[48] Surtees Society: edited by Raine, 1861, pp. 172-174.
[49] Bourne’s ‘Newcastle,’ s.n.
[50] Quoted by Villari, Vita di Savonarola, vol. ii., lib. iv. cap. 6: cf. Trollope’s Florence, iv. 178, 179.
[51] Carlyle’s Cromwell, vol. iv. 151-153.
[52] Barnes, as before, p. 142. Besides authorities already named, I am under obligation to Dr Bruce (author of ‘The Roman Wall’) for Turner’s ‘Sketch’ of his Church in Newcastle; also to Mr James Clephan, Newcastle, for his valuable Paper, ‘Nonconformity in Newcastle Two Hundred Years Ago.’ A new edition of the latter will doubtless correct certain inadvertencies and misprints in an otherwise well-timed and vigorous tractate.
[53] I must cordially acknowledge my obligation to Sir James Y. Simpson, Bart., M.D., for putting me in communication with the Leyden Professor.
[54] Copies of this ‘Disputatio,’ which Gilpin must have neglected to deposit in Leyden, will be found in the Bodleian and in the British Museum ‘Libraries.’
[55] As before, p. 142.
[56] Raine’s ‘Depositions’ as before: foot-note by Mr Longstaffe, pp. 172, 173. Theologically, William Durant was unquestionably evangelically orthodox, and in no sense, save that the Church-property is held by the Unitarians, can he be called the ‘founder’ of their Church in Newcastle. By the same plea Matthew Henry of Chester, and scores of others, might be claimed as ‘Founders’ of Unitarian congregations. I state this simply as matter-of-fact, and not controversially. I may observe that Gilpin’s ‘Letter’ to Stratton (onwards) more probably indicates the commencement of the Unitarian ‘separation.’
[57] See Calamy, and authorities, as before.