Mr. Binney observed to the court, that he had omitted to notice, in his argument, that, in regard to the statutes of Uniformity and Toleration in England, whilst the Jewish Talmuds for the propagation of Judaism alone were not sustained by those statutes, yet the Jewish Talmuds for the maintenance of the poor were sustained thereby.  And the decisions show that, where a gift had for its object the maintenance and education of poor Jewish children, the statutes sustained the devise.  In proof of this he quoted 1 Ambler, by Blunt, p. 228, case of De Costa, &c.  Also, the case of Jacobs v.  Gomperte, in the notes.  Also, in the notes, 2 Swanston, p. 487, same case of De Costa, &c.  Also, 7 Vesey, p. 423, case of Mo Catto v.  Lucardo.  Also, Sheppard, p. 107, and Boyle, p. 43.

Another case was that of a bequest given to an object abroad, and in the decision the Master of the Rolls considered that religious instruction was not a necessary part of education.  See, also, the case of The Attorney-General v.  The Dean and Canons of Christ Church, Jacobs, p. 485.

     Mr. Binney then quoted from Noah Webster the definition of the word
     “tenets,” to show that Mr. Webster did not give the right
     definition when he said that “tenets” meant “religion.”

Mr. Webster then rose and
said:—­#/

The arguments of my learned friend, may it please your honors, in relation to the Jewish laws as tolerated by the statutes, go to maintain my very proposition; that is, that no school for the instruction of youth in any system which is in any way derogatory to the Christian religion, or for the teaching of doctrines that are in any way contrary to the Christian religion, is, or ever was, regarded as a charity by the courts.  It is true that the statutes of Toleration regarded a devise for the maintenance of poor Jewish children, to give them food and raiment and lodging, as a charity.  But a devise for the teaching of the Jewish religion to poor children, that should come into the Court of Chancery, would not be regarded as a charity, or entitled to any peculiar privileges from the court.

When I stated to your honors, in the course of my argument on Saturday, that all denominations of Christians had some mode or provision for the appointment of teachers of Christianity amongst them, I meant to have said something about the Quakers.  Although we know that the teachers among them come into their office in a somewhat peculiar manner, yet there are preachers and teachers of Christianity provided in that peculiar body, notwithstanding its objection to the mode of appointing teachers and preachers by other Christian sects.  The place or character of a Quaker preacher is an office and appointment as well known as that of a preacher among any other denomination of Christians.