for Tom Bell. It at once occurred to him, that here was a chance for playing one of his best tricks. The very next day he went into what was then the County of Hunterdon, and stopped at a place where Mr. Rowland had occasionally preached, but where he was not well known. Here he introduced himself as Mr. Rowland, was in vited to the house of a gentleman in the neighborhood, and asked to preach on the following Sabbath. He consented to do so, and notice to that effect was accordingly given. When the day arrived he accompanied the ladies to church in the family wagon, while the master of the house rode along side on a very fine horse. As they approach. ed the church, Bell suddenly discovered that he had left his notes behind him, and proposed riding back after them on the fine horse. This was at once agreed to and Bell mounted the horse, rode back to the house, rifled the desk of his host, and took his departure, leaving the assembled congregation to wonder what had become of the Rev. Mr. Rowland.

We may imagine the satisfaction which Bell must have derived from this exploit. Mr. Rowland was a noted preacher of great pungency and power, and thundered the terrors of the law against all impenitent sinners. He was called by the professed wits of the day, "Hell Fire Rowland." He was literally a terror to evil doers, and, therefore, it may be presumed, an object of peculiar aversion to Tom Bell. The idea then of bringing such a man into disgrace, and at the same time of pursuing his favorite occupation, must have been doubly pleasing to him.

Mr. Rowland was at this time absent from the Colony. He had gone into Pennsylvania or Maryland, in company with Mr. Tennent, and two pious laymen of the County of Hunterdon, by the names of Anderson and Stevens, for the purpose of preaching. As soon as they returned, Mr. Rowland was charged with the robbery of the horse. At the next Term of the Oyer and Terminer for the County of Hunterdon, an indictment was preferred against him. Great was the excitement produced by this event, owing in part to the peculiar state of the Colony at this time. Through the labors of Mr. Whitfield and his associates, among whom were Mr. Tennent and Mr. Row. land, a great revival of religion had taken place in the Provinces. But there was a party in the Colony who were very hostile to this religious movement, who denounced its authors as fanatics and enthusiasts, and some of whom did not hesitate to brand them as hypocrites and imposters. Conspicuous in the ranks of this party was, I am sorry to say, our Chief Justice Robert Hunter Morris, who what,

ever other claims he may have had to respect, was certainly not distinguished either for his religion or his morality. To such men, this charge against Mr. Rowland, one of these very preachers who were turning every thing upside down, was, of course, an occasion of great triumph and rejoicing, and the most strenuous efforts were made to procure his conviction. The grand jury at first refused to find a bill against him, but they were reproved by the Court in an angry manner and sent out again. They again returned without an indictment; but the Court sent them out a second time, with threats of punishment if they persisted in their refusal; and then they consented to find a true bill. Thus Mr. Rowland was subjected to the ignominy of a trial. A clear case was made out on the part of the prosecution. large number of witnesses swore positively that he was the identical person who had committed the robbery.. On the other hand, the defendant called as witnesses Messrs. Tennent, Stevens and Anderson, who all testified, that on the very day on which the robbery was committed, they were in company with Mr. Rowland, at some place in Pennsylvania or Maryland, and heard him preach. An alibi being thus clearly proved, the jury without hesitation acquitted him.

A

But still the public mind was not satisfied. The person whose horse had been stolen, and whose house had been robbed, was so convinced that Mr. Rowland was the robber, and so many individuals had, as they supposed, seen him in possession of the horse, that it was resolved not to let the matter drop. Tennent, Anderson and Stevens were therefore arraigned before the Court of Quarter Sessions of Hunterdon, upon a charge of having sworn falsely upon the trial of Rowland, and indictments were found against each of them for perjury. These indictments were all removed into the Supreme Court. Anderson, conscious of his innocence, and unwilling to be under the imputation of such a crime, demanded his trial at the next Term of the Court of Oyer and Terminer for the County of Hunterdon. What evidence he offered in his defence does not appear, but he was convicted, and was condemned to stand one hour on the Court House steps, with a paper on his breast, whereon was written in large letters, "This is for wilful and corrupt perjury." The trials of Tennent and Stevens were postponed.

And now we come to a portion of the narrative, which, if true, was certainly the most extraordinary part of the whole affair, but about which, I confess, I am not a little sceptical. Tennent, we are told, being entirely unversed in legal matters, and knowing of no person by whom he could prove his innocence, had no other resource than to

submit himself to the divine will, and thinking it not unlikely that he might be convicted, had prepared a sermon to preach from the pillory. True, he had employed Mr. John Coxe, an eminent lawyer of the Province, to assist him; and upon his arrival at Trenton, he found there Mr. William Smith, one of the most distinguished members of the New York bar, who had voluntarily attended on his behalf; and his brother Gilbert Tennent, who was then the pastor of a church in Philadelphia, had brought with him Mr. John Kinsey, an eminent counsellor of that city, to aid in the defence. But what could they do for him without evidence? When Mr. Tennent was desired by his counsel to call in his witnesses, that they might examine them before going into Court, he declared that he knew of no witnesses except God and his own conscience. His counsel assured him, that however well founded this confidence might be, and however important before a heavenly tribunal, it would not avail him in an earthly Court; and they therefore urged that an application should be made to put off the trial. But to this he would by no means consent. They then inform. ed him that they had discovered a flaw in the indictment, and proposed that advantage should be taken of it. But this he also resisted with great vehemence, saying that it was another snare of the devil, and before he could consent to it he would suffer death. In the mean time the bell summoned them to Court. While on his way to the Court House, Mr. Tennent is said to have met a man and his wife, who stopped and asked him if his name was Tennent. He said it was, and begged to know if they had any business with him. They replied, "You know best." They then informed him that they re. sided at a certain place in Pennsylvania or Maryland; and that upon one occasion he, in company with Rowland, Anderson and Stevens, had lodged at their house; that on the following day they had heard him and Rowland preach; that some nights before they left home they had each of them dreamed that he, Mr. Tennent, was at Trenton in the greatest possible distress, and that it was in their power, and in their's alone to relieve him; that this dream was twice repeated, and in precisely the same manner, to each of them; and that it made so deep an impression upon their minds, that they had at once set off upon a journey to Trenton, and were there to know of him what they were to do. Mr. Tennent handed them over to his counsel, who, to their astonishment, found that their testimony was entirely satisfactory. Soon after Mr. John Stockton, of Princeton, also ap peared, and was examined as a witness for Mr. Tennent. In short the evidence for the defence was so clear and conclusive, that, not

withstanding the most strenuous exertions of the Attorney General to procure a conviction, the Jury, without hesitation, rendered a ver. dict of acquittal; and so Mr. Tennent had no opportunity of preach. ing his sermon from his pillory.

This is substantially the account which is given of this remarkable trial, ir. the memoir of Mr. Tennent, to which I have alluded. It may seem an ungracious task to attempt to strip it of those features of the marvellous, to which it is indebted for its chief interest; nor have we, perhaps, at this distance of the time, the means of forming a very accurate judgment in relation to it. Still, there are circumstances calculated to cast a shade of doubt over our position of the narrative, to which I propose, in conclusion, very briefly to advert.

In the first place, it may be remarked, that the evidence on which it rests is not of the very highest character. Although the memoir from which it is taken was compiled by Dr. Boudinot, yet the greater part of it was in fact written by Dr. Henderson, of Freehold, who, although a man of undoubted veracity, yet is admitted to have derived all the knowledge he possessed of Mr. Tennent's trial from his father, who was an elder of the church in Freehold of which Mr. Tennent was pastor. We all know with how many grains of allowance these traditionary stories are to be received.

That Mr. Tennent himself believed every word of it to be true, is more than probable. For although a most excellent man, and one who frequently displayed great strength and sagacity of mind, yet upon this, as upon many other occasions in his life, he never doubted that he was the subject of a direct supernatural interposition. But something more is necessary to produce conviction in the minds of others.

The account, it will be seen, is in many respects remarkably vague. It is wholly silent as to the time when the trial took place. In a note to one of the editions of this memoir, which I have recently met with, it is stated to have been not far from 1774. It was in fact more than thirty years before. Nor are the names of the remarkable witnesses given, nor the place where they resided. We are only told they came from some place in Pennsylvania or Maryland.

In some particulars, too, the account is certainly inaccurate. Mr. Tennent is represented as having at the time of his trial unexpectedly found Mr. Smith, of New York, at Trenton, who had voluntarily at tended to aid in his defence; and the idea is conveyed, that his ap

*The original Communication of the Rev. Mr. Henderson to Dr. Boudinot, is in the possession of the Society.

pearance there was Providential. Whereas, it appears from the records, that from the beginning Mr. Smith had acted as the counsel for Mr. Tennent, and that at the previous term of the Supreme Court he had on his behalf applied for and obtained a rule for a struck jury. This is an important fact in another point of view; it shews that every precaution had been taken by the ablest counsel which the country afforded to secure for Mr. Tennent a fair and impartial trial. Then as to the two witnesses and their remarkable dream. That they had dreamed about Mr. Tennent, and that it was mainly through their testimony that he was acquitted, may be admitted. But the question is, whether it was their dreams alone that brought them to Trenton; whether they had not in fact previously heard that Mr. Tennent was to be tried, and been applied to, to attend as witnesses on his behalf. Upon this supposition every thing is natural and prob. able. They felt, no doubt, a deep interest in Mr. Tennent; they had probably been touched by his preaching; and hearing that he was to be tried for perjury, and that their testimony was essential to his defence, nothing was more likely than that he should have been the subject of their dreams, and that they should have repaired to Trenton to testify in his favor. That Mr. Tennent himself should have taken no pains to find them out, or to procure their attendance, is not improbable. It would have been altogether in character with him. Con. scious of his innocence, and trusting habitually in Providence, he seems to have cared very little what men said about him, or what they did to him. He would not consent, we are told, to have his trial postponed. He refused to take advantage of a flaw in the indictment. He appeared to want a conviction. He had in fact the true spirit of a martyr. When acquitted, he may have felt a little disappointment in not being permitted to preach from the pillory.

The

But what he would not do for himself, he may have had friends who were willing to do for him. His brother Gilbert resided in Philadelphia, and had procured the services. of Mr. Kinsey, afterwards Chief Justice of that Province. Mr. Smith, of New York, had probably been retained through the instrumentality of other friends. great object, of course, was to prove that Rowland was with Mr. Tennent in Pennsylvania or Maryland on the day when the horse was stolen. And to do this, it would be necessary to procure witnesses from the place where they had been preaching. Thus, inquiries would naturully be made in that neighborhood, and thus the attendance of the witnesses in question may have been secured without any supernatural agency. Nay, it seems almost incredible, that Stevens