1719). They corresponded on the case with their London brethren. Peirce also wrote to his London friends, among whom the most influential was John Shute Barrington, afterwards first Viscount Barrington [q. v.] Barrington, an independent, was the parliamentary leader of the dissenting interest. He had defeated a presbyterian amendment to the bill for repealing the ‘Schism Act,’ which would have introduced a new test in regard to the Trinity, on the express ground of Peirce's alleged heresies. He now brought the Exeter dispute before the London committee, representing the civil interests of dissenters. The committee agreed (5 Feb.) to lay a draft of ‘advices for peace’ before the whole body of London ministers of the three denominations; hence the Salters' Hall conferences, which began on 19 Feb., and came to a rupture on 3 March [see Bradbury, Thomas]. The rupture was in reference, not to the ‘advices’ themselves, but to the spirit in which they should be tendered. Both sections endorsed the principle of uncompromising independency, namely, that each congregation is sole judge of the errors which disqualify its ministers. The non-subscribing section sent its ‘advices,’ with an orthodox letter, on 17 March; the ‘advices’ of the subscribing section, with an orthodox preamble, followed on 7 April; but the Exeter affair had already come to an issue, without any appeal to the congregation.
On 4 March the clerical council of seven gave judgment in writing, to the effect that denial of Christ's ‘true and proper divinity’ is a disqualifying error. On 5 March the ‘thirteen’ asked for an explicit statement on this head from the Exeter ministers. Peirce urged that the advices from London should be waited for; but the ‘thirteen’ declined to recognise ‘advices’ in which ‘anabaptists’ took part. Peirce then declined to subscribe to any proposition not in scripture (not even ‘that three and two make five’). Hallett declined also; Withers faltered, and ultimately offered to subscribe the Nicene creed; Lavington alone gave complete satisfaction. On 6 March the four ‘proprietors’ of James's Meeting closed it against Peirce and Hallett; they were permitted, however, on the following Sunday (8 March) to preach at the Little Meeting. But on 10 March the ‘proprietors’ of the several meeting-houses held a joint meeting, and agreed, ‘without consulting the people,’ to exclude Peirce and Hallett from them all. They were excluded also from their share in the income of the Elwill trust for dissenting ministers of Exeter (unpublished letter of Peirce, 11 Sept. 1721). They still remained members of the ‘Exeter assembly.’ A temporary meeting-place was secured by 15 March, and a new building, the Mint Meeting, was soon erected (opened 27 Dec.) The congregation, which numbered about three hundred, was classed as presbyterian in the lists of the London fund of that name; but Peirce declined any designation except Christian. In May 1719 the ‘Exeter assembly’ called for a subscription from its members, identical with that adopted by the London subscribers. Peirce, with eighteen others, declined and seceded. The seceders subscribed a paper (6 May) repudiating the charge of Arianism, and making a confession in biblical terms. Peirce was not readmitted as a member, but was present as a visitor in September 1723. The ministers of Mint Meeting were admitted in 1753; the succession of ministers was maintained till 1810; subsequently (before 1817) the building was sold to Wesleyan methodists, who erected another on its site.
Peirce never rose above the mortification inflicted on him by his summary ejection. Friends of position, such as Peter King, first lord King [q. v.], stood by him; but he deeply felt the loss of leadership and popularity. His numerous pamphlets in self-defence are written with a strong pen; the ‘Letter’ to Eveleigh is an admirable piece of satire. He moved out of Exeter to a country house at St. Leonard's, in the suburbs, and lived much among his books, busying himself with paraphrases of St. Paul's Epistles, in continuation of the series begun by Locke. Fox has left a very graphic account of him. He seems to have been a moody man, of dignified and polished manners, with much reserve, yet humorous and even jocose when the ice was broken. His theological writing is scholastic and unimpassioned, but when moved he preached with great fervour, using few notes. His means were ample, but he is said to have been remiss in the duty of returning hospitality. He had ancient notions of domestic strictness, and ‘condescended to the discipline of the horsewhip.’ Fox asserts that, having written against the ring in marriage, he refused to attend his daughter's wedding; but this is improbable, for Peirce maintains that the ring is ‘a civil rite, and not unlawful in itself,’ and therefore to be used so long as it is prescribed by law. Nor, according to Fox, would he sit for his portrait, since ‘pictures originally were the occasion of worshipping images.’ His disuse of exercise led to ‘the swelling of his legs and other disorders.’ At length he broke a blood-vessel in his lungs, lingered a few days in great composure, and died on 30 March 1726. He was buried in the church-
