the disputes at Salters' Hall.

^{page 163 note 2} Stogdon was given his licence to preach between May 1714 and September 1715 (MS. in D.W.L.: Gilling's Transactions, opp. p. 74). The next step should have been an examination prior to ordination. Peirce takes John Walrond to task for saying that ordination was refused’ (Western Inquisition (W.I.), p. 47); it was in fact not refused because it was not sought, and it was not sought because, as Peirce says (W.I., 43) ‘we were on both sides apprehensive that this would raise a feud and contention among us’. ‘Exeter Assembly’ is a convenient and usual form of reference to a body whose full title was ‘The United Ministers of Devon and Cornwall’. This body was formed in 1691 on the basis of the Heads of Agreement entered into in that year by the Presbyterian and Independent ministers in London. See Gordon, A., Freedom after Ejection, 1917, 151 ff.Google Scholar; Gordon, A., Cheshire Classis Minutes, 1919, iiiGoogle Scholar ff. Nicholas Billingsley assisted in the transfer of Stogdon to Wookey, nr. Wells. See his Rational Christian principles, 1721.

^{page 163 note 3} This letter to Matthew Towgood's brother is printed in M.R., xii. 581. For Stogdon's reputed confession of faith see Answer to Mr. Peirce's Western Inquisition, 1721, 39. Cf. Stogdon's confession of faith in Billingsley, N., Sermon … 1728, 23–33Google Scholar; also report of his confession in a letter of Thomas Seeker, M.R., 634 [undated letter = 4 March 1718].

^{page 164 note 1} For the earlier stages of the trouble at Exeter, see W.I., 10–40; John Fox's Memoirs in M.R., xvi. 131, etc. and William Whiston, Memoirs, 1749, 146 ff.

^{page 164 note 2} W.I., 67–8.

^{page 164 note 3} W.I., 90 ff. The accusation was not without substance. When the orthodox party at the May Assembly in 1719 imposed a subscription to Trinitarian formulae, 46 subscribed (10 did so later) while 19 subscribed a paper of protest. All but three of these last were younger ministers or candidates. See F. J. Powicke, Cong. Hist. Soc. Trans., vii. 34–43.

^{page 164 note 4} W.I., 87–9. This meeting was not held in answer to a general summons, still less was it a meeting of the (official) Body of the Three Denominations. The names of those who attended are given in The Plain and Faithful Narrative, 1719, 10 ff. Of the twenty-five who attended, three are difficult to place: of the rest 11 were Presbyterians and 11 Independents, whence it would seem that no Baptists were either called or attended. At the 1719 Salters' Hall Assembly only three of these twenty-five signed with the Non-ubscribers while 19 signed with the Subscribers.

^{page 164 note 6} W.I., 79–108. Cf. Wodrow, R., Correspondence, 1843, 391Google Scholar.

^{page 164 note 6} Peirce says (W.I., 107) ‘This general sense appeare'd to be the sense of about two to one, or perhaps rather more’. A newsletter circulating shortly afterwards reports a subscription and gives precise figures (32 against 16) but this must be wrong. See Vindication of the orthodox faith … [1719], 7. Cf. Hist. MSS. Comm. Portland Papers, v. 575.

^{page 164 note 7} The innocent vindicated, 1718; 2nd ed. 1719. Cf. W.I., 142 ff.

^{page 164 note 8} For the nature of this Committee, see Gordon, A., Story of Salters' Hall, 1902Google Scholar, repr. 1922, 129–31.

^{page 165 note 1} The fourth minister, John Lavington, was orthodox.

^{page 165 note 2} W.I., 145. For the status of these London ministers, William Tong, Edmund Calamy, Benjamin Robinson, Jeremiah Smith and Thomas Reynolds, see A.G., 133.

^{page 165 note 3} The others were William Horsham, Samuel Hall, John Moore, Josiah Eveleigh and Joseph Manston. See W.I., 168; Peirce, J., Case of the ministers ejected …, 1719Google Scholar (Lond.), 7.

^{page 165 note 4} W.I., 172.

^{page 165 note 5} That they were well informed of what was passing in London is implied in Peirce's Case, 1719, 9, where in a discussion with the ‘Thirteen’ reference is made to ‘the addition of the Anabaptists to one side’ in London, which ‘made a majority’. The ‘majority’ must have been that in the vote at the Salters' Hall meeting on 24 February. This was on 5 March, by which time the ‘Thirteen’ were fully informed of the London meeting on 24 February.

^{page 165 note 6} W.I., 171, where the three heads of advice are set out in full, as also in Account of the reasons [by Josiah Eveleigh], 1719, 2nd ed., 10.

^{page 165 note 7} Case, 18 ff. Cf. C.O.L. (Calamy, Edmund, Historical account of my own life, 2nd ed., 1830), ii. 405–6Google Scholar; Bogue and Bennett, 1810, iii. 236–7; Dale, R. W., History of English Congregationalism, 1907, 535Google Scholar.

^{page 165 note 8} The sermon was published under the title The evil and cure of divisions, Exon, 1719Google Scholar; London 1719. For the size of the congregation see Christian Reformer, no. 1 (1834), 881–2.

^{page 166 note 1} Account ofthe reasons [by Josiah Eveleigh], 1719, 2nd ed., 28.

^{page 166 note 2} An Authentick account, 1719; A True relation of some proceedings at Salters-Hall, 1719; A Vindication of the Subscribing ministers, 1719; A Reply to the Subscribing ministers reasons in their Vindication, 1719; The Second part of a Reply, 1719; A Letter to the Reverend Mr. Tong, 1719 [By Samuel Saunders]. The ‘angry advertisements’ are mentioned by Calamy, C.O.L., ii. 418.

^{page 166 note 3} In 2 vols. edited by J. T. Rutt. The 2nd edition was published 1830; to this references are made in this paper.

^{page 167 note 1} Calamy says that he foresaw the quarrel at Salters' Hall and ‘took up a resolution to have no hand in it’ and that as a consequence he kept up his ‘correspondence with both sides and received civilities from each’. We must not bear him a grudge if, as we may reasonably suspect, he discouraged his colleagues in the ‘Merchants' Lecture’ from writing in the controversy. They did however produce A Plain and faithful narrative, 1719, of their share in the Exeter troubles, and promised a sequel on later developments. But the sequel (thanks to Calamy?) never appeared. (Cf. C.O.L., ii. 429).

^{page 167 note 2} C.O.L., ii. 407.

^{page 167 note 3} In 1720. For Barrington see D.N.B.

^{page 167 note 4} Edmund Calamy, Abridgement of Mr. Baxter's history … and continuation, 2nd ed. 1713, 621.

^{page 167 note 5} T. Crosby, History of the English Baptists, 1740, iv. 158, a passage taken from a journal by Benjamin Stinton (of which a MS. copy is preserved in Dr. Williams's Library). The decision to increase the Committee was taken on 28 February 1716 (Stinton's Journal) and the names of the enlarged Committee were (Presbyterian) Joshua Oldfield, William Tong, Jeremiah Smith, Benjamin Robinson, Christopher Taylor and John Evans; (Independent) John Nesbit, Matthew Clark, John Foxon, Thomas Ridgley and Daniel Neal; (Baptist) Nathanael Hodges, Benjamin Stinton, Richard Allen, John Noble and Abraham Mulliner. (From the Evans MS. in D.W.L.) Plans were in hand, it would seem, in 1719, for a closer union, doubtless reviving the ideals of the ‘Happy Union’. See Advice to Protestant Dissenters, 1720, 35. Cf. C.O.L., ii. 401.

^{page 168 note 1} C.O.L., ii. 366–9, and Evans MS.

^{page 168 note 2} The Evans MS. in D.W.L. was the register compiled. For the way in which it was compiled see notes in the MS. itself; see also a letter from Jenkin Lewis, minister at Southwold to Matthew Clark, 23 April 1716 (MS. in D.W.L., 38. 96. 1). Cf. Matthew Hole, Antidote to the poison, 1717, 42–7.

^{page 168 note 3} Introduced into the House of Lords on 13 December, it received the Royal assent on 18 February, the day before the first meeting at Salters' Hall.

^{page 168 note 4} C.O.L., ii. 402–3. Cf. Hist. MSS. Comm., Portland Papers, v. 575, 576.

^{page 168 note 5} To adopt Calamy's phrase, C.O.L., ii. 413: ‘I was so fearful of that from what I at that time observed, that I determined to engage no farther’.

^{page 168 note 6} C.O.L., i.374.

^{page 168 note 7} See Nuttall, G. F., Richard Baxter and Philip Doddridge, Oxford 1951Google Scholar. The incident quoted on p. 7, when Baxter retorted ‘So much the better’ when it was complained that his reduction of fundamentals might admit Socinians, was quoted more than once in the Salters' Hall controversy. Cf. Letter to Mr. Robinson, 1719, 13 ff.; and Second part of a Reply, 1719, 83 ff.

^{page 169 note 1} See Locke's Essay for the understanding of St. Paul's Epistles, by consulting St. Paul himself, in his Paraphrase and notes, 1707, especially pp. vii and x. Barrington could hardly have missed the allusion to Locke's simplification of belief in Hoadly's famous sermon on the Nature of the Kingdom, 1717, which precipitated the Bangorian Controversy, and which had received a welcome from liberal Presbyterians. Barrington's phrase in the first report in the press of the meetings at Salters' Hall should be noted as an echo of Locke: ‘According to the true Protestant principle they [the Ministers] declare themselves built upon the foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets, and not upon the foundation of Councils, Synods and Assemblies of fallible men’ (Whitehall Evening Post, 14 March 1719).

^{page 169 note 2} Alexander Gordon has an account of the controversy entitled The Salters' Hall fiasco (Christian Life, 1888, 285). ‘Fiasco’ implies rather too much.

^{page 169 note 3} One cannot read these papers without perceiving a growing sense of liberation from ancient bigotries. Nor was this movement confined to Dissenters. The Occasional Papers welcome the like-minded liberality in the Church of England represented by bishop Hoadly. They welcome his Preservative in 1716 and his Nature of the Kingdom in 1717. The first opponents of Hoadly had been ignominiously routed amidst ridicule and astonishment. The battle with the more doughty opponents, Sherlock and Law was still raging at the beginning of 1719, but its outcome could hardly be in doubt to supporters of the bishop and the writers of the Occasional Paper. Whether they were over-sanguine is another matter.

^{page 169 note 4} M.R., xvi. 633. A letter from Thomas Seeker to John Fox dated 20 May 1718.

^{page 170 note 1} Thomas Bradbury's jibe at the end of his Answer to the reproaches, 1719, 39, suggests that Barrington was the author of the earlier advices. Bradbury says to Barrington, ‘Never more concern yourself in any papers of advices; really, that the last year, and this now, is a conviction to me, that he who drew ‘em up may have a talent for other things; but I'm sure he’s poorly furnish'd to have the government of churches.’

^{page 170 note 2} Thomas Seeker, writing to John Fox (M.R., xvi. 634), [undated, 4 March 1718] says, ‘Yesterday the Fund resolved, nemine contradicente, to increase [not quite accurate] Mr. Stockden's allowance. Mr. Tong, I am told, was silent for some time, and then went out. He had sent them some confession of his faith in that article, which I have not seen: but unless he prevaricated in that pretty considerably, ‘tis a noble resolution they have taken.’ Cf. MS. minutes, Presbyterian Fund, ii. 324.

^{page 170 note 3} The paper prepared by Barrington is printed in the appendix to A letter to the Reverend Mr. Tong, 1719, 81 ff.

^{page 170 note 4} Such as the doctrinal clauses of the Thirty Nine Articles or the Westminster Confession or the Confession agreed at the Savoy, which a church is required to ‘own’ ‘to be agreeable to’ the Scriptures as ‘the perfect and only rule of faith and practice’ according to the Heads of Agreement (par. viii) of 1691.

^{page 170 note 5} Letter to the Reverend Mr. Tong, 1719, 85; where however there seems to be some confusion. 5 February is given as the date of a committee of‘ministers and gentlemen’: no mention is made of any meeting of the ‘Committee of Three Denominations’ mentioned in the Authentick Account: the first meeting of the General Body of Ministers is given as 24 February, while the Authentick Account gives this as 19 February.

^{page 170 note 6} See Vindication of the Subscribing Ministers, 1719, 10, and Second part of a Reply to the Vindication, 1719, 7. At this stage it would seem that two preliminary clauses (numbered separately ‘1’ and ‘2’) were inserted, and they are of peculiar interest as they appear to have been derived from the Advice of the ‘Seven’ Exeter Advisers (see F. J. Powicke in Cong. Hist. Soc. Trans., vii. 222–3). The Letter of advice to Protestant Dissenters, 1720, 30, speaks of ‘a test of orthodoxy which had been rejected at the Committee’. It would seem that an attempt was made to include the whole, or at least the first two clauses of, the advice of the ‘Seven’ (the second clause being explicit on the Trinity). This was defeated in the Committee: attempted again in the General Body on 24 February it was again defeated. Alexander Gordon has attributed to the two clauses as printed an importance they do not possess, seeing in them ‘a charter of Independency in its most unrestricted form’ (A.G., 151, cf. 137–8). That they had no such implication is proved by the fact that Robert Wodrow regards such action in the Scottish Presbyterian Church as quite normal. His words are (to an Irish Presbyterian), ‘Your people are better natured than many here, who leave ministers upon far less provocations’ (Correspondence, 1843, ill. 162).

^{page 171 note 1} Thomas Bradbury, Answer to the Reproaches, 1719, 12 and 37.

^{page 171 note 2} Letter of Advice, 1720, 29 and Answer to some Queries, 1732, 30.

^{page 171 note 3} C.O.L., ii. 407. See also Letter of Advice, 1720, 29, where it is hinted that ulterior motives causing delay were at the bottom of the suggestion.

^{page 171 note 4} Authentick Account, 1719, pp. 17–[19].

^{page 171 note 5} William Whiston, Memoirs, 1749, 220. There is no reason to suppose that Jekyl was present at the debates as an observer (as some accounts do). Whiston appears to be the sole authority for this story, and he only says, ‘the majority openly rejected all such unscriptural impositions. … So that, to use the words of the late excellent Master of the Rolls, Sir Joseph Jekyl on this occasion, The Bible carried it by four’.

^{page 172 note 1} Answer to the reproaches, 1719, 10.

^{page 172 note 2} C.O.L., ii. 411.

^{page 171 note 3} C.O.L., ii. 410. Calamy also adds ‘they could not agree whether they should first give their advice, and then prove their orthodoxy; or first manifest their orthodoxy and then give their advice’ (p. 410). This and a bargain to follow the advices by a declaration on the Trinity complicated the discussion. It has also confused some later accounts, which have raised the question why all the storm when the Non-Subscribers include in their letter to Exeter accompanying the advices just such a declaration of orthodoxy, which found its place there quite naturally in the light of the agreement reached in the meeting to this effect.

^{page 172 note 4} P. 10.

^{page 172 note 5} This account was made the basis of a cartoon which appeared in a reprint of The Scourge [by Thomas Lewis], 1720.

^{page 173 note 1} Flying Post, 21 March. Mist's Weekly Journal of 11 April gives a sample of cheap journalism that is worth quoting. ‘We have a war begun and carried on as religious controversies always are, with rage, fury, wrath, strife and all uncharitableness. The parties have had one pitched battle in a place very proper for such an engagement, called Salter's Hall, where the majority made no conscience of dethroning our Saviour, and turned the conquered party out of doors. We hear the next battle will be at the Bear Garden.’

^{page 173 note 2} C.O.L., ii. 413. Barrington's surname was originally ‘Shute’.

^{page 173 note 3} Bradbury's Answer to the Reproaches, 15.

^{page 173 note 4} Authentick Account, p. [19]. Cf. Vindication of the Subscribing ministers, 1719, 20–4.

^{page 173 note 5} C.O.L., 408. Doubtless no one had reason to call their orthodoxy in question; but doubtless also many had done so. The accusations they wished to rebut are set out in Vindication of the Subscribing ministers, 1719, 4–5, and in Bradbury's Answer to the reproaches, 1719, 17. The one that went down worst with the Non-Subscribers was that ‘the people of Exon who were dissatisfied with [certain of their ministers] signify'd, they could have but little regard to any [advices] that should come from those, who would not first make a declaration of their own faith [in the Trinity]’. To the Non-Subscribers this was evidence of an attempt to make them parties in the Exeter proceedings on one side of the dispute. (Reply to the Subscribing ministers, 1719, 10.)

^{page 174 note 1} Bradbury, T., Twenty-eight sermons, 1723, p. xxixGoogle Scholar; Bradbury's Answer to the reproaches, 1719, 17; Vindic. of the Subscr. ministers, 1719, 22; Second part of a Reply, 1719, 32. Many picturesque details are omitted from the account given of these meetings; for these reference may be made to Bradbury's Answer. What took place at the beginning of the meeting on 3 March, when Bradbury objected to some of the votes cast for the majority at the previous meeting, may be read in Second part of a Reply, 1719, 33–5. This passage also makes it clear that Bradbury was the culprit who, on 24 February, raised the cry ‘You that are for the doctrine of the Trinity, stay below’. Gf. Vindic. of the Subscr. ministers, 23.

^{page 174 note 2} With Bradbury as whipper-in. If the list given in Mist's Weekly Journal, 4 April, represents the order of signing the subscription, it looks as if Robinson led the dissidents out while Bradbury brought up the rear. The poem, The Subscribers, 1722, suggests that Robinson was the leader.

^{page 174 note 3} C.O.L., ii. 411 and 416. To call this a ‘new division’ is something of a euphemism. In the Parliamentary sense of the word, there was no division and no division lists. It is ironical that while no lists have, apparently, been preserved of those who voted on each side on 24 February, we have lists (Mist's Weekly Journal, 4 April) of those on each side on 3 March.

^{page 174 note 4} It has been assumed that the Subscribers withdrew to the gallery, but there is one record (Mist's Weekly Journal, 4 April) which says they went to the Vestry to sign the scroll. This seems probable: it would have been extremely difficult for the rest to continue with the business amidst the hubbub of a second meeting in the gallery. Moreover, when the Subscribers discovered that the rest had proceeded without them, messages passed between the two parties with complaints about what had been done during the absence of the Subscribers. See Noble Stand; Vindic. of the Subscr. ministers, 9–10; Second part of a Reply, 5–6.

^{page 175 note 1} Authentic!: Account, 7–8.

^{page 175 note 2} Wilcox, Daniel, Noble Stand, 1719, 9Google Scholar.

^{page 175 note 3} Though they did not press the matter they could properly claim to be the Body of London Ministers, as they pointed out in the Whitehall Evening Post, 18 April.

^{page 175 note 4} Though Bradbury (in his Answer to the Reproaches, 20, 22) and the Subscribers (in their Vindication, 17) endeavour to throw doubt on it, it was substantially true, as Powicke (Cong. Hist. Soc. Trans., vii. 110–24) has shewn. Isaac Watts says the same, writing to Cotton Mather (Massachusetts Hist. Soc, MS., 11 February 1720) ‘The subscribing ministers themselves do generally believe there are very few of their brethren at London that are chargeable with this [i.e. entering into Dr. Samuel Clarke's scheme]; perhaps there may be three or four of which they have suspicion, but there were above eighty [including Watts himself] that refused to subscribe’.

^{page 175 note 5} Calamy says (C.O.L., ii. 418) ‘They first fought with angry advertisements, and began to squabble in the newspapers. … They came next to pamphlets, which were poured forth from the press in abundance’. The stages were not quite so clear cut, as is seen when the various pamphlets are dated from contemporary advertisements. Few, if indeed any, studies of the controversy make use of the advertisements, in spite of Calamy's hint or the fact that many of them were quoted by Daniel Wilcox in his Noble Stand, second part, 1719.

^{page 175 note 6} It does however give us the information about Robinson's ‘unmannerly behaviour to a certain lay-gentleman’ [i.e. Barrington] and that Robinson objected to the presence of Baptists, ignoring the fact that the meeting was of the Body of the Three Denominations (Synod, 8, 14). The ‘Thirteen’ in Exeter also endeavoured to make light of the deliberations on the ground that Baptists were present.

^{page 175 note 7} Bradbury (Answer to the reproaches, 5) hints that he knew who the author was, but he does not give his name, and there are examples where Bradbury's guesses at authorship were not worth much.

^{page 176 note 1} Noble Stand, second part, 1719, title page.

^{page 176 note 2} This may be safely inferred from the account given in the Field cleared of the Noble Stand, 1720, written by a friend of Wilcox, who styles himself ‘Sincere Seeker’. There we are told that Barrington hesitated about what must be this publication.

^{page 176 note 3} Adopting Calamy's phrase in C.O.L., ii. 418.

^{page 176 note 4} The numbers are given as 60 for the Subscribers and 50 for those who remained with the Moderator. There had been no voting on 3 March, and probably the Subscribers alone were in possession of any lists. How these lists were obtained is to be read in the Second part of a Reply, 36, where the Non-Subscribers say, ‘That sixty signed the declaration at that time [3 March], we take upon content from our Brethrens testimony: that they who stayed behind were but fifty, our Brethren will allow us to say, is a mistake. Some were walking about, and some out of their sight when their account of our number was taken from the gallery’. According to Bradbury, 123 attended this meeting.

^{page 176 note 5} An account of the late proceedings of the Dissenting ministers. … In a letter to the Revd. Dr. Gale.

^{page 177 note 1} The statement and the lists were fair enough. The gross inaccuracy and carelessness in the spelling of names is such as to suggest that the lists were taken down in haste at dictation by someone wholly ignorant of Dissenting circles. The list of Non-Subscribers contains certain names which do not appear in the approved list they published later. It includes the names of two ministers recently forced to retire from the ministry because of heterodoxy, [Martin] Tomkins (see his Case of Mr. Martin Tomkins, 1719) and [Luke] Langdon. Other names of interest included are those of [Daniel] Neal and [John] Munckley.

^{page 177 note 2} The author was Daniel Wilcox, as a second part of the same work (2 May) acknowledges on its title page.

^{page 177 note 3} Unless we count the article in the Whitehall Evening Post of 18 April.

^{page 177 note 4} Published 14 April (date, as not infrequently, differently given in different newspapers).

^{page 177 note 5} Published 22 April.

^{page 177 note 6} ‘A comparison of the two sets of Advices shows that the Rev. Alexander Gordon is mistaken in saying [Heads of English Unitarian history, p. 34] that “the Advices from both parties were practically identical in terms”—they have, in fact, very little in common’ F. J. Powicke, Cong. Hist. Soc. Trans., vii. 222.

^{page 177 note 7} The preface to the True Relation, 4, speaks of ‘the advices we sent to our friends in Exon at their desire’. This may refer to the original request for adviGe on 22 November 1718, but it may equally suggest that at a much more recent date a request had been received by the Subscribers for something to counteract the unpalatable advice sent them on 17 March, the only official communication they had so far received. The same suspicion is aroused by the letter sent with the advices (True Relation, 19).

^{page 178 note 1} The writers in the Exeter controversy frequently published first in Exeter and later in London, sometimes with differences between the two printings, a practice which provided Peirce with a cause of complaint.

^{page 178 note 2} Published on 28 October, 1719, though the title page of all copies seen bears the date ‘1720’. Such misdating was not unknown: it is still not unknown, though more often nowadays the error is the other way.

^{page 178 note 3} True Account, 1719. This was followed by Peirce's Remarks, 1719 and George Jacomb's Particular Account, 1719. John Enty replied to both with A Defence of the Proceedings, 1719, to which Peirce replied with An Answer to Mr. Enty's Defence, 1719 (27 November). Peirce followed this with Propositions relating to the Controversy, 1720, to which Enty replied with Truth and Liberty consistent, 1720 (25 October), and Peirce replied to this with A Reply, 1721, and continued with The Security of truth without the assistance of persecution or scurrility, 1721.

^{page 179 note 1} The sermon was first published in 1710.

^{page 179 note 2} But it had little influence on Daniel Wilcox or Thomas Bradbury, both of whom kept the feud going, Bradbury longer than Wilcox, until, in 1722, some of Bradbury's brethren were constrained to publish An Appeal to the Dissenting ministers, occasioned by the behaviour of Mr. Thomas Bradbury. Smouldering resentment long continued, and from time to time flared up into active controversy or the publication of an isolated pamphlet.

Alongside the ecclesiastical controversies, to which attention has been chiefly confined, there were both in Exeter and London theological controversies, which cannot be ignored. At Exeter the theological controversy began in the Spring or Summer of 1718 with two pamphlets not so far traced, and continued throughout the following year and for some time after; while London saw a theological controversy which arose out of a book published by the same four London ministers as were concerned in the Plain and Faithful narrative and bearing the title The Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity stated and defended. It was not intended as part of the Salters' Hall Controversy, but, published when it was (15 April), it was naturally taken as such and came in for some rough handling. (See C.O.L., ii. 426 ff. The Plain and faithful narrative explains that the book was in the Press before the heats arose.) There were other subsidiary controversies, such as that between John Evans and John Cumming over Scripture consequences, and another between Moses Lowman and William Dunlop over confessions of faith.

^{page 179 note 3} C.O.L., ii. 429.

^{page 179 note 4} Particulars of the long series of publications will be found in Reid, J. S., History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, new ed. 1867, iii. 110 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 179 note 5} Sir R. Steele, Account of the state of the Roman-Catholic religion, 1715; from the dedication (p. xii), which, though anonymous, is attributed to Hoadly. See Hoadly's Works, i. 534. Calamy has an amusing story, to the same purpose, from his visit to the Scottish Church Assembly in 1709, when an aside of his likening certain proceedings to the Popish Inquisition, went the round of the whole Assembly (C.O.L., ii. 512 ff.).

^{page 179 note 6} For John Simson and some of the publications in the controversy see Reid, H. M. B., Divinity professors in the University of Glasgow, 1640–1903, 1923, 204ffGoogle Scholar. See also R. Wodrow, Correspondence, iii. (1843) passim.

^{page 180 note 1} R. Wodrow, Correspondence, iii. 453 and 456–7: ‘The degrees of Doctor of Divinity conferred by the College at Edinburgh … to the English ministers, all upon one side, as is said, and scarce a Subscriber among them is not very pleasing to many’. Cf. C.O.L., ii. 512 ff.

^{page 180 note 2} There has been a tendency for Anglican historians to deal (reluctantly) with the Bangorian, while Dissenters have been left to deal with the Salters' Hall controversy. When Dissenters have dealt with Hoadly, they have tended to think of him chiefly as the upholder of civil liberties (for Dissenters), e.g. Bogue and Bennett (op. cit., iii. 135–6, cf. 242–3) who are fulsome in their praise of Hoadly's principles; the same principles when held by the Non-Subscribers do not please them. To be charitable we ought to assume that Mr. Bogue wrote of one and Mr. Bennett of the other.

^{page 180 note 3} R. Wodrow, Correspondence, ii. 389. (Cf. Reid, J. S., Hist, of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, 1867, iii. 115Google Scholar).

^{page 180 note 4} John Fox's Memoirs and letters to him from Thomas Seeker (M.R., xvi) substantiate this for Exeter and London.

^{page 181 note 1} These papers were the work of a club of London ministers, mostly Presbyterian (M.R., viii (1813), 443). They were not written ostensibly from a Dissenting point of view, and sometimes the fact is concealed.

^{page 181 note 2} C.O.L., ii. 408–9. If Calamy's suspicions are correct, the author was Sir Michael Foster, a friend of Thomas Morgan, the Christian Deist, who also wrote in the Salters' Hall controversy. Three are accused of ‘an uncharitable spirit’, Bradbury, Robert Bragg —and Calamy! Calamy had the unusual grace to admit that he had given grounds for offence. (See his Thirteen Sermons, 1722, 431 and 447.)

^{page 181 note 3} Account of the proceedings, 1719, 29. Cf. 32.

^{page 181 note 4} M.R., xiv. 17, a mid-eighteenth century account of the Salters' Hall controversy, more valuable for illustrating how the flavour of the dispute was remembered when the rest was forgotten than for any accuracy of detail.

^{page 181 note 5} I am indebted to the Bodleian Library for the courtesy of permission to have a microfilm of the Flying Post, from the Nichols Collection for the months of March, April and May 1719, and to the British Museum for access to the files of Newspapers in the Burney Collection.

^{page 181 note 6} E.g., Hoadly's Common Rights, on 5 January, which was long a text-book among Dissenters for its teaching on civil liberty; William Law's ‘Third Letter’, A reply to the Bishop of Bangor's Answer, on 12 February. We may add also a little squib by Daniel Defoe (on 10 January) to show that Hoadly with his criticism of Church authority ought to be not a bishop but a Quaker.

^{page 182 note 1} W.I., 151 ff. Cf. Account of the reasons, 1719, 9. The controversy mentioned arose out of a Letter of the bishop of London to his clergy deprecating the new doxologies. Whiston and A. A. Sykes had great fun showing that the ‘new’ doxologies were as old as the apostles.

^{page 182 note 2} Thomas Herne also published three pamphlets, the title of each beginning An Account of all the considerable books and pamphlets.… Two are bibliographies of the Bangorian Controversy, while the third is a bibliography of the Clarkeian controversy and of the controversy among the Dissenters.

^{page 182 note 3} Answer to the reproaches, 1719, 6.

^{page 182 note 4} ‘Many of those who read it said: Well, it may be Scripture, or it may not; it certainly is not the doctrine of the Trinity’ (A.G., 127).

^{page 182 note 5} C.O.L., ii. 414: Letter of Watts to Cotton Mather, 11 February 1720 (Massachusetts Hist. Soc. Collection).

^{page 183 note 1} Correspondence, iii. 59.

^{page 183 note 2} It is notable that men, like Martin Tomkins, who were not orthodox were not included in the Non-Subscribers' list of signatories.

^{page 183 note 3} Bradbury's Answer to the reproaches, 18–19.

^{page 183 note 4} Heads of Agreement, Clause viii, in A. Gordon, Cheshire Classis minutes, 116.

^{page 183 note 5} Occasional Papers, ii, ,no. 1, p. 15.

^{page 184 note 1} If the Bible is to be counted a ‘test sufficient’ says this pamphlet, ‘none among the various sects that call themselves Christian, could be called or counted erronius.… And so a man may be Protestant or Papist, Calvinist or Arminian, and no discovery made of him’. (There is no mention of Arianism.) Again he says, ‘The calling any to the Assembly's Confession of Faith, we by no means take to be a calling them from the Scripture, but a putting them to the tryal in what sense they understand Scripture’: op. cit., 9–10.

^{page 184 note 2} Second part of a Reply, 1719, 64.

^{page 184 note 3} See the Non-Subscribers' article in Whitehall Evening Post of 18 April 1719. That this ‘judgment and advice’ was given in 1716 is clear from the account in Thomas Seeker's letter to John Fox, dated 28 July 1716 (M.R., xvi. 570). Wilcox's own account in the Jfoble Stand, second part, 1719, 34, does not differ in material points from the other accounts. On being dismissed Read became assistant to John Mottershed at Queen Street.

^{page 184 note 4} These figures are based upon F. J. Powicke's analysis of the lists of signatories in the Authentick Account and True Relation (Cong. Hist. Soc. Trans., vii. 110 ff.). The figures arc approximate because of some doubtful identifications.

^{page 184 note 6} And at Glasgow, where Simson was the Divinity Professor.

^{page 185 note 1} Cf. A.G., 126–7.

^{page 185 note 2} Letter to the Reverend Mr. Tong, 1719, 86.

^{page 185 note 3} Reynolds, T., Answer to the Revd. Mr. Simon Browne's Letter, 1723, 14Google Scholar. It is odd that both the Read brothers, James and Hemy, should have been victims of the same treatment, one from Daniel Wilcox, the other from Thomas Reynolds. Calamy's comments, silent and written, are instructive. Henry Read was, within a few months after being dismissed by Wilcox, ordained by Edmund Calamy: the similar treatment received by James Read from Thomas Reynolds, Calamy speaks of (C.O.L., ii. 511) as ‘a piece of management I could no way approve of, though I heard what could be offered on both sides distinctly’.

^{page 185 note 4} Authentick Account, 1719, 30.

^{page 185 note 5} Vindication of the Subscribing Ministers, 1719, 47.

^{page 185 note 6} The Subscribers, 1722.

^{page 185 note 7} Novelty here is relative. Cf. Milton's method in his De Dotrina, not published, however, until 1825. See Conklin, G. N., Biblical Criticism and Heresy in Milton, New York 1949Google Scholar, especially quotations from Chillingworth (p. 25) and references to the Racovian Catechism (p. 38).

^{page 186 note 1} E.g., An Apology for the danger of the Church, 1719, 7. ‘I am sorry with all my heart, for the great misunderstanding and difference which there are between Jesus Christ and his Ambassadors [sc. the ‘Orthodox’ clergy] almost in every point of belief and practice.’

^{page 186 note 2} Op. cit., viii.

^{page 186 note 3} Op. cit., xv.

^{page 186 note 4} Op. cit., title page.

^{page 186 note 5} See a letter of John Walrond to Samuel Mather, printed in the Christian Examiner, v (1828), 5.