trines  of  Jews  are  valid.  See  9  &  10  Vict.  c.  59;  Michel's
Trusts,  28  Bea.  39.  So  for  the  dissemination  of  the  doc-
trines of  Joanna  Southcott.  Thornton  v.  Howe,  8  Jur.,
N.  S.  663.  So  gifts  of  pure  personal  estate  for  ministers  of
religion,  qua  ministers,  are  valid.  Att.-Gen.  v.  Lawes,  8
Ha.  32.  See  Thornber  v.  Wilson,  3  Drew.  245  ;  4  lb.  350,
as  to  the  distinction  between  gifts  to  ministers,  as  such,
and  gifts  to  individuals,  and  consider  Russell  v.  Kellett,  3
Sm.  &  G.  264.  So  bequests  for  the  distribution  of  bibles  Church  purposes,
and  religious  tracts  are  valid  {^Att.-Gen.  v.  Stepney,  10
Ves.  22),  or  for  providing  things  connected  with  the  perform-
ance of  the  church  service(TMrwer  v.Ogrrfew,  1  Cox,316;  see
Adnata  v.  Cole,  6  Bea.  353),  or  for  the  repairs  or  ornaments  Repairs.
of  a  church  (Hoare  v.  Osborne,  L.  R.,  1  Eq.  585).  Prima
facie  a  trust  for  maintaining  the  worship  of  God  means  the
established  form  of  religion  ;  but  where  the  intention  is  ex-
pressed in  favour  of  any  other  form  of  worship  not  contrary
to  law,  the  trust  will  be  enforced.     Att.-Gen.  v.  Pearson,

3  Mer.  409.
Purposes  of  Benevolence.']     Bequests  for  the  following
purposes  have  also  been  held  valid: — For  the  widows  and  widows.
orphans  or  poor  of  a  place  {Powell  v.  Att.-Gen.,  3  Mer.  48;  orphans.
Att.-Gen.  v.  Comber,  2  S.  &  S.  93 ;  Att.-Gen.  v.   Clarke,  ^°°•'■
Amb.  422  ;  Bp.  of  Hereford  v.  Adams,  7  Ves.  324  ;  Russell
V.  Kellett,  3  Sm.  &  G.  264 ;  Thompson  v.  Corby,  27  Bea.
649) ;  building  or  endowing  a  hospital  {Pelham  v.  Ander-  Hospitals.
