"At the assizes the Secretary,” (Mr. Robert Aspland)" accompanied by an able attorney, went down to Cambridge. Cross indictments were preferred against Mr. G.'s prosecutors. British justice lent her aid to the cause of truth. The gentlemen of the grand jury, after bear ing evidence, threw out the bifl lodged against Mr. G.; and found as true two bills which the solicitor of the fund presented against some individuals of the faction. Thus was malice completely discomfited, and the persecutors of Mr. G. caught in the very snare which they had prepared for him: but as revenge is not the sentiment of a christian heart, Mr, G. and his friends and advisers adhered even now to a proposal which they had before made, to submit the dispute to amicable arrangement. In the issue the sum of sixty guineas was agreed to be given to Mr. G. towards the erection of a new place of worship; be to retire from the old meeting-house, and to drop all legal proceedings against the rioters." "Besides this printed statement, reports have been widely circulated that in the part which I took in the business at the Cambridge assizes, I endeavoured, in the true spirit of persecution, to enforce the penal laws against Anti-trinitarians, and would have done so had I not been defeated by the decision of the Grand Jury, or at least deterred by a fear of the disgrace that would have VOL. IX. attached to it. I should not have thought it necessary to notice these re ports, but for their being generally said to have their origin in some words spoken by Mr. Robert Aspland at a public dinner of the unitarians, and for their seeming to be supported by the printed statement before referred to." Mr. Fuller then proceeds to state the "facts to the best of his knowledge, and recollection," which statement differs materially from that given in the Monthly Repository. Respecting the disorderly conduct of those who disturbed the public worship carried on by Mr. Gisburne, Mr. F. remarks-"Living, as I do at the distance of fifty miles, I can tion. I had no concern in the afknow nothing of it but by informafair, nor any accurate knowledge of particulars, till I went over at the time of the assizes. He then presents us with a letter from his kinsman, Mr. Robert Fuller of Soham, in which the latter contradicts many of the particulars stated in the Repository, and boldly denies that any of his party "interrupted Mr. G. by read ing out or speaking to him, or making any noise in the place; and that as to any charge of rioting, it must have been owing to Mr. G. himself.” In consequence of these disputes the party in opposition to Mr. G. preferred a bill of indictment against him, and his friends preferred bills of indictment against those persons who had interrupted public worship by their disorderly behaviour, Of the subsequent proceedings Mr. Fuller gives the following account. "Arriving on Tuesday evening, March 14, the day before the trial was to come on,. I learned that Mr. Robert Asplund was come from Hackney with an attor ney to act on behalf of the other side, and that cross-indictments were pieferred against several of our people. Meeting with my friends from Soham, they expressed a wish that I should do every thing in my power on their behalf. Advising with a few of our Cambridge friends, we first heard the indictment read. It struck them that it was founded on the penal laws in force against anti-tri H 3 nitarians, on which account they pressed a compromise. "At that time I had not sufficiently. thought upon the subject. I knew my object was not to prosecute Mr. G. as an anti-trinitarian, but merely to prevent the place of worship being wrested from its rightful owners; and I had no reason to believe my friends at Soham were influenced by different motives. I also felt some objections to what I supposed would be the conditions of a compromise; namely, giving a sum of money to relinquish their claim. It appeared to me that they had no claim in equity, and that to give them a sum of money to relinquish it, would be a kind of acknowledgment which I had rather be excused from making. If they would relinquish the place, we were very willing to withdraw the indictment; but was unwilling to allow them a sum of money for their doing so. articles of agreement, were drawn up, but each party trusted to the honour of the other." Whilst, however, the parties were further conversing on the subject, news was brought them that the grand jury had admitted the bills against Mr. Gisburne's opponents, and had thrown out those presented by Mr. F's friends; and that in consequence of what Mr. F. terms “an improper word spoken by one of our people, and some disagreement between the parties, the attorney for Mr. G. proposed setting the arbitration aside; and that nothing else would satisfy him." Mr. F. adds "Of the reason there could be no doubt: the grand jury had placed them upon higher ground, and he wished to make a new agreement. All that he advanced in a debate of some hours might have been reduced to this-The market is risen and we will be off the bargain." "On Wednesday morning about half past eight or nine o'clock, having had farther conversation with one or two of my friends at Cambridge, I waited on our counsel, Mr. Best, to whom I stated this among other difficulties, as nearly as I can remember in the following The liberty which Mr. F. has words. It is the opinion, Sir, of some here taken with the character of a of our friends, that our iudictment rests solicitor, highly and equally reupon the ground of the penal laws against spected by the public, for his hoanti-trinitarians, and that if we go into court it must be to inforce them. If so, interests of civil and religious libernour, his talents, his regard to the Sir, we cannot go for whatever we may think of anti-trinitarian principles, ty, and for his recent exertions in we disapprove of all penal laws on ac- favour of both, (Mr. Wilks of Hoxcount of religious opinions. Mr. Best ton-Square) confirms an opinion did not deny that the indictment rested which some persons from their own upon that ground. I then asked him, experience had before entertained reseeing we could not in conscience gospecting Mr. Fuller;—that calumny into court on such a principle, whether he would not recommend a compromise. He answered, he would. From him I immediately proceeded with our attorney to Mr. Aspland and his friends, who I had been given to understand had expressed a willingness to settle the affair by arbitration. We found them so disposed, and acceded to that mode of adjustment. The indictments on both sides were to be immediately withdrawn, and each to pay their own costs. Two or three of the Cambridge gentlemen I believe were present at the agreement, which took place about half-past nine or ten o'clock in the forenoon. On ac count of the expedition which seemed necessary in order to put an immediate stop to the law proceedings, no written is considered by the reverend gentleman as a venial offence, not very severely condemned in his theological system, we should add, as interpreted by his practice. The arbitration, was however, at length agreed upon: but Mr. F. on account of a difference respecting the expence of withdrawing the indictments, which the law settled on Mr. Fuller's party, and being much displeased with the account inserted in the Repository, closes his pamplet with proposing a string of queries full of implications, that Mr. Aspland, his Sobam friends and their attorney were men "re. gardless of their prior engagements," destitute of conscience or integrity, and that he (Mr. F.) "knows not whether he ought to blame, their want of honour, so much as the want of prudence" in himself and his party. Thus called upon Mr. Aspland, publishes his defence. Those who are acquainted with the writings of the champions in this literary war, will not be surprised at the superiority of style, as well as of argument, which the author of "Bigotry and Intolerance defeated," has displayed on this interesting occasion. In an introductory letter Mr. A. "observes with satisfaction," that Mr. Fuller has dropped the much misunderstood and abused party word," Socinian;" expresses his wish "that Mr. F's. brethren will follow his example, and that the epithet will be speedily banished to the same oblivion, to which the good sense and liberality of the religious world have long doomed the not more incorrect and reproachful term Anabaptist." In letter the second, Mr. A. gives a brief history of the "disturbances at Soham," by which it appears, Mr. G. had gradually altered his sentiments; that from the commencement of his settlement, he bad endeavoured to persuade the people to abolish human creeds as terms of christian communion, and to which abolition, the people had the good sense to agree. On this part of the subject we have the following curious information. "Mr. G." we are informed, "now be come their minister was thus busily employed as Mr. Fuller says in new model ling the church: he even went so far, as to persuade the people to put off the name of John Calvin, and to call themselves after Jesus Christ alone. In the midst of these changes Mr. Gisburne's popularity was unabated; many additions were made to his church; and a plan was seriously agitated for enlarging his meeting-house: hut divisions soon arising in the church, a small party at tached to the old form of government and doctrine seceded. Still the chief ground of complaint by the minority was, as Mr. Fuller correctly says-Mr. Gisburne's declaiming much against systems, with which the majority, a flourishing congregation appeared not at all displeased. 66 In proof of Mr. Fuller's correctness in this particular, I beg leave to relate an incident which occurred about the time to which he refers. Being at Soham one evening, I was accosted by one of the persons who (as will appear in the sequel) made a distinguished figure as one of Mr. Gisburne's opposers. He enquired if I could not get a congregation for Mr. Gisburne somewhere London side. Upon my asking why he wished to get rid of a minister whom he had once highly extolled, he said,-Why, would you believe it, when one asks him, What are his sentiments, he says that he is not a Calvinist, nor an Arminian, nor a Socinian, but a Bible-Christian,-a Bi ble Christian! There's a fool for you! "In the same interview this person demanded of me, "Why the Socinians had not answered Mr. Andrew Fuller's book," meaning a work entitled The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems compured as to their Moral Tendency. I replied that the book had been answered, and asserted that Dr. Toulmin had decided the controversy by proving that nothing but Unitarianism was preached by the apostles. Here he cut me short by an exclamation,-Aye, we can never talk to you about Mr. Fuller's book, but you fly to the apostles !—Hẹ defied me to answer this same book of Mr. Fuller's, and that after we had parted, continued calling to me till I was out of hearing-Answer Mr. Fuller's book! Answer Mr. Fuller's book ! "These anecdotes, trifling as they are, it may be worth the reader's while to bear in mind, in going over the succeeding narrative.' Shortly afterwards in consequence of Mr. Gisburne's renouncing the doctrine of the Trinity, a division took place, and the minority of the members and subscribers united with the former secession for the purpose of establishing a new society. In the summer of 1808, Mr. A. who was on a visit to his relations, was informed of the disorderly con duct of the seceders, who were ac customed to attend for the purpose of troubling the regular congrega tion he was invited by Mr. Gisburne to preach, to which after some inquiries he consented. Previous to the Sabbath on which he was engaged he paid a visit to a friend, of which he gives the follow ing account. "The Saturday preceding, I spent at Soham, with a friend of my youth, a respectable attorney, who gave me to understand that be had been consulted by the party opposed to Mr. Gisburne, who were determined to proceed against him in course of law. He stated, that there were three modes of proceeding which had been discussed. The 1st. was to bring an action against him, in order to eject him from the meetinghouse; to this I had no objection; I was persuaded that a court of justice would decide in favour of the rightful possessor, which party so ever it might be. The 2d. was to prosecute him for blasphemy, he having reviled the doctrine of the Trinity. I expressed my surprise and indignation, and expostulated with my friend upon the plan, as being dishonourable to all that should engage in it. It was, I added, for many reasons which I detailed, my firm opinion that no court of justice would for a moment entertain a prosecution on such a principle. The 3d. was to indict him for sedition, the tenor of his preaching for the last three months having been to bring his Majesty's person and government into contempt. I assured my friend, that if this were the case, I had no wish to skreen Mr. Gisburne from merited punishment, though I thought it would not look well for a body of Protestant Dissenters to try their church disputes on a political ground. But not being contented with a loose, unauthenticated charge, on so serious a matter, I begged to know the facts on which it was intended to found a prosecution. These, as reported by my friend, were, that a few Sundays past, Mr. Gisburne had been preaching upon Christ being the head of the church, and in the course of his sermon, had said, "that any church which had another head besides Christ was Antichrist; that the church of England had such another head; and that therefore the church of England was Antichrist :' also, "that no natural, well-formed body could have more than one head, but the church of England had two heads, King JESUS and KING George, and therefore the church of England was a monster." These words, alleged to be seditious, were said to have been taken down on paper, at the time of utterance, by a person in a private garden adjoining the meeting-house, and if I do not mistake, were read to me from the paper. My friend will do me the justice to remember, that I frankly expressed my disapprobation of all coarse and irritating language in the pulpit, whether directed against the church of England or any other church; but at the same time I added, that Mr. Gisburne had, in my opinion, uttered no more in his blunt, uncourteous manner, than the vital principle of nonconformity. I avowed that I, as well as he, disclaimed all spiritual allegiance to the civil power, and endeavoured to shew leration Act, and other statutes in fathat in this I was justified by the To vour of Protestant Dissenters.-We parted I recollect, after a long and animated, but perfectly amicable conver sation, engaging on both sides to recom mend moderation and peace to our respective friends. "I never regarded this conversation as private, and therefore feel myself justified in relating it, as explanatory of subsequent occurrences. In making it public, it is far from my intention to reflect upon my friend, who I know possesses a truly honourable mind, and who I am persuaded has done nothing in the whole course of this affair, but what he thought due, in strict justice, to his clients." Letter the 3d gives an account of the prosecution at Cambridge; of the conferences with some of the principal dissenters there, who appear to have laudably exerted themselves to prevent the sad exposure of the conduct of certain persons, which must have been expected from the prosecution going forward. Mr. Aspland perfectly agreed with them in opinion, but reminded them, "that he supported merely the defence of an individual, whom he thought unjustly attacked;" and that “the in famy of the proceedings would fall upon them who commenced them." In his conversation with Mr. Fuller, we have the following account of some compliments paid by the latter to the dissenters at Cambridge, and of certain opinions dropped by him on the subject of Toleration. "Mr. Fuller next suggested the choice of referees from amongst the dissenters of Cambridge, who, without expence, might hear and decide upon the cause, immediately, while all were together upon the spot. I remarked that upon this plan we should give his friends a decided advantage; for they could choose a zealous Calviuist, but we might look out in vain for an Unitarian. He told me that I needed not to entertain fears on that score; adding, that Cambridge contained plenty of Socinians.' On my expressing my satisfaction at this report, he continued, Only they are not honest Socinians. In the end, I gave into this proposal, and when I had signified my assent, said that Mr. Fuller must give us credit for an amicable spirit in our concurrence. He denied that any praise belonged to us in the affair, and rejoined, We take to ourselves credit for not having proceeded with Gisburne another way. What! I exclaimed, do you refer to the penal laws against Unitarians! Do you take credit to yourself for not putting them in force! He ac knowledged that I had hit his meaning; but added that he was no friend to penal laws in matters of religion. The Anti-Trinitarian, he admitted, was entitled to his argument, unmolested; but he concluded, There is such a thing as blasphemy; and if ever blasphemy were spoken, Gisburne hus spoken it. "In entering my protest against the pinciple of penal laws in affairs of conscience, I also expressed my disapprobation of all levity; and my abhorrence of all profaneness in opposing even the most pernicious errors. I seemed to gain credit for my sincerity." Whilst the two champions were conversing with much good will respecting the proposed arbitration under a cloud of incense of their own raising, in which their hospitable friend remarked " he was glad to see smoke without fire," Mr. Wilks called to inform Mr. A. that the witnesses had been heard, and that the grand jury had thrown out the bills against Mr. G. and found the two bills against his prosecutors .... the disappointment of Mr. F. was very manifest, and he remarked to their host, "Yours is a grand grand jury." Mr. A. assured Mr. F. that the decision in favour of his friends should not in the least affect his conduct, for that he would steadfastly adhere to their engagement for arbitrating: on going out, however, to prevent any elation of mind from throwing them off their guard, he found them much inflamed, as they believed that the proposal of their opponents to arbitrate was delusive, one of their chiefs, Thomas Chapman, having publicly declared in the witnesses' room "That though Mr. Fuller was bringing about an arbitration, he (Chapman) would never consent to it." This was the "improper word" alluded to by Mr. Fuller; which, as Mr. A. dereliction of principle, as this very observes," manifested a shocking man had been a considerable time with both while discussing the mode of arbitration, and had proposed, with a view to facilitate it, that the whole matter should be referred to Mr F. and himself." In the succeeding conferences to the final settlement by arbitration, Mr. A. appears to have taken but little part. Letter the 4th details the particulars of the difference respecting the expence of withdrawing the indictments preferred against the rioting and persecuting party. Mr. A. very properly consulted his solicitor Mr. Wilks, and acted agreeably to his advice. This greatly offended Mr, Fuller and his party, who have made pretty free with Mr. Aspland's character as a man of honour, but who it appears might have avoided their aspersions, had he consented to pay about thirteen guineas out of money not his own, but entrusted to him by others. Letter the 5th, respects |