ing members of Parliament for that borough, he felt it to be his duty to retire, and accepted an invitation to occupy the station of his late tutor and friend at Northampton.

Thus, in 1761, Mr. Hextal entered upon this new station under circumstances which encouraged Mr. Job Orton to hope that he would be comfortable and useful therein. For nearly 14 years this appears to have been the case, but in 1774, there commenced a controversy which was most afflictive to all parties at the time, and which terminated in the erection of the meeting-house occupied by the congregation now under the pastoral care of Mr. B. L. Edwards. At the distance of more than half a century, it is, perhaps, not desirable to attempt a minute detail of a dispute respecting which it must now be difficult to form a correct opinion. Still, however, the general outline of the case may be thus stated, especially as it involves a practical question of moment. In August, 1774, Mr. Hextal found himself in such infirm health, that he requested some of his friends to inquire for some gentleman to assist him in the ministry. Mr. John Winter was introduced with some haste, and without Mr. Hextal's concurrence,

as

a supply for three months, and with the question of his continuance commenced the unhappy dissentions which we have now to describe. In the hands of the church members was placed, by the trust deeds, in conformity to the original constitution of the society, the power of electing or excluding the pastor, and they appear to have been anxious for the services of Mr. Winter. The most opulent subscribers, on the other hand, opposed him, and made

* Orton's Letters, Vol. i. p. 95.

it a point of honour to support Mr. Hextal. Amongst these gentlemen were some of a worldly spirit, and of speculative opinions, and their friendship was unfavourable to Mr. Hextal's influence, with the poorer but more pious part of the society. Every attempt at reconciliation appeared to increase the irritation, and at length the church exhibited seven charges against their pastor, the most serious of which were imputations of insincerity, and a neglect of truth. Appeals were made to the London ministers for their advice, and various other methods of reconciliation were attempted, in vain, till at length the church, at their meeting, April 16, 1775, "resolved, by a majority of 18 brethren, to dismiss Mr. Hextal from his office of Pastor, Minister, and Teacher." On the following Lord's-day, Mr. H. appeared at the meeting-house, and demanded the pulpit as his, till he should be dismissed by a majority of the subscribers; but it was replied that he had no right to it, as the church had already dismissed him, and appointed Mr. Millar to officiate in his place. He and his friends therefore quietly withdrew, and subsequently obtained another meeting-place in the town, which, though not commodious, they gladly occupied until a new building could be erected.

The friends of Mr. Hextal appear to have advised an unwarrantable attempt to recover possession of the pulpit, by an application to the Court of King's Bench, which was heard in the following term. The particulars are thus recorded in the church book. "November 25th, 1775. This day came on a trial, in the Court of King's Bench, in London, between Rev. Mr. Hextal, who was plaintiff, and several officers and members of the church,

which I can appeal to those who heard me ever since I came to this place; but it has ever been my opinion, that these doctrines, which I look upon as the distinguished glory of the Gospel, should be maintained in the spirit of love and candour-with soft words, and the strongest arguments we can use; and sorry I am, that the word candour should sound harsh, and give offence to any Christians, especially to any that belong to that church and congregation that enjoyed so long, such a burning and shining light as DR. DODDRIDGE, in whose example and ministry, a zeal for Gospel truth, adorned with moderation, benevolence, and charity, appeared with such an amiable lustre, and who, though dead, yet speaketh in his learned, valuable, and useful writings." This amiable man and respectable minister died, and his attached friends erected a tablet to his memory with the following inscription:

Love one Another.

Sacred to the Memory

of the Rev. William Hextal, a faithful Minister of the Gospel, and sometime Pastor of this Christian Society,

who remarkably exhibited in his life what he most warmly recommended from the pulpit,

Unfeigned piety to God,

and universal benevolence to man. Having endured many and great afflictions, both in body and mind,

he entered into that rest which remains for the people of God,

Novemb. 4, 1777, aged 66.

* This extract, with many of the preceding statements, is taken from a quarto pamphlet printed at Northampton, entitled “The Pernicious Effects of Religious Contentions and Bigotry," &c. to which a reply appeared, "Diotrephes reproved," &c., and which was answered by "Remarks on a late Pamphlet called Diotrephes reproved, &c. by Jeremiah Rudshell." Dr. Gibbons also published a pamphlet on behalf of the London Ministers appealed to in the dispute; but this we have not seen.

Of Mr. Millar we have no farther information; but it is evident his connexion with the church at Castle Hill Meeting-house was not of long continuance, as in 1777, the church elected Mr. JOHN HORSEY to be their pastor.

This gentleman, it appears, was the son of a pious minister at Ringwood, Hants, was educated for the ministry at Homerton Academy, and at the close of his preparatory studies was invited to become the pastor of the church at Northampton, which he accepted, and was ordained to that office, May 14, 1777.

From the zealous feelings of the church in favour of orthodox opinions, to which we have already adverted, and the well known acceptability of his early pulpit labours, it appears highly probable, that Mr. Horsey's ministry at this time accorded with the general sentiments of his predecessors.

On the resignation of Mr. Belsham as Divinity Tutor at Daventry, Mr. Horsey was appointed by Mr. Coward's trustees to succeed him, and in 1789, the academy was removed to Northamp

ton.

The will of the founder, we believe, expressly states, that the students shall be instructed agreeably to the doctrines of the Assembly's Catechism. How far Mr. Horsey's labours accorded with that injunction, is a doubtful subject.

The trustees, in 1798, removed the Academy from Northampton to Wymondley. This event was announced in an article, which appeared in the Missionary Magazine, published in Edinburgh, August, 1798, in which it was stated, that "lately, a young gentleman from Scotland was invited to be one of the tutors. He soon found the state of the seminary so bad, and the rejection of the peculiar

doctrines of the Gospel so universal, open, and avowed, that sacraficing his salary to his conscience, he thought it necessary to propose to the trustees its total dissolution, as the only remaining expedient by which the evil, now become inveterate, could be exterminated."

To this article Mr. Horsey sent an indignant reply, which not being inserted, appeared in the Protestant Dissenters' Magazine for January 1799.* I affirm, in opposition to the insinuations of that writer, that the direction contained in Mr. Coward's will has been uniformly regarded, and conscientiously obeyed; and I challenge any pupil who has ever been under my care to contradict this. And, that not the least room may be left for any doubt, I now call upon any other person to do it, who has been in any form connected with the Academy." To this fearless challenge, the following number of the Magazine contained a spirited reply from the pen of a Mr. David Saville,† in which, addressing Mr. Horsey, he says, "You appeal to the students -pro pudor!!-and appeal to them as the most, the only competant judges. What then do they affirm? That you taught, and they received, the doctrines of Calvinism? Calvinism was their scorn; yet, if in your labours, so strangely unsuccessful, whence your long acquiescence, and your at last public approbation of them? But do you yourself believe the articles in question? and if not, how could you faithfully teach them? Since you have issued

the challenge, I fear not to declare what, to an unbiassed mind, will furnish the needful conviction. Does the answer to the question in the Assembly's Catechism relative to the Trinity, form any part of your faith? To me you dare not affirm it. Concerning Jesus-a heavenly voice has said, "Let all the angels of God worship him."-Angels obey ; but I well remember the occasion when you exhorted, and not for the first time, your hearers to dissent from them. I sometimes addressed Jesus as the object of our worship, and by it incurred your marked reprehension."* To this we have never found a reply from Mr. Horsey in that or any other periodical. Private reasons, quite unconnected with the facts in question, may, however, have occasioned his silence. A writer, who studied under his care from 1792 to 97, has stated that, "He had a judicious mode of directing the attention to the point on which difficult subjects in metaphysics and divinity hinged; and his plan of lecturing on disputed points in both these branches was quite exemplary in one particular view: he was so anxious not to give an undue bias to his youthful auditors, that it was very difficult to ascertain in the lecture room, his own precise views in the more controverted subjects."+ This goes far, we think, to show that the lectures were not according to the Assembly's Catechism.

We fear the public instruction of Mr. Horsey from the pulpit was, for a long period, of the same ambiguous character. Certainly the fact that not more than one hundred and eighty persons were added to the church dur

ing his protracted ministry of fifty years, in the midst of such a population as the town of Northampton contains, is of itself rather ominous -but to this we must add another circumstance still more decisive, that several Unitarians attended his ministry with satisfaction. It has been stated in the Journal devoted to the interests of that denomination, "that he endeavoured to promote the grand principles of the Unity of God; of his infinite goodness and mercy, and the perfect rectitude of his administration; of the right and the duty of a free and full investigation of the Scriptures, and of a candid and tolerant temper and conduct towards every one who bore the Christian name."

If it were intended by this paragraph to imply that Mr. Horsey's theological opinions were what are usually denominated Unitarian, we think it due to his memory to say, that was not the case; for he never permitted himself to be so classed, and, in a short, but impressive sentence, written a little time only before his death, he says, "Whenever the summons shall arrive to call me from time to eternity, I wish to leave the world in the character of a penitent believer, lying at the foot of the cross; imploring divine mercy through the merit and mediation of Christ, the great Redeemer and Saviour of the Lost."*

These, and other questions connected with his history, might have been satisfactorily answered by some of his surviving friends, had he not, by a written document, expressly forbad any such delineation of his character.

Mr. Horsey was removed from his family and his flock on the 12th of May, 1827, in the 74th

year of his age, and the 52d of his ministry at Northampton.

The Rev. B. L. Edwards preached his funeral sermon from 1 Cor. xv. 55. 57. a passage which Mr. Horsey himself selected for the solemn occasion.

He yielded with reluctance to the interdict imposed respecting his departed brother, and stated that their intimate acquaintance and friendship, for almost fortytwo years, was never diminished, never interrupted by any little jealousies, any unkind observations, any fretful ebullitions of temper. That it had been a source of great satisfaction, and improvement, which he hoped would be renewed and perpetuated in a better world.

Our readers will now perceive that the equivocal character of Mr. Horsey's ministry, together with the circumstance that some of the leading subscribers to the meeting were Unitarians, brought this once orthodox society into the greatest hazard, and that the election of his successor formed a crisis in its history. Happily the choice of the pastor was vested in the church members, and they were found faithful to those doctrines which had been taught by all the earlier pastors of that society, and which were most valuable in their esteem. They therefore united in the choice of Mr. CHARLES JAMES HYATT, as their pastor. This gentleman is a son of Mr. Charles Hyatt, of London, and was educated at Wy ymondley College, Herts, under the patronage of Mr. Coward's trustees. He was publicly ordained, September 26, 1827.

It is, perhaps, necessary to add, that the Unitarian non-contents, well aware of the decided character of the trust-deed, quietly se

tion. For this purpose they ob