same principle.  In 2 Strange, p. 834, case of The King v.  Wilson, the judges would not suffer it to be debated that writing against religion generally is an offence at common law.  They laid stress upon the word “generally,” because there might arise differences of opinion between religious writers on points of doctrine, and so forth.  So in Taylor’s case, 3 Merivale, p. 405, by the High Court of Chancery, these doctrines were recognized and maintained.  The same doctrine is laid down in 2 Burn’s Ecclesiastical Law, p. 95, Evans v.  The Chamberlain of London; and in 2 Russell, p. 501, The Attorney-General v.  The Earl of Mansfield.

There is a case of recent date, which, if the English law is to prevail, would seem conclusive as to the character of this devise.  It is the case of The Attorney-General v.  Cullum, 1 Younge and Collyer’s Reports, p. 411.  The case was heard and decided in 1842, by Sir Knight Bruce, Vice-Chancellor.  The reporter’s abstract, or summary, of the decision is this:  “COURTS OF EQUITY, IN THIS COUNTRY, WILL NOT SANCTION ANY SYSTEM OF EDUCATION IN WHICH RELIGION IS NOT INCLUDED.”

The charity in question in that case was established in the reign of Edward the Fourth, for the benefit of the community and poor inhabitants of the town of Bury St. Edmunds.  The objects of the charity were various:  for relief of prisoners, educating and instructing poor people, for food and raiment for the aged and impotent, and others of the same kind.  There were uses, also, now deemed superstitious, such as praying for the souls of the dead.  In this, and in other respects, the charity required revision, to suit it to the habits and requirements of modern times; and a scheme was accordingly set forth for such revision by the master, under the direction of the court.  By this scheme there were to be schools, and these schools were to be closed on Sundays, although the Scriptures were to be read daily on other days.  This was objected to, and it was insisted, on the other hand, that the masters and mistresses of the schools should be members of the Church of England; that they should, on every Lord’s day, give instruction in the doctrines of the Church to those children whose parents might so desire; but that all the scholars should be required to attend public worship every Lord’s day in the parish church, or other place of worship, according to their respective creeds.

The Vice-Chancellor said, that the term “education” was properly understood, by all the parties, to comprehend religious instruction; that the objection to the scheme proposed by the master was not that it did not provide for religious instruction according to the doctrines of the Church of England, but that it did not provide for religious instruction at all.  In the course of the hearing, the Vice-Chancellor said, that any scheme of education, without religion, would be worse than a mockery.  The parties afterwards agreed, that the masters and mistresses should be members