.L4''m'«3«?*' '^yt^t^ 'Q:'^ 1 W. & M. cap. 18 — Act of Toleration ! 76 .'' 9 & low. III. cap. 32 — Act against those denying the doc- trine of the Trinity. — Subscription under the Toleration Act '. 77 vu Page Toleration Act of the 19 Geo. III. cap. 44 78 53 Geo. III. cap. 160— Act repealing the 9 & 10 W. III.— Supposed common law offence in denjdng the doctrine of the Trinity 79 State of tlie law at the date of a Charity said to govern the intent 82 Injustice of such a rule, and its extent 83 — 85 Insecurity of charitable property if such a rule is established 86 Academical Institutions — Homerton — Highbury 87, 88 Possible claims of the Church 88, 156 n. Claims of the Independents to Presbyterian Charities, under such a rule, groundless 89 Classification of religious Charities 91 Usage considered in the administration of Charities 92 Usage in administering Presbyterian Charities 93 Discreditable conduct of the Independents 95 " Presbyterian" never a doctrinal designation 97 Character of the present attempts to interfere with the Charities of the Presbyterians 100 Inquisitorial proceedings of the Court of Chancery, and the difficulties attending any determination of doctrinal ques- tions .' 100, 101 Cases relating to Presbyterian Charities now pending 101 Wolverhampton Case 102 Mr. Robertson's argument against the Independents 105 Revival of the Wolverhampton Case 113 Lady Hewley's Charities 113 Account of Lady Hewley 1 13, 1 14 Her Charity for the support of Ministers, 1704 114 Her Almshouses, 1707 115 Qualification of her Trustees 116 Terms of her endowments 116 Necessary exercise of discretion by the Trustees 117 Distribution of the funds in 1829 118 Assistance granted to the Rosendale Congregation 119 Effect of making the Charities subservient to the support of special doctrines 120 Impropriety of such a course 121 Grant to St. Saviour Gate Chapel 122 The imposition of creeds capable of great abuse 123 Their imposition opposed to Lady Hewley's intent 124 Administration of the Almshouses 125 l^gal proceedings against the Trustees, and compulsory pro- ceedings of the Court of Chancery to ol)tain special de- clarations of belief. 125 via Page Extent to which inquiry into religious belief should be carried 1 26 Effect of requiring special declarations of belief from Church- men 126 Questions proposed to the Trustees 127 Propriety of resisting in future similar inquisitorial queries 128 Conclusions to be drawn from the facts of the case as illus- trative of Lady Hewley's intent 129 Peculiarity affecting the administration of the Almshouses. . 130 Bowles's Catechism. — Its doctrines 131 Mr. Bowles. — Limited use of his Catechism 132, 133 Catechism not meant as a test 134 Evidence in the cause 135 Improved Version of the New Testament 135 Judgement of the Vice- Chancellor 136, 137 Reasoning of the Judgement 138 Historical probability of Lady HeU'ley's opinions 140 Probability supported by a similar foundation to that of Lady Hewley established at Norwich by a member of the Con- gregation of Dr. John Taylor 141 Similarity of the terms of the Norwich foundation and Lady Hewley's 144, 145 Inconclusiveness of the Vice-Chancellor's reasoning 145 Indefinite terms of the Decree 148 Character of the " Improved Version" 148 Its object and use among Unitarians 149 Injustice of the personal charges against the compilers of the " Improved Version " 151 Removal of the Trustees 153 Objections applicable to some only of the Trustees extended to all, and their injustice 155 Proceedings opposed to the spirit of Lady Hewley's conduct 157 Their impropriety 158 Inconsistent conduct of the Independents 160 Application of the precedent 161 Conclusion _. 1 62 CORRIGENDA. Page 2, line 22, after them insert if not satisfactorily answering Page 4, line 13, /or important read serious THE HISTORY, OPINIONS, AND PRESENT LEGAL POSITION OF THE ENGLISH PRESBYTERIANS. The present age of liberal legislation, and of enlightened ^^^^^^^ ^^ public feeling on all topics affecting religious liberty, has the discus- singularly enough given rise to the discussions which will be examined and illustrated in the ensuing pages. The historical details we are approaching relate to what may truly be considered as, in every point of view, an im- portant CHAPTER IN Protestant ecclesiastical history. The descendants of the English Presbyterians, who, Supposed about the beginning of the last century, established many leading permanent congregations, assembling in chapels louncleU English for the purpose, have hitherto considered themselves as re- ^^'^'^5^'^"" presenting a body peculiarly distinguished by the practical adoption of the Protestant principle of unrestricted pri- vate judgement in matters of religious belief. On this prin- ciple alone their churches are, and have always been, based; and they perhaps form the only religious community which has, under all circumstances, followed out that principle in all its consequences. They have trusted to the final pre- valence of truth, supported by its own evidence alone; and they point with pride to the convocation in which their mini- sters took part so early as 1719, as to nearly the only ecclesi- astical assembly which ever determined to repel all creeds, confessions, and subscriptions, even for the protection, as it is called, of doctrines which most of the members sincerely held, and many believed to be essentials of Christianity. Coutrast, Presbytevi- The English Presbyterians have considered the endow- ments handed down to them from such ancestors as founded on this broad and enlightened principle. Finding no re- strictions imposed, and believing that all such would have been inconsistent with the most cherished principles of their body, they have considered themselves free to follow the convictions of their minds ; and their concfregations have accordingly passed through varying and successive changes of doctrinal opinion, though without, as congregations, propounding any scheme of faith, as a condition or basis of union. The theological result has generally been similar to that which has taken place in the parent Church of Geneva, as well as elsewhere, under similar circumstances. The essen- tial doctrines of the Calvinistic faith, in which the Puritans originally concurred, have been gradually abandoned by the greater part of those now known by the name of En- glish Presbyterians. On the other hand, the Independents, departing from the principle which first distinguished them as a body, and some other Nonconformists, (under the influence, no doubt, of strong conscientious feeling on the subject,) refused to carry the Protestant principle to its full extent, — restrained the progress of what they deemed dangerous speculation, by creeds, confessions, and subscriptions, and have in their churches, if not always individually, maintained their ori- ginal faith to a much greater extent, though still with very important modifications from the standard of the Westmin- ster Confession ; — modifications amply sufficient to shake their own title to many Calvinistic endowments, if a rigid restriction to the precise creed of the founders were en- forced. The two bodies, and the principles on which they act, stand now, as they have always done, distinctly character- ized ; though the contrast is now become more prominently marked, by the matured action on the two systenis having led to opposite results. In this state of things the existing occupants of old Presbyterian endowments ai-e summoned to surrender them ans called to those who consider themselves, in the character of pro- "" to K've 1 up enilow- fessors of a more orthodox creed, the proper beneficiaries, monts. Those who have departed from certain ancient symbols are treated as unvvorth}^ to participate in the common enjoy- ment of benefactions which their ancestors liberally ex- tended to the Dissenting community in general, without restriction to creed or discipline. By the modern Independents, or Congregationalists, it is Title dig- urged, by a process of reasoning not easily to be followed, ^"'^ * that they are proper representatives of the older Presbyte- rians; and that they are fulfilling the intent of those foun- ders, to whom they have ever been opposed as to the prin- ciple of imposing any fetters on the freedom of inquiry, in trying to eject those who have acted on the liberal principle handed down to them, and to replace them by those who fence their faith by creeds and subscriptions. It is held to be only necessary to make out the probable opinions of the founder, — which he, consistently with his own principles as a Protestant Dissenter, refrained from imposing or even declaring, — to rack his descendants with the inquisitorial inquiries of the Court of Chancery, and to replace them by persons holding some of his peculiar opinions ; thus sacrificing the leading principle, which all history and the. terms of the endowments show to have been the general pervading intent, to a fanciful particular intent as to doc- trine, not declared by the founder, and often to be gathered only from vague and very questionable inferences. It is further argued, that, even if the general intent of the Legal founder were^not^ matter of controversy, — if his opinions ground of corresponded with those of the present holders, — if his words and actions indicate approval of an unlimited free- dom of inquiry, — still that by the presumptions and infer- ences of law, such intent must be restrained within the limits of the scanty legal toleration of the founder's day; notwith- standing the subsequent legislative declaration in favour of the widest range of inquii-y, and the statutory application (by 19 Geo. III.) of the title and privileges of Protestant B 2 ejection. teachers and ministers to all those who will declare their acceptance of the Scriptures as the rule of their faith and practice. Consequen- These are grave matters to Presbyterian Dissenters per- cesinvo ve . gQjjjj|iy . fQj. ^^ey involve their exclusion from the scenes of the devotion of their ancestors nearly a century and half ago; where the property of their families has, through suc- ceeding generations, been expended ; and where, in many cases, their forefathers have been buried. Public To the public also, — to every friend of religious liberty, — quei ion. ^^ ^^j pQj^gjgfgj^f Protesiauts who object to exclusive church establishments, on the ground that they interfere with the fi'ee exercise of opinion in the most important concerns of man, — the question is important. It amounts substantially to this: Will the Court of Chancery, in directing THE ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN PrESBYTERIAN CHA- RITIES, ACT ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE t ^e^t^pCa^f /a sufficient rule of faith and DOCTRINE, WITHOUT THE AID OF CREEDS AND INTERPRETATIONS IMPOSED BY HUMAN AUTHORITY? Early hi- We shall proceed, in the first instance, to consider the dL's^citi. prevailing character of that Dissent from the Church of England which, at the beginning of the last century, di- stinguished the bodies who are now, as they were then, opposed to each other on the same essential points. Confusion as Much coufusion has arisen from the variations which to the Pres- j^g^yg occurred in the state and practice of the Presbyterian bytenan _ r^ _ •'^ body. body not being correctly distinguished. Presbyterians of one aire have been confounded with those of another, and the intentions, views and opinions of men of one date, with what no doubt may have been the intentions, views and opinions of those of another. DifFerences The early settlement of the Church of England was ac- formation" companied by many difficulties. Some of the Reformers as to forms, desired the adoption of the discipline and service of the Church of Geneva ; others, the service of King Edward VI. Each party proposed his own scheme, and that on which the Church was finally established became the occasion of many dissensions. Its forms and ceremonies, its ordinances and discipline partook strongly of a model which the more strict reformers abhorred. In Prelacy itself a distinguished feature of the Romish Church was preserved, and to the bishops a jurisdiction was given to which many objected. To extinguish the expression of opposition to a system in many of its parts vicious, an Act was passed, in the first year of the reign of Elizabeth, to secure the uniformity of worship. Dissent was forbidden by law; and, from the severity with which the law was executed, was practically suppressed. Upon the death of Elizabeth, the opponents of Episcopacy Accession confidently looked forward to a change in the church go- vernment. James had been bred up a Presbyterian; he had professed Calvinism, and sworn to observe the Covenant. Seven hundred of the clergy presented to him an address, called the Millejiari/ Petition, to abate the rigor of the laws enacted in the support of ceremonies, and against the Puri- tans *. Everything appeared to concur to favour the Pres- byterian party. In 1604- the Conference of Hampton Hampton Court was held. It was professedly designed for the ference."" settlement of the disputes respecting chuixh ceremonies. The questions considered related to bowing atTlie name of Jesus, the use of the surplice, and other forms which were offensive to conscientious persons, and might have been abolished without any injury to the Church. James, however, allowed the Conference to be a mere exhibition of his own limited learning ; and it separated without any satisfactory determination of the questions it had entertained. And yet, if the proceedings disappointed those immediately en- gaged in them, they were not unproductive of important consequences. The questions then agitated had not for a long time previously been openly dibcussed ; a new impor- tance was given to them ; and they were disputed w ith a boldness which was certain of imitation. Prelacy was disliked during the reign of Elizabeth and of Opposition James I. as part of a system of church government, wanting *° P"'eiacy- * Fuller, Chmch Hist. Book X. p. 7. Collier, Ecclesiastical Hist. 11.672. that authority for its establishment which many considered as necessary ; and the conduct of several prelates greatly added to its unpopularity. It is vain to ascribe its subsequent aboli- tion to any of those attempts to change the entire form of government which were made in the time of Charles I. It was desired before the conduct of Laud stimulated resist- ance to ecclesiastical tyranny; before Charles had shown his contempt of parliaments; before the people, animated to resistance at witnessing a violation of their highest privi- leges, sought a change in the Constitution. The institution had never been popular ; and if its abolition was connected with demands of a civil character, it was because it had be- come impossible to separate religious from civil grievances. In 1 642 the Presbyterians obtained a complete ascendancy. In 1641' an Ordinance was passed for the adoption of the " Directory for Public Worship," aqd the abolition of the " Book of Common Prayer." Two years afterwards the Scotch model of church government was established for three years; and in 1648 was passed the Ordinance respect- ing the «• Form of Church Government to be used in En- gland." Presbyterianism was thus established by law. Classes, synods, and assemblies were constituted, and all the machinery of an organized church created, as far as the law could effect it. As a practical system of church govern- ment, however, it never generally prevailed*. It was carried into complete effect in London and Lancashire ; but in many parts of the country it never, even in form, existed. The spirit of resistance to the old system was much stronger and more united than any feeling of preference for the particular scheme proposed to be substituted. While the endeavours of the Presbyterians were directetl to the depression of Episcopacy and the establishment of their own church government, the temporary absence of restraint gave rise to new views and new habits. Some began to hold that priestcraft, in any form, was a power to be jealously restrained; — that "new Presbyter was but * Hallam, Constitutional Hist. vol. ii. p. 273. Ordinance. old Priest writ large." A new parly, who entertained no dread of religious differences, but asserted the most unli- mited freedom of independence, thought, and action in re- ligious matters, and who, with the exception of Papists and Ejiiscopalians, afforded protection to every religious denomination, virtually overthi'ew the Presbyterian esta- blishment*. The 35th, 36th, and 37th articles of Cromwell's Or- Cromwdi'i dinauce for the government of the Commonwealth de- clared : " That the Christian religion contained in Scrip- ture be held forth and recommended as the public pro- fession of these nations : That to the public profession held forth, none shall be compelled by penalties or otherwise ; but that endeavours be used to win them to a * To the early Independents the honour is due of having first practi- cally carried into eifect tolerant principles ; and had they always adhered to them, their late persecuting proceedings in the Court of Chancery had not been witnessed. The persecution of Paul Best for holding Anti- trinitarian opinions was the first occasion of their display. Among the publications of the time, was " A Letter of Advice unto the Ministers as- " sembled at Westminster, wherein it is hinted that Paul Best, (whatever " his error be at present,) as well as Paul the Apostle, once a blasphemer,. " may one day become a convert, if he be not untimely starved to death " beforehand: 1G46." In the same year, Leonard Busher's Treatise on Religious Peace, first printed in 1614, was reprinted, with a preface ad- dressed to the Presbyterian reader, containing the following remarks : — " The second thing his discourse drives at is to make it appear, by Scrip ■ " ture and sound argument, that the only way to make this nation " happy, and to preserve the people in love, peace, and tranquillity, is to " give liberty to all to serve God according as tlicy are persuaded is most " agreeable to his word; to speak, write, print, peaceably and without " molestation, in behalf of their several tenets and ways of worship, " (wholesome and pertinent laws being made, upon penalties, to restrain " all kinds of vice or violence, all kinds of reproach, slander, or injury, " either by word or deed). And though this advice likewise seems not «' the best to some, especially to you my brethren in the Presbyterian " way, yet I am well assured this nation will never be happy, — but as " hitherto it has been, so for the future it will be distracted with op- " pi-ession and persecution, and the faces of one sort of men set agf'inst '* another, till liberty of conscience be allowed." For the early princi- ples of the Independents, see Hume's Histor}' of England : London^ 1810, vol. vii. pp. 522, 52.3. Brodie, vol. iii. p. .517. sound doctrine, and the example of a good conversation : That such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ, (though differing in judgement from the doctrine, worship, and dis- cipline held forth,) shall not be restrained from, but shall be protected in, the profession of the faith and the exercise of their religion ; so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others and to the actual disturbance of the public peace on their parts; provided this liberty be not extended to Popery or Prelacy ; nor to such as, under the profession of Christ, hold forth and practise licentiousness*." By this memorable declaration all religious sects were, with two exceptions,' one more nominal than actual, placed upon a footing of equality. " During this period of the Commonwealth no system of church government can be considered as having been properly or fully established. The Presbyterian, if any, enjoyed this distinction. But the ministers who occupied the parish churches were of very various sentiments. Many of them were secret friends of the old episcopacy and the liturgy; many were for a re- formed episcopal government; others thought no form of ecclesiastical polity of divine right, or gave themselves no concern about the matter ; some were Independents, and a few were Baptists. Cromwell's policy encouraged this diversity : he dreaded the ascendancy of any one party. If the ministers attended to their own duty, and did not in- terfere with his affairs, their sentiments upon church govern- ment did not prevent the enjoyment of his favour f." The political rivalry of the old parties again showed it- self upon the death of Cromwell. The Presbyterians con- tributed to restore the ancient form of government ; but they did so under stipulations for enlarged toleration which evince their own progress towards those more enlightened views of religious liberty which afterwards characterized them. • Ordinance of the Lord Protector, 1653. t Orme's Life of Owen, p. 187. — The conduct of Cromwell would, in some cases, appear to have been opposed to the spirit and terms of his Ordinance. The prosecutions, however, of Episcopalians and other reli- gious persons were doubtless political. Charles, in his declaration from Breda, promised, at their instigation, to grant liberty of conscience; so that no man should be disquieted or called in question for differences of opinion in matters of religion, which should not disturb the public peace ; and to consent to any Act which should be presented to him to confirm this indulgence. Such an alteration in the Church was expected by the Pres- Attempts at byterians as would enable them to continue in it. The Inde- ™"iprehen- .... sion. pendents, whose peculiar principles of church government placed them out of any scheme of comprehension in the Establishment, relied upon the King's declaration for per- mission to continue their religious worship out of the Church. The Presbyterians, on the contrary, expected to be com- prised within the Church ; in which, till the Act of Uniform- ity, their leading members remained ; and made strong en- deavours with the Government to obtain their object *. The omission of many ceremonies in the Book of Common Prayer was principally desired. In the recess of the Convention Par- liament, Charles published a Declaration, repealing many of the promises made at Breda, of alterations in the ecclesias- tical jurisdiction of the Church ; of the revision of the liturgy by divines of the Church and of the Presbyterian party ; of exemption from all molestation for not using the liturgy be- fore its revision ; of the abolition of many ceremonies, and of toleration of religious differences. A Bill was brought into Parliament by Sir Matthew Hale, to make the Declara- tion of the King law ; but it was lost by a majority of twenty- six. Twenty-one Episcopalian, and as many Presbyterian, di- Savoy Con- vines were appointed in 1661, to hold a conference at the ^^'■^""• Savoy. Their objections to many of the services and cere- * " The Independents were too irreconcileable to the Established " Church for any scheme of comprehension, and looked only to that li- " berty of conscience which the King's declaration from Breda held " forth. But the Presbyterians soothed themselves with hopes of retain- " ing their benefices by some compromise with their adversaries. They ♦♦ had never, generally speaking, embraced the rigid principles of the " Scottish clergy, and were willing to admit what they called moderate " episcopacy." — Ilallam, vol. ii. p. 432. 10 monies of the Church were again made, and again rejected. A little concession by the High Church party at this time would have prevented much of that dissension with which they have ever since contended. An union with an able and learned body of persons would have been effected. Its terms required no .yielding on essential points, and the Church would have been strengthened. All negotiation, however, failed. Charles, under the advice of the party which rallied round him on his return, neglected his promises ; the High Church party was confident of its strength, and the Pres- byterians could not conscientiously yield their objections. The Act of Uniformity, commonly called the St. Bartho- lomew Day Act, from many of its most offensive provisions coming into effect upon that day, (the 24-th of August,) was passed in 1662. It required each minister publicly to declare his assent to everything contained in the Book of Common Prayer, on pain of being deprived of his benefice. The result was, that nearly two thousand ministers quitted the Church, or were silenced. Until this event, the Presbyterians had been nearly all in connexion with the Establishment, and their negotiations, to prevent their ex- clusion from it, had been encouraged by the conduct of Charles*. The ejection of the Nonconforming clergy was followed by the formation of distinct congregations out of the Church, under the care of the Ejected Ministers. The greater part of these assumed, and have continued to bear, the name of Presbyterian congregations ; though, except in Lancashire and Cheshire, and, in a slighter degree, in De- vonshire, little attempt was made to establish a proper Presbyterian form of church union and government. The ejected members of the Church (though inclined to * " As Dr. Owen held no living in the Church, he was not involved " in the consequences of the Act of Uniformity. All that he and those " with whom he acted sought, was toleration or liberty of conscience. A " comprehension within the pale of the Establishment was incompatible " with their (the Independents') principles, and inconsistent with their '• wishes." — Orme's Life of Given, p. 244. 11 Presbyterian discipline, and having during the Common- rian system wealth favoured it,) never attempted to perfect a rival scheme "j ^^'^ of church government. The persecution to which the new congregations were exposed would have rendered it imprac- ticable, or imprudent, to have done so. Each congregation necessarily conducted its affairs on an independent principle. For a long time subsequently to their ejection, the Pres- byterian Dissenters seem to have still hoped for the arrival of a better system, under which they should again be com- prehended in the Church ; and when this hope failed, other views and principles of action had intervened, which pre- vented any attempt to reestablish the old Presbyterian sy- stem of church government*. The body of Presbyterians, therefore, from their first separation from the Church, were so denominated, in somewhat of a secondary sense; and they retained the appellation principally to distinguish them- selves from the Independents, who had always been aloof from either Church, and who in their turn underwent con- siderable modifications. It is needless here to speak of the merits and virtues character of of these founders of the Nonconformist Churches. A volun- 'l*^ ejected clergy. tary sacrifice had been made by them, unparalleled for its honourable character. Many who lost their benefices had been regularly appointed, and with the observance of all legal forms, and considered their possessions permanent. Every prospect of future advantage was abandoned, and they relied upon a precarious charity. Their former con- duct had united them to their parishioners, and the mutual feelings of good will had been cultivated by acts of reciprocal benefit. Discontent was created by their treatment, and * " The body of the Puritans were never of the same mind on the " subject of church government. Not a few were, without doubt, rigid " Presbyterians ; but many of them would gladly have submitcd to a " modified Episcopacy, such as that Archbishop Usher recommended. The " divine right of classical Presbytery came to be contended for chiefly " after the Scots army was brought into England, and when a uniformity " of faith and worship in the three kingdoms began to be enforced." — Orme's Life of Owen, p. 29, quoting Baxter's Own Life, vol. i. p. 97, and passim. 12 their popularity excited the animosity of the Court party, who were unprepared for the sacrifice that was made, and Their per- were displeased at the desertion of the new ministry. Under secution. , p . ■,. . . . . , pretence oi suppressmg sedition, an Act against conventicles was passed. Imprisonment was inflicted upon all persons who should be present at any religious meeting, held in other manner than according to the practice of the Church of England, where more than five persons were present; and in case of a third offence, transportation for seven years fol- lowed on conviction before a single justice of the peace. The rigorous execution of this Act filled the jails with Non- conforming ministers and laity. An unwearied persecution was carried on, and the improper employment of violence was followed by its ordinary vexations. Another Act was passed (17 Car. II. cap. 2.) enacting that all persons in holy orders who had not expressed their assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer, and subscribed the declara- tion contained in the 13 and H Car. II. cap. 4, and had not sworn that it was not lawful, upon an}^ pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the King, and that they did abhor the traitorous position of taking arms by his authority against " his person, or against those that were commissioned by him, and would not at any time endeavour any alteration of government in Church or State ; and all persons who should take upon them to preach in any unlawful assembly, conventicle, or meeting, under colour or pretence of any ex- ercise of religion ; — should not, unless in passing upon the road, come or be within five miles of any city or town cor- porate or borough that sent burgesses to Parliament, or within five miles of any parish, town, or place wherein they had, since the Act of Oblivion, been parson, vicar, curate, stipendiary, or lecturer, or taken upon them to preach in any unlawful assembly, conventicle, or meeting, under co- lour or pretence of any exercise of religion contrary to law, until they had taken the said oath *. * The far greater number of Nonconforming clergy refused to take the oath. " Even if they could have borne the solemn assertion of the "principles of passive obedience, in all possible cases, their scrupulous 13 These oppressive laws against Dissent, in some measure Revolution practically set aside by temporary dispensations from the °' '^^^' Crown, continued in force until the Revolution of 1688; after which tlie penalties affecting those who differed from the Church of England were greatly relaxed by the Tole- ration Act. Comprehension was, after as well as before the Tolei'ation Other ai- Act, considered as not only practicable but desirable, and comprehend another attempt was now made to effect it. The early Puri- s'on of the , Presbvtcri • tans, who afterwards bore the name of Presbyterians, had ans. originally desired to be included within the pale of the Church. They approved of an Establishment. They wished only to purify it of vices which arose from the model upon which the Church of England was formed. Under the in- fluence of the Scotch Presbyterians, they for a time ex- tended their objections to the episcopal establishment, and strove for classes, synods, and assemblies. Of these we hear little or nothing on the Restoration ; and the body of Pres- byterians only sought admission within the Church by ob- taining concessions of their original objections to the liturgy and some of the ceremonies of the Church *. A gradual but striking progress in moderation and liberality of sentiment also took place among them during the years intervening between the Restoration and the Toleration Act. It shows itself in those enlightened and liberal views which gradu- ally formed the distinctive feature of the Presbyterian body of Nonconformists, as opposed to the doctrinal severity which now began and — notwithstanding their professed adherence to their original principles — subsequently cha- racterized the Independent Dissenters. On the accession of William the Dissenters presented Bin sup- " consciences revolted from a pledge to endeavour no kind of alteration " in Church and State ; an engagement, in its extended sense, irreconcile- '• able with their own principles of religion and with the civil duties of " Englishmen. Yet to quit the towns where they had long been con- " nected, and where alone they had friends and disciples, was an exclu- " sion from the ordinary means of subsistence." — Hallam, Const. Hist. vol. ii. p. 474. • Hallam, vol. ii. p. 432. 14 to him an address suggesting the widest basis for tolera- tion or comprehension, and praying that " the rule of Christianity might be the rule of Conformity." In 1689 a Bill was introduced for the purpose of admitting Pres- byterian ministers to the same privileges as those en- joyed by the more regularly ordained ministers, and to' permit them to use or reject certain ceremonies. It was chiefly supported by Dr. Tillotson. The Commons, how- ever, did not allow it to proceed through the house. They presented an address to the Crown, praying that a convoca- tion mio;ht be advised with in ecclesiastical matters. The address was acceded to, and at the same time a Commission- of divines was appointed to revise the liturgy. When the Convocation met, the lower house chose Dr. Jane, a deter- mined opponent of the Presbyterians, prolocutor, and pro- posed as an amendment to the address to the Crown, " That, instead of Protestant religion, they would rather " say Protestant churches ; because, being the representa- " tives of a formed established church, they do not think " proper to mention the word religion, any further than " it is the religion of some established church*." Opposed by these feelings, the design of comprehension failed, and the revised liturgy was never submitted to the Convocation f. " I was one of those," says Calamy, an eminent Presbyte- rian minister, " that was very well disposed towards falling " in with the Establishment, could his (Dr. Tillotson's) " scheme have taken effect." No public attempt was subsequently made for this pur- pose, either by those connected with the Church, or by the • A far better feeling has in later days been exhibited by prelates of the Established Church. " With respect to difference of opinion on reli- " gious subjects, the basis of religion is the Bible, and those are mo3f " orthodox Christians who adhere the most strictly to the doctrines laid' " down in that sacred volume. To explain it is the duty of all mankind, " and its interpretation is confined to no particular sect. To use coercion '* in compelling uniformity, is not only impolitic, but, while man is con- " stituted as man, it will be impracticable." — Hansard's Debates, May 21, 1811. Speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury. t Hallam, vol. iii. p. 236. Parliamentary Hist. vol. v. pp. 212, 217. 15 Presbyterians themselves. Doctrinal differences arose, which sion not would have made it necessary, in any such union, that the mad^T'"* Church should have relaxed on other points besides those originally discussed *; and though in the first half of the 18th century there was a latitudinarian party in the Church, be- tween whom and the Presbyterian ministers there was great community of feeling, encouraged by the influence of George the Second's queen, no sufficient prospect of success manifested itself in favour of any such enlarged scheme of church discipline and doctrine, as a comprehension of the Presbyterian body would then have implied. To these proceedings and efforts towards comprehen- The Inde- sion, the Independents were not parties. Both in discipline panterto"" and doctrine they were opposed to the Church; and, from ''^e at- the very principle of their church govei'nment, were never ^""^^ *' considered in any measure of comprehension. Though relief to Nonconformists was afforded by the To- Limited be- leration Act, its benefits were but meagre and contracted, xderalbn^ The Act required those who derived any benefit from it, to ^<='' subscribe thirty-five and part of the twentieth Articles of the Church of England. This restriction was offensive to the greater number of Dissenters, especially to those of the Presbyterian party. Baxter, who may be considered their leader, consented to subscribe, and did so, conditionally; but he gave his own interpretation of the Articles, and, in so doing, attached a sense to them which was no doubt at variance witii their strict meaning ; adding to his sub- scription, " If I have hit upon the true meaning, I subscribe my assent ; and I thank my God that this National Church • " The motives of Dissent were already somewhat changed, and came "to turn less on the petty scruples of the elder Puritans than on a dislike " to all subscriptions of faith, and compulsory uniformity. The Dissenting " ministers, accustomed to independence, and finding not unfrequently " in the contributions of their disciples a better maintenance than Court " favour and private patronage have left for diligence and piety in the " Establishment, do not seem to have mucli regretted the fate of this (Dr. " Tillotson's) measure. None of their friends, in the most favourable " times, have ever made an attempt to renew it." — Hallanis Const. Hist. vol. iii. p. 237. hath doctrine so sound." The great body of Nonconformists did not subscribe. Mr. Fox, a student of the Dissenting mi- nistry, relating an interview he had with Dr. Calamy*, states, " The chief good he did me was in making me easy " about subscribing the Articles. He had been told of the " objections and the difficulty I lay under ; upon which he " took the first opportunity, when I was alone with him, " to tell me, that I need not trouble myself on that head, " for if ' I could keep myself to myself ', (that was his ex- " pression;) there was no occasion of subscribing them at " all : none would ever suspect an omission in such a case " as this, or think of examining about it. He said it was " his own case; he had never taken them. " Where subscription could not be avoided, it was no doubt often evasive. Since its necessity has passed away, the mo- rality of such conduct has been severely censured. Evasion cannot be justified; but the expectations of the legislature were immoral. By offensive enactments, opinions were sought to be controlled, and expressions extorted, which must, if made, have been either false or evasive. If morals were corrupt, it arose from the corruption of the Govern- ment; and to it alone, censure must be confined. Tlie prac- tice of occasional conformity arose out of this vicious state of the law. Many certainly practised it in sincerity and upon principle. They communicated occasionally with the Church, to show their love of peace and charity, their desire for union, and their wish to avoid what Avas considered as "the sin of schism." But with others it was no doubt re- sorted to from worldly motives, and was excused on no better grounds than coercive subscription. High authori- ties in the Church did not scruple to encourage the prac- tice. " So far," said Dr. Tennison, Archbishop of Canter- bury, "from thinking it" (occasional conformity) "deserv- " ing of the title of vile hypocrisy, it is the duty of all mo- " derate Dissenters, upon their own principles, to do itf." A principle of casuistry which Bishop Morley carried much * Journey in the West of England. f Calamy's Life, vol. ii. p. 26. 17 further, wlien lie pressed Mr. Sprint, an ejected minister, "not to pliilosophize about the words assent or consent ; " and that if he would make the declaration prescribed in " the Act of Uniformity, and then say he meant no more " than that he would read the Common Prayer, he would " admit him to a livino;*." Under the protection of the Toleration Act many chapels Piesbyteri- were established, affording instruction to numerous congre- Xn".'" gations, styling themselves Presbyterians. They were, how- ever, perfectly independent of each other, except perhaps in Lancashire, where a species of Presbyterian union was long maintained ; and in a few other districts, where periodical meetings of ministers to a certain extent pre- served union and cooperation. Their chapels and places of worship were for a considei'able time supported by per- sons of wealth and note, — by those who had afforded shel- ter and relief to the proscribed ministry during the perse- cution carried on under the Acts of Uniformity. The decided formation by the Presbyterians of any ge- No scheme neral system of church ofovernment of their own, would have ""^ '^''"'"'^'^ •' " ' government prevented all agreement with those whom they were anxious formed. to conciliate. Even after their union with the Church was become almost impossible, there appears to have been great unwillingness to perpetuate, by ordination, a Dissenting ministry. Dr. Bates refused to ordain Calamyf, and at the same time spoke of his approval of Bishop Usher's scheme, of the justifiableness of a separation from the Established Church, of the necessity of having ministers ordained, and of the respect due to those who entered the ministry under the discouraging circumstances of the times. Mr. Howe, another Presbyterian minister, also objected ; and, after several excuses, declined, professedly upon ac- count of its publicity. When the hopelessness of all junc- tion with the Church increased, those who acted as mini- sters were persons whose education had been carried on in private seminaries or at foreign universities. The old Non- • Calamy's Account, 341. f Calamy's Lift', vol. i. p. 747. C the terians conforming ministers, who had nearly all been educated in the English universities, in the course of time passed away, and their successors, dissenting totally from the Church, felt little sympathy towards it, though always, even to the present day, entertaining feelings on the subject necessarily less opposed to an Establishment than those by which the Independents were actuated. The two great bodies of Dis- senters, thus situated, for a short period endeavoured to form with the Baptists one general Nonconfoi'mist body. Doctrinal The distinguishing doctrinal opinion of the English Pres- opinions of bytgrjans at, and for some time after, the Revolution, seems Presby- •' ' to have been a modified Arminianism, frequently called Baxterianism, occupying a middle station between strict Calvinism and Arminianism. It admitted that Christ died for some especially, and for all generally — all possessing the means of salvation*. Between Baxterians and Calvinists the principal Nonconformists may be considered to have been divided. The profession of the milder doctrine led to doctrinal relaxation, and it was accompanied by the widest liberality towards every other sect. This feeling and its consequences ultimately established the great practical distinction be- tween the Presbyterians and the Independents, — the re- jection generally by the former of creeds and subscriptions, and the practice of admitting communicants to the Lord's Table, without any of those inquiries, examinations and con- fessions on which others insisted. The Presbyterians op- posed all interference with the liberty of conscience, every inquisitorial process, and all compilations of creeds. It was during the prevalence of these tolerant principles, and before any very decided manifestations of a disposition towards greater advances in doctrinal relaxation, that the Increased Liberality. " Some have I chosen of pecuHar grace, " Elect above the vest ; so is my will. " The rest shall hear me call and oft be warned " Their sinful state, and to appease betimes " The incensed Deity, while offer 'd grace " Invites; . . . . " Paradise Lost, Book III, 19 greater number of their chapels were tbuiided. The first steps undoubtedly were the determined resistance of all impositions on doctrinal subjects, and the studious recourse to Scriptural expressions, in place of dogmatic expositions. During the time that the Nonconformists acted toge- Joint opera ther the fund or association now called " The Presbyterian 'tI'"" "'."'^ J Uisseiiting Fund" was formed. The present name was a subsequent body. adoption. At first the society was a general union of Non- an'^Fund"" conformists, for the support of their ministers. This co- operation lasted about three years only. The Independents Separation. then withdrew, and laid the foundation of the existing distinct body, called the Independent or Congregational Board. It has always been a fundamental principle of the Presbyterian Fund not to require any confession or expla- nation of faith as a qualification for relief. The Congreoa- tional Board, by its standing orders, requires satisfaction to be given that the person applying is sound in the faith on the doctrine of the Trinity and on other matters of belief. A joint lecture at Pinners' Hall was, whilst the union Pinners' lasted, established. Some differences occurring, a perma- ture. nent removal of them was attempted. " Heads of Agree- ment" were in 1691 apparently assented to as the means of peace between the contending parties; "but their doctrinal " differences remained, and were warmly agitated, both in " the pulpits and in conversation*." The contest between the leading bodies every year increased. Several papers were drawn up with a view to effect an accommodation, which only occasioned fresh debates. " One party suspected " their brethren of verging towards Arminianism, or even " Socinianism ; and the other were very tender of any- " thing that might be capable of giving encouragement to " Antinomianismf." * Calamy's Life, (Second Edition,) vol. i. pp.323, 337. f Tlie Antinomians were never a numerous body. In 1G43, the As- sembly of Divines condemned several writings which appeared to them Antinomian ; and the Pai-liament of 1648 enacted, that any one convicted of maintaining that the moral law of the Ten Commandments is no rule for Christians, or that a believer need not repent or pray for pardon of sin, c2 20 A posthumous publication of some sermons by Dr. Crisp, under the title of " Christ alone Exalted," with the names of several ministers affixed, testifying its genuineness, gave rise to these contests. Dr. Daniel Dr. Williams, an eminent Presbyterian minister, the Williams, founder of the Library in Red Cross Street, London, and of the Charities connected with it, was the subject of vio- lent attack. The Independents made several charges, not confined to heresy, but extending to the impeachment of his personal character. These attacks, after inquiry, so far from injuring him, turned out much to his credit. His name, however, was left out in the Pinners' Hall Lecture, and another Lecture was in consequence established. These disputes widened the distinctions between the two parties, and the more violent became strict in their inquiries re- specting the doctrines of their members; while the more tolerant Presbyterians adhered to the principle of com- prehensive and open communion. Occasion of I^ was obvious to what the result of the more latitu- Saiters'Hall diuariau proceedings of the Presbyterians would lead; that as freedom of opinion was avowed and encouraged, its consequences would be developed in diversities of re- sult on the great topics of doctrinal controversy. Even heresy on the doctrine of the Trinity was prevalent, and in some instances had been openly avowed. Emlyn had been prosecuted in Ireland in 1 702 for asserting Arian opinions, and the greater part, if not the whole, of his Dissenting brethren there seem to have taken part against him. In should publicly retract, or be imprisoned until he should find sureties that be would no more maintain the same. In the Panseheia, &c., by Alex- ander Ross, 1G83, "The Antinomians are said to be so called from their " rejecting the Law, which, they say, is of no use at all under the Go- " spel, neither in regard to direction or correction, and therefore ought " not to be read or taught in the Chm*ch, They say, good works do " neither fiu'ther, nor evil works binder, salvation; that the child of God " could no moi'e sin than Christ could, and therefore that it is sin in him " to ask pardon for sin." Under this scheme repentance was inmeces- sary. It was an Antinomian controversy which separated the Indepen- dents and Presbyterians at the beginning of the 17th centuiy. See Calamy's Life, (Second Edition,) vol. i. pp. 351, 375. 21 his account of the proceedings, pubhshed before the qiies- tioi) was brought to issue in England, in 1719, he states with dissatisfaction the existence of any difference of opi- nion upon it in England, where he appears to have ex- pected a general and decided acknowledgement of the broad principle of Protestant Dissent. He contends for the ne- cessary extension of that principle to the doctrine of the Trinity, and observes on the inconsistency of many of the English Dissenters, between the time of his prosecution and the time at which he wrote (1719); now avowing in addresses and in their writings sentiments which went the whole length for which he contended, and at another time endeavouring to stop short at the free discussion of parti- cular doctrhies. " So that," he observes of the Dissent- ing body, " they go backward and forward as occasion " requires ; or else we must say, — which is the true state of " things sometimes, and perhaps now, — that ihcy have iwo " sorls of men ; the one for liberty and forbearance, and " when that is most useful to them and acceptable to others, " these men appear, and it goes for the voice and declaration " of the Dissenters in general ; but when they have any " particular provocation, though only from the liberty some " of their brethren take of dissenting from them, then the " othcr^ narrow-spirited part, cry down liberty, and raise a " hatred and persecution, if they can, of such Dissenters*." Passing over a little perversity and want of candour in this mode of describing the state of feeling among the Dis- senters, Emlyn's testimony fully shows that they were alive to all the bearings of the question, though it is ma- nifest in how balancing a state it had, since the end of the previous century, rested between the two predominant par- ties in the general body of ministers, who then met, as they do now, in one common assembly. The numbers on each side were so nearly the same, that it was extremely natural that discordant decisions should occasionally be made. At length, however, the point came fairly to issue, and the question was broadly and openly stated ; Was the liberty of * Eml\ 11, Appendix to the Narrative, &c., p. 60. 22 inquiry to be limited? was there any point at which dis- cipline should interfere to restrain it? To determine this great question, to bring the Nonconformist body to the test, on the extent to which they would practically carry the principle of religious liberty, the ministers holding conflict- ing opinions, who had seen all that had passed around them, and must have marked the existing state of things, as the result of the system which the Presbyterians had generally supported since the close of the previous century, met at Salters' Hall in the year 1719. Antitrinitarian writings were then very numerous; per- haps at no period was the Unitarian controversy so actively carried on in England, as between 1 690 and 1720. The ex- citement respecting the controverted doctrine was general both among Churchmen and Dissenters; but the case which raised the greatest interest among the Presbyterians was that of Mr. Peirce of Exeter, who questioned the doc- trine of the Trinity. References were made to the mini- sters in London, who, at the meeting held at Salters' Hall, engaged in the full consideration of the affair. There were many who were for placing limits to the range of inquiry, by imposing subscription on certain points deemed essentials of religion. But the chief question debated was, Whether those who presented themselves for ordination should subscribe their belief in the doctrine of the Tri- nity? The majority, composed mainly of Presbyterians, decided against any subscription. They had separated from the EstabHshment for conscience sake : for conscience, their ancestors and some of themselves had set the law and government at defiance ; and should they surrender this liberty, which they had so dearly purchased, to men who were only their associates in toil and suffering ? The ma- jority was seventy-three in number, the minority being sixty- nine. There can be no doubt that many, if not all, of the majority sincerely believed in the doctrine questioned. Those who doubted upon the subject refused to sacrifice the power of inquiry ; and those who received the doctrine presumed not to strengtiien the force of that testimony which they re- 23 garded as sufficient. Tliey left the truth to its Scriptural evidence, content that by that test it should be tried.* This controversy was far from being confined to the Dis- senters, or from being newly excited. Maresius, in his ''^ Hydra Socinianismi" had, about the middle of the 17th century, complained of the general prevalence of Arian sentiments in England. In 1690, Dr. Bury, Rector of Exeter College, Oxford, published a work, entitled " The Naked Truth," which was condemned by a convocation of the University to be burnt for its Antitrinitarian doc- trines, and he himself was deprived of his office by the Visitor of his College. He had many partisans, and the latitudinarian divines of Holland declared in his favour. Dr. Sherlock was attacked in 1693, and was accused by South of holding tritheistic opinions. Their controversy was silenced by the direct interference of the Crown. The writings of Whiston followed, and the persecution of him excited pity : he was ruined by his theological attainments. * " You cannot be ignorant that we never professed a religious ad- " herence to Calvin, or any other uninspired writer whatever. You know " in the whole progress of the controversy which has lain between you " and us, we have always declared ihattvc acknowledge no other rule hut " the Holy Scriptures ; and, let who will vouch for a thing, their autho- " rity, without reason or Scripture, is of no consequence in order to dc- " cide any controversy in religion. We are not, indeed, displeased " when we can produce the judgement of eminent and extraordinary per- " sons as concurring with our own. Every one is glad when, by such a *' method, he can clear himself from all suspicion of an aiiccted singu- " larity ; and particularly Calvin's eminent services in the Church of God " will always render his name precious to us. We cannot but value him " for the truth which God used him as a means of bringing to light; but " will that warrant our taking things upon trust from him without cx- " amination? No, surely. We esteem him as an excellent person, but " yet a fallible one; and never pretend to undertake the defence of any- " thing merely because he said or did it. We follow him as far as we " perceive he followed Christ, and we leave him where we think he left " that great pattern." — (T/ie Dissenters' Reasons for not writing on he- half of Persecution. A Letter to Dr. Snape, by James Peirce. Lon- don, 1718. p. 29.) " Certainly men have been too much led by an " implicit faith among all parties of Christians; and 't is high time now to " discard all uncertain and fallible authorities, and to depend upon plain 24 His friend Emlyn had previously been persecuted for si- milar publications. Dr. Clarke, in 1712, published his " Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity," which was brought under the notice of Convocation. His submission was equivocal, but was prudently accepted. The works pub- lished upon the subject by Churchmen were numerous, and public attention was called to the prevalent disputes in the strongest possible manner. None could be ignorant of what was passing. Dr. Bury held a high and prominent place in the chief English University, and his deprivation engaged the notice of foreign divines. Before the begin- ning of the 18th century the currency of Arian sentiments in England was universally known . The writings of Clarke were brought before the highest ecclesiastical tribunal, and attracted general attention. The notice of the legislature was directed to the disputed doctrines in 1698, and again, on a Bill brought into the House of Lords, in 1719, by Lord Willoughby de Broke, Dean of Lincoln, to extend " reason and Scripture. I am glad when I see that mean and servile " temper gives way to a more noble and generous way of thinking, and " men seek to govern their faith and pi-actice not by the great names of " men, churches, convocations, or assemblies, but by the only rule — the " WORD OF God. This is what we have ahvays professed." — {Ibid. p. 29.) " I now refer to what we declared in our last Address to the King. " Give me leave to refresh your memory by setting down the words I " refer to in that ^Iddress of the Dissenters. ' Our principles are, as we " ' hope, the most friendly to mankind, amounting to no more than those ^^ ' of a general toleration to all peaceable subjects, universal love and •' ' charity for all Chi-istians, and to act always, in matters of religion, as " ' God shall give us light in his ivill about them.' " — (Ibid. pp. 32, 33.) " But any such power as this is disclaimed and abhon-ed by the Dis- " senters. They pretend not to impose upon the belief or practice of any ; " they are against any other compulsion but that of reason and argument ; " they pretend not to extend tlieir discipline to any but those of their own " communion ; they think they have no warrant for any proceedings with " those of their own communion besides brotherly admonitions, and re- " jecting them from their communion in case of their denying the fun- " damental doctrines of Christianity ; such as, that Jesus is the Christ, " the Son of God, the Resurrection, &c. ; or in case of plain immorality " and wickedness." — (Reflections 7ipo?i Dean Sherlock's Vindication of the Corporation and Test Jets : By James Peirce. London, 1718.) 25 the penalties of an Act passed in 1698. The question debated at Salters' Hall was on the extension of the prin- ciple of free inquiry to a prevalent doctrine. The press for thirty years previousl}' had teemed with publications respecting it, and the determination that was made did not relate to a subject suddenly urged, or then for the first time considered. About and soon after this time a great declension was Decline taking place among all Dissenting congregations. Tillot- ^entlneCoii- son, and other prelates, by their liberal conduct, softened gicgations. the asperity of the opposition to the Church. The old Non- conforming clergy rapidly diminished by death, and their congregations dispersed. The ejected ministers had from personal attachment been followed in their secession by numerous families, who were not decidedly opposed to the Establishment, and, being averse to perpetuating schism, returned to the Church when all hope of comprehension or reform was passed, and when the Church itself had be- come more liberal. In the outset the Nonconformists numbered in their Nobiiity,&c. ranks the heads of many noble and distinguished families, e!^i'y^o,f_ whom various attractions drew, in the succeeding genera- conformists, tion, back to the Establishment. The exclusion from office on account of the Test Acts, moreover, gave temporal advan- tages to conformity not disregarded ; while the tolerance of the law destroyed many of the merits of religious opposition. At the end of the reign of Queen Anne, Lord Somers, five of the bishops, and many lay lords, protested against the Schism Act, urging the advantages of moderation. They stated, that since the Act of Toleration, greater num- bers had been brought over to the Church than for many years previously, so that, at that time, few persons of consi- deration were in connexion with the Dissenters. On the Presbyterians chiefly the weight of these secessions fell ; and their relaxations on doctrinal matters subsequently alst) caused secessions to the more severe sects. The rural con- gregations of the Presbyterians more particularly suffered ; 26 while in the larger towns and cities they have generally maintained large and highly respectable congregations. The Presbyterians, in common with the Independents and the Baptists, though to a greater extent, materially changed many of the features of their body. The present identity of any of them chiefly consists in their congrega- tional succession. Of most of the old Presbyterian cha- pels the series of ministers has continued unbroken. There has been no suspension of divine service and no transfer of property to other sects. As vacancies occurred among the trustees, their places have been supplied in the ordinary manner, without departing from the observance of those forms which are essential to such appointments. In the elections of ministers the same regularity has been observed. The present trustees are frequently descendants and rela- tives of their predecessors, following them in a regular order of appointment. The ministers, too, of the congregations can, many of them, prove their descent from the ancient Presbyterian ministers, and have followed also in a re- gular course of election. So that two characteristics of identity of the Presbyterian body exist ; and another is exhibited in tracing, in the registers of the chapels, the names of the most eminent Presbyterian families among the members of the existing congregations. In all the great northern towns this has been peculiarly the case. The succession of ministers and trustees has been constant, and without interruption ; the services of the chapels have not been suspended ; the congregations and the trustees have rarely been in collision ; the ministers appointed have been bred up at the Presbyterian academies ; and the re- presentation of each class has the completeness of heredi- tary descent as well as of corporate succession. Meantime a continued change in the doctrinal opinions of the Presbytei'ians was always going on. While the In- dependents adhered firmly to Calvinism, the Presbyterians, far from binding themselves down to any inflexible creed, pursued their theological investigations, in the full spirit of 27 that liberty of in(iuiry which they upheld as an active prin- ciple. Many of their most eminent ministers early en- tertained Arian sentiments. Peirce, whose case has been mentioned, was not singular in his views. Dr. Benson, a most able writer, first appointed to a charge through the interest of Calamy, and afterwards, in 1729, a preacher in Southwark, also controverted the Church doctrine of the Trinity. He enjoyed the friendship of Bishops Butler, Hoadly, and Conybeare, though his Antitrinitarian sen- timents were well known. Dr. Lardner preached as early as 1 723 ; and the merits of his labours, the theological student, whether in the Church or dissenting from it,willingly admits. He, too, was an Antitrinitarian. Of such men as Dr. Lard- ner or Dr. John Taylor (whose first published writing dates as far back as 1724,) we need hardly say, that it little affects their memories, or impeaches the value of the testimony which even the dignitaries of the Church and divines of all classes have been eager to bear in their favour, that their title to the name of Christians is disputed by learned advo- cates, paid and instructed by brother Dissenters, on whose name and cause they shed the brightest lustre. Chandler flourished at the same time. Towgood, Fleming, Cappe, Kippis, Price, Enfield and Rees have only followed in the same course. The extension of Lady Hewley's bounty to Mr. Cappe after his appointment at York has been made the ground of the first charge against her trustees, as a gross violation of her presumed intent. And ^/et this is exactly a case which powerfully illustrates the progress of change in the Presbyterian congregations ; for Lady Hewley was a hearer of Mr. Hotham, and specially recommended his chapel for her trustees' bounty ; and this very Mr. Hotham, who is associated with her in her supposed orthodoxy, so instructed his congregation, that they chose Mr. Cappe, an Arian, as his immediate successor; that successor being himself the son and pupil of a well-known Presbyterian minister in the neighbourhood. The body to which these and other distinguished men of General the last century belonged required no confession offaith, and these Pres- byterians. 28 maintained none as the symbol of congregational union. As a religious denomination they professed no restricted creed ; and to seek for any in their endowments, in order to dis- cover the intent of the founders, is an utter misunderstand- ing of their characteristic views and principles. That they knew and saw the consequences of the liberty they asked for themselves and permitted to others, is manifest; and, therefore, what they did and omitted to do was advised and predetermined. Perfectly free to inquire, they resorted to every source of instruction, diligently and calmly pursu- ing their researches. Their learning and the piety of their lives commended their opinions to their congregations, who received them with the reliance their own strength created, and with that assurance of their correctness which a per- sonal knowledge of their teachers encouraged. Varying from the doctrines their predecessors professed, they simply acted upon the principle on which those under whom they were brought up invariably insisted ; and they did not hesi- tate to change the doctrines of their belief, as evidence re- quiring it arose. At, and for some time after, the Revolution, the Presbyte- rians generally adopted the modified doctrine called Bax- terianism. An aversion to dogmatic symbols, a preference for Scriptural expressions, and an avoidance of discussions and of preaching on doctrinal points next appear. Early in the eighteenth century, however, Arian sentiments noto- riously appeared among them. The majority of the Presby- terian ministers refused to check the change. From Arian - ism the step to proper Unitarianism was not distant. Yet, to point out the exact time when any of the old doctrines were neglected and Arian doctrines cultivated, when Arianism decayed and Unitarianism became common, is not possible. The changes have been gradual. In many congregations there were, at the same period, those who professed Trini- tarian, Arian, and Unitarian sentiments. Their intercourse and connexion continued ; they did not forget their com- mon origin, and no offence was occasioned by disagreements respecting controverted questions. They had seen and en- Ireland. deavoiired to avoid the evil consequences to society, the little aid to truth, arising out of an angry intolerant spirit of dictation. To check an evil so opposed to religious feelings, that course was adopted which, tolerating the opinions of all, bound none to obedience to any, but left each man to pur- sue his own inquiries, and to adhere to those doctrines which he could conscientiously approve. By promoting these ends, unanimity upon what they held to be the greater points of religion appeared to them most likely to become general. To make Christianity comprehensive in its design, to open its benefits to all, was the distinguishing principle of their conduct; strongly contrasting with the narrow character and hopelessness of the doctrine of Election. A similar course of events has occurred in the Presbyterian Geneva. Churches of Geneva, and in some of those of Ireland. The history of the former, and their adoption of Unitarian opi- nions, are well known. A refusal to subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity led, in Ireland, to the establishment of the Presbytery of Antrim, and the Remonstrant Synod of Ul- ster*. The causes of their separation from the other body of Presbyterians arose contemporaneously with those which created the discussion in Salters' Hali f. In Ireland no change has been made in discipline. The Remonstrant Synod of Ulster is chiefly composed of those called Unita- rians; yet the title of Presbyterian, and the ordinary Presby- terian discipline is preserved by it. By Government it has been admitted to all the privileges of the other Presbyte- rians, and allowed to have a separate page of account in the books of the Treasury ; and, within a few years, it has been erected into an independent ecclesiastical body. The Presbyterian name has not been employed from a desire to * Mr. Haliday, a Presbyterian minister, who successfully resisted an attempt in the Synod of Ulster to impose upon him subscription to the Westminster Confession, states in an able pamphlet, in 1724, against sub- scription, that he was licensed in Holland in 170G, and ordained at Ge- neva in 1708; " «< ivhich place," says he, " I chose to be ordained be- cause the terms of church coinmunioii there are not narrowed by any hianan impositioiis." Till the Presbyterians obtained liberty at home, it is pro- bable Mr. Haliday 's case was not singular. •)• Calainv's Li.*"e, vol. ii. so veil what is called non-orthodoxy, but from its being as perfectly designative of the new body as of that from which it separated. The majority of the Independents who now generally claim to be the representatives of the ancient class of that name, have little title to be so considered. Many, in con- sequence of the exciting preaching of Whitfield, Wesley, and their followers, left the Church and those congregations of Old Dissenters whose opinions had become moderate, preferring what they regarded as the awakening influence of the new doctrines to the more calm and sober reasoning of their own teachers. These formed the great body of the Me- thodists, either in the Arminian section under Wesley, or in the Calvinistic under Whitfield. Other congregations at the same time and since arose, not connected with the other two bodies, but who put themselves under the guidance of mini- sters chosen by themselves. The property of all these associa- tions was conveyed to trustees, and the constitution of each was distinctly defined in the trust deeds. Thus congrega- tional in their form, they assumed the title of Independents, though having no connexion with the successors of those who bore the same denomination in the time of the Com- monwealth. They, however, form a numerous and powerful body, extending now over the whole country. To what ex- tent their principles are liberal and their toleration genuine, not their civil, but their ecclesiastical, history will exhibit. Every stage of the history of the English Presbyterians marks a distinijuishinff difference between them and the In- dependents. Yet in the late case before the Court of Chan- cery regarding Lady Hewley's Charity, it was contended, that though Lady Hewley was a Presbyterian, — one of the body arising out of the Act of Uniformity, and surrounded by the ministry of that class who had long been separated from the Independents, — still the modern Independents, in truth, represented the Presbyterian body. An Inde- pendent minister, whose personal and theological charac- ter all agree to estimate as of unquestioned worth and excel- lence, somewhat rashly went out of his way, to swear to the following hypothesis : 31 "That, in his fullest conviction and belief, the term opinion gi- " ' Presbyterian ' is, in no fair sense, applicable to the de- Y!" '" ^,^'^y . . , . 'II Hewley s " nomination of English Dissenters usually designated by it ; Case by an " but that it is, in a fair, just, and honourable sense, and in dent'^^"' " accordance with its proper signification, capable of being " applied to the generality of English Congregationalists. " First, because of the exercise of discretion by the ministers " and other officers, explicitly or implicitly, in the name " and on the behalfof the church, that is, the body ofcom- " municants, in admitting to, and excluding from, the sa- " crament of the Lord's Supper, while such discretionary " right is universally disowned by Unitarian ministers and " congregations, among whom unrestrained access to the " communion of the Lord's Supper is allowed to any persons " whatsoever. Secondly, because the right and authority to " ordain individuals to be the ministers or pastors of churches " (that is, voluntary societies, or societies who are adjudged " as members or communicants qualified to be partakers of " the sacrament of the Lord's Supper,) belongs to the pas- " tors or elders (presbyters) ; that the Unitarian ministers " and congregations, notwithstanding that on some occa- " sions they take the style of Presbyterians, do universally " disown and reject every such exercise of authority or right, " or any proper ordination by presbyters of individuals to " the pastoral office. Hence examinant infers that Lady " Hewley would have regarded the English Congregation- " alists of the present time as the very class of persons for " whom she intended her beneficent foundation; and that, if " it could have entered her mind as a thing to be imagined, " that any class of persons, whose system of religious doc- " trine resembled that of the Unitarians, would at any time " appropriate any part of her bounties to themselves, or to " others of the same religious belief, she would have shrunk " from the idea with the greatest repugnance, and would " have employed all the precautions that legal muniments " could affiard, to prevent any such appropriations." Though we thus in some measure anticipate the obser- Observr.- vations which will arise on Lady Hewley's case, it may *'"." *'.""''"* •' J ' J opinion. be as well at once to compare this statement with actual 32 facts. It wholly overlooks what we consider the promi- nent distinction which separated the two bodies. The In- dependents adhere ostensibly to similar views as to disci- pline, and the propriety of subscriptions and confessions, now as in Lady Hewley's day, and are therefore, on their part, no nearer now to the early Presbyterian standard than formerly. It will be well also to note a strange conclu- sion which the above statement contains. * Presbyterian,' it is said, as a term, is now " capable of being applied to * Congregationalists,' " on account of the neglect of strict church discipline by the former, and its maintenance in their peculiar form by the latter: — hence Lady Hewley would have regarded the English Congregationalists as the very class of persons for whom she intended her bounty, and would have objected to the doctrine of the Unitarians ; for it is not pretended by the witness, that if the Presbyteiians had adhered to their early doctrines they would not have been the proper parties to benefit by the charity. Now doctrine and discipline are two very distinct matters ; and to infer doctrine from discipline seems evidence of strange confusion of thought. What, however, was the existing state of Pres- byterian discipline in Lady Hewley's time? and how far was any part essential, — or, at any rate, essential in a Presby- terian point of view? It was congregatioiial ; each church (a term very accurately defined by the witness,) being, in the etymological sense of the word, 'independent.' But, then, that very principle of independence allowed change both of discipline and of doctrine. If exclusion from the Lord's Table ever was a distinguishing characteristic of one body of Dissenters rather than another, it certainly was not of the English Presbyterians. The question is one merely of discipline, always admitted to belong to every church, and subject to every possible alteration, without interfering with questions of doctrine. The Presbyterians, when the schemes for comprehension were pending, were first ready to accede to x\rchbishop Usher's model, and subsequently to the de- sign of Dr.Tillotson; yetboth these schemes strongly differed fromthechurch government then existingamongthemselves. Can it be said, then, that a variation of discipline in such a 33 body, — which showed so Httle regard for it, that, though call- ing themselves, from the Act of Uniformity, Presbyterians, they had scarcely one of the old peculiar Presbyterian forms among them, — is now to be the ground of incapacity ; that in such petty details you are to look for the distinguishing cha- racteristics of the body: that in the strictness of exclusion or the laxity of admission to the Sacrament, we are to find distinctive features to determine who were or who were not the persons calling themselves Presbyterians ? The name by which they called themselves, and in which they founded their endowments, had a secondary sense then, as it now has, when compared with the original term Presbyterian ; and it is idle to seek, in the forms or modes of any aera, the characteristics of a body which, whatever was its name, admitted, in principle and practice, freedom of thought and action. Those who, in 1719, declared against all subsciip- tion, acted on no new principle. They practically pursued the principle of their association ; and their acts then are as much evidence of the governing opinions among their body for twenty years before, as they are of the opinions held at that day. Looking at the circumstances under which the Presbyterian churches were established, it is impossible, from so vague a system, to infer a general rule. Even sup- posing it possible to do so, still such rules would be subject to such changes as congregations might approve. If it ap- peared to them to be plainly expedient, and consistent with Scripture doctrine and their religious principles, to adopt open communion, can it be said that those whose principles undoubtedly admitted of a variation even of the doctrines they professed, — who did not attempt permanently to define them, — are to be censured for an alteration of discipline, assuming such alteration to have been made ; or that these men meant to impose upon their successors uniformity in such matters ? It would be equally unimportant, as proof for or against Presbyte- the identity of sects entortaining the opinions of the Presby- "^l^ "^ '" .■ n r J nations. terians, to show that ordination by presbyters is or is not now practised. The author of the above deposition has D brought the objection forward, and denied altogether the existence of the practice. The Presbyterian ministers or- dained in the northern counties, even so late as the begin- ning of this century, received imposition of hands. In the Presbyterian academies it is still the practice, vi^hen a student has completed his course of academical instruction, and proposes to join the ministry, to receive from an elder mi- nister a serious and solemn exhortation on the course he has undertaken to pursue. And a ceremony equivalent in many respects to ordination, but now more often called settling, is still frequent. Three recent published instances of such ceremonies, in three prominent Presbyterian sta- tions, are now before us. The proceedings on the settle- ment of Mr. Tagart at Norwich form one of these. Mr. Ta- gart was called to the ministry of the Octagon Chapel at Norwich; and was admitted, after a preliminary prayer by a minister, a charge by an elder of the congregation, a charge from a second minister, and the delivery of a sermon. The value the Presbyterians attach to the ceremony may not be great ; and it has always been of less importance to them than to the Independents, because the former do not, like the latter, make it a contract, a declaration by the minister of his faith, a pledge as to the doctrines he is chosen to preach. To produce serious impressions, and fix upon the minds of those engaged strong feelings of reciprocal duties, is the chief ob- ject; and, at an earlier period, it was scarcely more. The practice, at any rate, can only be said to have partially fallen into disuse. Numerous are the Presbyterian ministers who have received their calls accompanied with these forms; and they, at least, ai-e representatives of their predecessors, if these foi'ms are essential to make them so. The error of congregations, if the hypothesis sworn to — that formal cha- racteristics are essentials — is correct, lies in choosing mini- sters who have not been admitted to their charges with certain solemnities — not in doctrinal deviation. Again, it is asserted, that by this laxity of discipline among the Presbyterians^ the Independents or Congrega- tionalists of the present time have become " the veiy class 35 of persons " Lady Hevvley intended to have benefited, answer Who are these Congregationahstsr Admittmg some ot tliose ley's views. now so called to be the representatives of the ancient class of that name, were those whom they represent exclusively contemplated by Lady Hewley ? Were they contemplated by her ? In her neighbourhood there were i^ew or none. In her lifetime they were opposed to the Presbyterians ; and this not simply in discipline, but also in doctrine. Calvinists the Presbyterians were not; and, because they were not so, they were attacked by the Independents, and cen- sured from the pulpit of Pinners' Hall. Identity between the two bodies there was none ; and their distinction was then, as now, chiefly doctrinal. If the Presbyterians were strict Calvinists, how came Predestination to be a subject of contention ? Was discipline the sole objection to both being included in the schemes of comprehension ? Was the objection of a more serious nature? and if so, have the modern Congregationalists removed it? To make out their identity, the Independents must have renounced their Calvinistic tenets, and have become at least Baxterians. They will hardly avow this; because if they do, they must, on their own showing, give up some of their peculiar en- dowments. But until they do make out such identity, the degeneracy of the modern Presbyterians from the sup- posed standard of Lady Hewley cannot bring the Inde- pendents one atom nearer to it. They must have become, in their own view, lax and degenerated indeed, before they can be the "very class" with whom Lady Hewley was connected. It is clear that if the two parties differed on doctrinal questions, one being strict and rigid Cal- vinists, and the other moderate Arminians, then the pre- sent Presbyterians must have become Calvinists, or the Independents Baxterians, in order to be identical with each other. Yet those who are driven to admit either of these conclusions, — one of which is, as a fact, false, — are contend- ing that the successors of the ancient Presbyterians are not at liberty to vary from the doctrines of those who preceded them ; and yet set up a title to Presbyterian foundations, D 2 36 which is without a shadow of support, unless the same error has been committed, with which their opponents are charged, namely, doctrinal deviations and degeneracy. If their iden- tity with the old Independents is complete, they can have no claim to the Presbyterians' foundations ; if it is not com- plete, then the same objection urged by them as fatal to the title of modern Presbyterians, must be fatal to their own. Representa- The Continued succession of the Presbyterian body, and tion of the ,■, . p . . , • n i • . Presbyteri- ^116 Congregations iormmg it, has, practically speakmg, been ansrecogni- known, whatever be the etymological propriety of their sed by other •' . , . . Dissenters, name, or whatever the fluctuation of their doctrine ; and by none has it been more constantly, from year to year, re- cognised than by the other bodies of Dissenters, comprising those who would now doubt, not only the identity of their Presbyterian brethren, but their own ; and would induce us to believe that they are the true Presbyterians, whose name has been so long assumed by successive person- ations. In the De- From the earliest times to the present, the Presbyterian ^" '^*' congregations, under all their fluctuations, — and having, for the most part, been avowedly either Arian or Unitarian ever since Deputies were chosen, — have sent their lay represen- tatives, who have been received as the Presbyterian denomi- nation in the body of Deputies of Dissenters of the three denominations. Body of In the United Body of London Ministers a similar re- Ministers. presentation of the clerical body has taken place ; and we have not heard that, on any occasion, has an Independent fancied himself to be a real representative of the other body, or reminded his soi-disant Presbyterian brother of his mis- take, in assuming a title not properly belonging to him, on account of variations in practice as to ordination or re- ception in communion. In Covirt of In 1765, we find the Three Denominations in the Court Chancery. ^^ Chancery*, participating in a representation to the Court as to the constituent portions of the Dissenting body ; and assigning the Presbyterian portion to the persons then * See " Waller v. Childs," M. 17G5. Ambler, 524. 37 claiming that title, and whose descendants now claim it. Yet heresy was then nearly as rife among them as now. An equal division being then made of the fund, each party must be held to have fully declared and recognised the other's title. For public purposes, from the Revolution down to this At Court, moment, the same mutually acknowledged distinction and identification have been avowed and admitted. The Inde- pendents have never warned His Majesty that a deception was practised upon the dignity of his throne ; that those who approached it as Presbyterians, had no title so to do, in as much as they — the Independents — themselves repre- sented, according to the new theory, both their own osten- sible denomination and that assumed by their Presbyterian companions. In the distribution of the " Regium Donum," and subse- Parlia- quently of the " Parliamentary Grant," the like mutual re- Grant. ^ presentation to the Government, of the constituent portions of the Dissenting body, and of the persons who properly represent those portions, is to be traced from the first occa- sion of such a proceeding down to the present day. From the separation in the seventeenth century, the In- Public dependent or " Congregational Board " has had its distinct meetings; and the society from which they severed has retained the title of the " Presbyterian Fund." To this latter the successive occupants of the Presbyterian congre- gations have contributed in regular and undisturbed order of succession. Having noticed the changes which from time to time oc- Recorded curred in the Presbyterian body, it may be interesting further "J'ad'ing^ " to record the opinions of some of their leading ministers Presbyte- who lived at the end of the seventeenth and the first half of sters. the eighteenth century. It will be apparent, that human symbols of belief and confessions of faith were constantly ob- jected to by them ; that their principles were latitudinarian; that they censured the imposition of creeds, and at all times admitted the right of every individual, in the exercise of 38 the great principle of religious liberty, to put his own in- terpretation upon the language of Scripture. The first of these is Baxter, one of the ablest and most celebrated of the Presbyterian ministers, whose public life dates from about 1640 to 1690. " To prescribe a form of prayer or preaching, or other " service, where there is no necessity for it, and to lay a " necessity on it, as the thing itself, or, the churches' peace, " and to punish, silence, and suspend, excommunicate or " reproach as schismatics, the able, godly, peaceable mi- " nisters or people, that (justly or unjustly) cannot use it, is " so great a sin, that no godly ministers should desire or " attempt it, nor any godly minister suffer it*." " Two things have set the Church on fire, and been the *' plague of it for a thousand years : first, enlarging our " creed, and making more fundamentals than God ever " made; and, secondly, composing, and so imposing, our " creeds and confessions in our own words and phrases. *' When men have learnt more manners and more humility " than to accuse God's language as too general and obscure, " (as if they could mend it,) and have more dread of God " and compassion on themselves to make those to be fun- " damentals or certainties which God never made so; and " when they reduce their confessions, first, to their due " extent, and, secondly, to Scripture "phrase^ (that Dissenters " may not scruple subscribing,) then, I think, and never till " then, shall the Church have peace about doctrinals. It " seems to me no heinous Socinian notion that Chilling- " worth is blamed for, viz. ' Let all men believe the Scrip- " ' tare, and that only, aiid endeavour to believe in it in the " '^ true sense, (and promise this,) ajid require no more of " ' others, and they shall find this not only a better, but the " ' only means to suppress heresy and restore unity f.' " " It is the commendation of God's law, as fit to be the " means of unity, that all are so easily agreed to it, in terms, " and therefore would agree in the sense, if they under- * Baxter's Disputation on a Stinted Liturgy, p. 373. f Baxter's Saints' Everlasting Rest, 1650. Preface of Part II. " stood it. Bill they will not do so by the laws of men. " All or many heretics in the primitive times would profess " assent to the Church's creed, no doubt, in a corrupt and " private sense; but the Church did not, therefore, make " new creeds, until^above 300 years after Christ, they began " to put in some particular words to obviate heresies which " Hilary complained of as the cause of all their divisions. " And what if heretics will subscribe to all you bid them, "and take it in their own corrupted sense? Must you, " therefore, be still making new laws and articles till you " meet with some which they cannot misunderstand, or " dare not thus abuse ? Sure there is a wiser way than " this : God's word containeth in sirfficierit expressions all " that is necessary to he subscribed : — to require, therefore, " none to subscribe to any man in matters of taith and holy " practice*." " We would have had the brethren (the Presbyterians) " to have offered the Parliament the Creed (the Apostles'), " the Lord's Prayer, and Decalogue, as essentials or fun- " damentals, which, at least, contain all iliat is necessary " to salvation, and hath been by all ancient churches taken " for the sum of their religion : and whereas, it was said, " ' A Socinian or a Pajiist "will subscribe all this,' I answered, " • So 7mich the better, and so much the ^fitter it is to be a " ' matter of our cojicord.' But if you are afraid of comnui- " nion with Papists and Socinians, it must not be avoided " by making a new rule or test of faith, which they will not " subscribe to, or by forcing others to subscribe to more " than they can do ; but by calling them to account, when- " ever in preaching or writing they contradict or abuse " the truths which they have not subscribed f ." The same liberality must have influenced the opinion of Address by those who settled the address to King William, which pro- S'^'* "^ posed " that the rule of Christianity might be the rule of " conformity." • Baxter's Christian Directory. Part IV. c. 11. + Second Part of a Reply to tlie " Vindication of the Non-subscribing "Ministers:" London, bvo. 1719. Appendix, p. 81. 4-0 Mr. Howe, another of the first founders of the Presby- terian body, in his sermon of " Union among Protestants," quotes with approbation, from Bishop Davenant, his opinion that " he that believes the things contained in the Apostles' " Creed, and endeavours to live a life agreeable to the pre- " cepts of Christ, ought not to be expunged from the roll " of Christians, nor be driven from communion with the " members of any church whatever." Calamy was another of the most celebrated Presbyterian divines. His career ranges from about 1694- to 1732. He was favoured with a special mark of respect by Lady Hewley, and was in communication with all classes of Dissenters. In the History of his Life, written by himself, he gives an account of the motives which induced him to leave the Established Church, and in it quotes the following passage from Chillingworth. His conduct through life, especially during the proceedings at Salters' Hall, were in conformity with the sentiments it contains. " I am entirely of his mind (Chillingworth), above all in " that glorious passage, ' When I say to Mr. Knot, the " ' religion of Protestants is in truth to be preferred before " 'yours, as on the one side I do not understand by your " ' religion the doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius, or any " 'other private man among you, nor the doctrine of the " ' Sorbonne, or of the Jesuits, or of the Dominicans, or of "'any other particular company among you; but that " ' wherein you all agree, or profess to agree, the doctrine of " ' the Council of Trent ; so, accordingly, on the other side, " ' by the religion of Protestants, I do not understand the " 'doctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or Melancthon, nor the " ' Confession of Augusta or Geneva, nor the Catechism of " ' Heidelburgh, nor the Articles of the Church of En- " 'gland ; no, nor the Harmony of Protestant Confessions ; " ' but that wherein they all agree, and which they all sub- " 'scribe with a greater harmony, as a perfect rule of faith " ' and actions, that is, the Bible. The Bible, I say, the " ' Bible only is the religion of Protestants. Whatever else " ' they believe besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubit- 41 " ' able consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter " *of opinion. But as matter of faith and religion, neither " *can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it " 'themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without " 'most high and schismatical presumption*.' " I could not help readily falling in with him, when he " so frankly declares that the presumptuous imposing of the " senses of man upon the words of God, the especial senses " of men upon the general words of God, and laying them " upon men's consciences, together with and under the pe- " nalty of death and damnation ; this vain conceit that we " can speak of the things of God better than in the words " of God, thus deifying our own interpretation, and tyran- " nously enforcing them upon others ; this restraining of ^' the word of God from that latitude atid generality^ and " the understanding of men from that liberty wherein " Christ and the Apostles left them, is and hath been the " only fountain of all schism in the Church, and that which " makes them immortal ; the common incendiary of Christ- " endom, and that which I said before tears in pieces, not " the coat, but the bowels and members of Christ f." Expressing his own opinion, Calamy adds, " Reasoning " in religious matters from Church authority appeared to " me, upon the strictest search, to be sophistical, unless " the Church could be proved infallible ; and I could not " find the Church had any authority at all further than she " agreed with, and was warranted by. Scripture. The fol- " lowing authority blindly would most certainly have been " destructive to religion under the Jewish Church ; nor " could I perceive it to be a jot more safe under Christi- « anityt." The opinions of Mr. Oldfield, the brother of Dr. Old- oidfieid. field, who is the first name of the non-subscribing mini- sters at Salters' Hall, are stated in these words by Mr. Shower, in his discourse on Mr. Oldfield's death :— " Next " to his piety, or as part of it, his peaceableness and cha- • Calamy 's Life, vol. i. p. 232. (Second Edition.) t Ihid. p. 23n. : Ibid, p, 254. 42 *' rity, in opposition to bitterness and dividing zeal and *' a narrow spirit, was very commendable and exemplary. *' He could unite with all Christians in all things neces- *' sary, and was not for making more fundamentals and *' necessaries than Christ had made, or for other terms *' of Christian communion than the terms of our common " Christianity, and therefore was ready to receive all whom *' he believed Christ would receive*." * The views of several other distinguished Presbyterian divines ap- pear in the course of these pages. See also Sermon at Newport Pag- nell, Sept. 15, 1725, at the ordination of Mr. W. Hunt, by Jabez Earle, a Presbyterian ministei-, first of Weigh House, London, and afterwards of the chapel in Hanover Street ; — Confession of Faith by Mr. Clerk Oldisworth, Jan. 11, 1720; — Confession of Faith of Dr. Hughes, a cele- brated Presbyterian minister, Jan. 11, 1720. — The following passages also illustrate the course of feeling on these subjects. " When he TMr. Harvey) first settled in this place, and engaged in con- " stant work, he thought it proper to study over the Church Controversy, " and not rest in the first impressions of education. He read the London " Cases, and other principal books, on both sides, with close application and " impartiality, and settled at length upon a deliberate judgement in the " pi'inciples of moderate Nonconformity, which he thought stood upon the " great principle of the Reformation, viz. ' the perfection of the Scripture " ' rule and the only authority of Christ in the Christian Church ; and the " * u?ialietiahle right of every man to judge, according to the best light and " ' advantages offered him, for himself He stood firm upon a broad " bottom, and satisfied himself to be faithful to his light, without censure " or uncharitableness to others ; and thought he had the advantage of " the narrow-spirited on all sides, that he could worship God in the way " he preferred, and at the same time own and receive fellow Christians " of other communions, and was not confined by any principle orpre- " judice of mind within any little circle or distinguishing denomination, " or obliged to refuse actual comnmnion upon any proper occasions with " those who have all the essentials of the Gospel religion, and whom " Christ will own at last. He was truly a primitive Catholic, who loved " and owned all sincere Christians, and who was of no one party exclu- " sive of all the rest." — The Death of Good Men. in the midst of their Days considered. A Funeral Sermon for the late Rev. Samuel Harvey, who deceased April 17, 1729. Preached at Crutched Friars, April 27, by W. Harris, D.D. Published at the desire of the Relations and Con- gregation : London, 1729. 8vo. pp.40. " I do not suppose that Mr. Newman, any more than other studious " and ingenious persons, rested on the first impressions of his education; 43 But the opinion of the Presbyterian ministers living in The Lon don Mini- sters of London in 1719, who chiefly constituted the majority at Salters' Hall, upon the liberty of private interpretation of the 1719. terms of iScripture, will be best exhibited by an extract from the "Advices for Peace," published by those who then refused " but as his judgement ripened, and he grew up into maturer age, he dili- " gently inquired after truth, and faithfully followed every appearance of " it, without prejudice, and with a becoming freedom of mind. He had " high, but not extravagant, notions of Christian liberty; he had the " cause of Nonconformity much at heart; and was a Protestant Dissent- " ing minister upon the firmest principles, and without the least incli- " nation to change, and had lately read, upon this head ; which greatly " contributed to his fuller satisfaction and further establishment. He " highly valued and diligently searched the Holy Scriptures, firmly be- " lieving their sufficiency and perfection." Src. — Tlie End of Created Perfection. A Funeral Sermon on the late Rev. Samuel Newman, who died May 31, 1735. Preached at Salters' Hall, June 8, 1735, by John Barker (who had been a Minister more than twenty years). Published at the request of the Family and Congregation : London, 1735. " A Scripture religion and way of worship is as much to be stood up " for as ever ; and as far as any man, upon a close and diligent seaixh of " the Scriptures, does believe that this or the other way is most agree- " able thereto, he ought to adhere to it ; and to be allowed so to do ; for " I think it is, in the general, an agreed point amongst Protestants, that " no man has a right to hnpose his se?ise of the Bible upon another, any " more than to impose a }iew Bible and Scripture itself upon him. In " eflect the one is pretty nmch the same with the other." *' The grand point whicli the Dissenters are contending for is this, that " nothing be insisted on, as a Term of Communion, but what otu- Blessed " Lord has required, and laid down, as suc/i, in tlie received canon of " the Scripture. And whilst we thus stand up for the original plan of " oiu' religion, and the first pure unmixt institutions of it, we think we " may look upon ourselves as walking in the name of the Lord our God; " and that in this way of doing so we ought to persevere. This we appre- " hend to be the only means of enlarging i\\e foundations oi i\\Q Church, " so as to ta/ce in all who sincerely believe and obey the Gospel; and at " the same time securing the sacred inclosure, so as to keep out all who " are disobedient and unbehevers. Till matters be reduced to i/iisstand- " ard, we have no hope of ever seeing those happy times which the "prophet Micah speaks of, when God should so gloriously appear in the " midst of them that did resolve to walk in his name." — To he Every- where spoken against ; considered in Two Sermons preached at Black Fryars, March 9th and I6th, 1712. By S. Wright. 44 to subscribe certain doctrinal articles. It is also material to remark, that the occasion of the expression of these senti- ments was a discussion respecting the doctrine of the Trinity. " If, after all, a public hearing be insisted on, viz. *' by any one accused of heresy, we think the Protestant " principle, that the Bible is the only and perfect rule " of faith, obliges those who have the case before them " not to condemn any man upon the authority of human " decisions, or because he consents not to human forms " or phrases. But then only is he to be censured, as " not holding the faith necessary to salvation, when it " appears he contradicts, or refuses to own, the plain and " express declarations of Holy Scripture, in what is there " made necessary to be believed, and in matters there solely *' revealed. We further advise that Catechisms and other " summaries of Christianity and expositions of Scripture, " by wise and learned though fallible men, should be re- " garded as great helps to understand the mind of God in " the Scriptures, and that all be allowed^ by common con- " scnt^ to support their own sense of Scripture upon proper " occasions, with such reasons as appear to them convincing, " provided it be with sobriety and charity to those who " differ from them .... We think ourselves obliged often " to inculcate this principle upon our hearers, ' that they " < ou"ht not to form their judgement in matters necessary to " ' salvation, by the private sentiments of their ministers, any *' ^further than they are supported by the word of God ,- ' " and we assure ourselves, that a tender and scrupulous " reo-ard for the word of God alone will never be thought " either dangerous or inconvenient to the body of Protest- " ant Dissenters. We saw no reason to think that a decla- " ration in other words than those of Scripture would serve " the cause of peace and truth, but rather be the occasion " of o-reat confusion and disorders. We have already thought « that human declarations of faith were far from being eligi- " ble on their own account, since they tend to narrow the '■'' foundations of Christianity, and to restrain that latitude " of expression in which our great legislator has seen fit to 45 <' deliver his will to us. We take it to be inverting the " great rule of deciding controversies among Protestants, " making the explications and words of men determine the " sense of Scripture, instead of making the Scriptures to " determine how far the words of men are to be regarded. " We therefore could not give our hands to do that which in " present circumstances would be like to mislead others, to " set up human explication for the decisive rule of faith. We " then did, and so now, judge it our duty to remonstrate *' against such a precedent as opening a way to (what we " dread,) the most fatal breaches on Gospel liberty. " And in a further " Vindication " these ministers declare, — " This Catechism (the Assembly's) is what we teach our " children, and I'ecommend to others, as well as our bre- " thren ; and to keep it in its proper place and to its proper " use, as a catechism, is to answer the end of our recom- ** mendinnr and teaching it: and it is well known we give " our explications of it where we teach it. But shall that *' liohich is only to he used as a means of instruction be set tip *^ as a test of faith ? " These and many similar expressions exhibit the general General views of the leading Presbyterians at the beginning of the concurrence '^ ^ in these eighteenth century. They record not opinions formed for opinions at the first time in 171 9, but such as had been previously enter- b^gmmngof ^ •> eighteenth tained. Among those by whom they were stated lay Lady century. Hewley's circle of acquaintance. The principle they assert- ed was, that the Bible, and the Bible only, was the sole rule of faith ; and that in expressing the doctrines it contains, no other words than those to be found in it should be employed. Bowles's Catechism was adapted to this rule. It is now quoted as a test of Lady Hewley's orthodoxy, when it ob- viously raises a strong case of the contrary suspicion. To set up any test of faith but the Bible, was thought to be not only opposed to the precepts it contains, but was a certain means to promote those dissensions and controversies which it was desirable to silence. The majority of the ministers at Salters' Hall regarded any test of belief in other than Scriptural language as an invasion of the great principle of 46 Protestant Dissent, " the right of private judgement." They had witnessed the ill effects of interfering with belief con- scientiously entertained, and they derived instruction from the lesson. They refused to sanction proceedings which might make error perpetual, and render the profession of it profitable. A creed could not be framed without the pos- sibility of error, and it could only be employed to favour an exclusive spirit. To put definite meanings on the general expressions of Scripture, and to insist upon limited terms as conveying the same sense as more general ones, appeared to them an act of impiety. It was a correction and modifi- cation of the inspired writings which no man was authorized to make. It was thus solemnly determined in 1719, that the prin- ciple asserted admitted of no exceptions. Assent to the imposition of a creed, even with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, was refused. Arian doctrines were prevalent, and were openly preached by some members of the Pres- byterian body ; yet the only method to prevent their exten- sion was rejected, by men many of them totally unaffected by the existing heresy. A learned legal authority de- nounces other than Trinitarian doctrines as unchristian and blasphemous, and pictures the pious "horror" that heresy respecting them must, as he supposes, have excited in the breast of an orthodox Presbyterian. Unfortunately for the truth of the picture, the history of the Presbyterian body utterly negatives that presumption. It, on the con- trary, displays the prevalence of opposite feelings, and the practice of virtues which viewed with equal charity all con- scientious differences of doctrine. The modern Presbyterian refuses to employ unscriptural phrases respecting the Tri- nity, or to adopt those terms which the articles of the Church of England or the Assembly's Catechism have connected with it. The early Presbyterian, even though assenting to those terms, would have expressed no feeling of offence at such a course; for he himself approved of and practised it, even before he deviated from the beaten track of doctrine. We have seen the opinions of divines ; we will see how 47 a layman regarded the same subject. Of the first Viscount Barrington, Swift, in a letter to Archbishop King*, says, " One Mr. Shute is named for secretary to Lord Wharton ; " he is a young man, but reckoned the shrewdest head in " Eno-land, and the person intioJiom the Presbyterians chiefly " confide." He attended divine worship, and for many years received the sacrament, at Pinners' Hall. Dr. Jere- miah Hunt, a very eminent Nonconformist divine, was pas- tor of the congregation assembling there f. His Lordship had formerly been an attendant on Mr. Thomas Bradbury, and it is expressly related of him, that "he quitted that " gentleman on account of his bigoted zeal for imposing " unscriptural terms upon the article of the Trinity if." But it will, perhaps, be still more pertinent, in regard to Jekyii, a question pending in the Court of Chancery, to quote the ,",/e''{^oii°. testimony of Sir Joseph Jekyll, a distinguished Presbyte- rian, afterwards Master of the Rolls. We are now told from the Bench, that a liberal Presbyterian of those days would have " shrunk with horror" at extending her libe- rality to those who questioned the doctrine of the Trinity. But how would a contemporary Master of the Rolls, who best knew the spirit of his sect, have decided that point ? When it was determined at Salters' Hall, he is recorded to have summed up the question at issue and its result thus, — " The Bible carried it by Four§." It is plain that what were now called orthodox doctrines strict or- were relished neither in the pulpit nor by the creat body of '''"^'"''ynot *^ f- JO •'in favour. • Swift's Works, 12rno, 1765, vol. xiv. p. 50. t " He (Mr. Locke) and his noble disciple (Viscount Barrington) " have been the means of diffusing a very general spirit of free and " Scriptural criticism ; which, though too often perverted, has been proved " by experience to be well adapted to the more perfect apprehension of " the meaning of Scripture, and which has consequently been cultivatpd " among all classes of theologians. As His Lordship's attention was much ** directed to the study of Divinity, he had a strong sense of the import- " ance of free inquiry in malters of religion." — Life of Viscount Barring- ton, by the Rev. George Townsend, Prebendary of Durham, p. xx. X Barrington's Theological Works, by Townsend, p. xvii. § Whiston's Memoirs. 48 Presbyterians ; at least, not if orthodoxy can only be proved by the use of expressions not Scriptural. Indeed it seems useless to dwell on such a point, after the solemn and conside- rate determination made at Salters' Hall. That was a strong expression of unwillingness to prevent the free discussion and examination of the doctrine of the Ti'inity, or to check the progress of Arian sentiments, then notoriously preva- lent. If they had entertained such opinions upon the sub- ject, as they are now said by the Independents, and sup- posed from the Bench, to have done, the whole course of their lives, the inflexible integrity they exhibited in the pro- fession of their belief must convince us, that they would have regarded it as a serious duty not to have shrunk, in consequence of any actual or imaginai-y difficulties, from asserting the importance of enforcing the doctrine and of maintaining the criminality of its denial. Date of Presbyte- rian Foun- dations. Terms of the trusts. Most of the Presbyterian charities date between the years 1690 and 1730. There are several of a later date, but the principal were established within this period. The terms of the trust deeds are exceedingly general. The property was usually conveyed to the minister and membei's of the congregation for the worship and service of God; often with a declaration that such worship and ser- vice should be carried on in such form and manner as the congregation should, from time to time, diiect; and with an occasional provision as to the disposition of the pro- perty in the event of such worship ceasing to be legal and tolerated. From this latter provision a far-fetched and un- founded inference has been drawn; as if a precaution, so ob- viously proper, as a matter of temporal prudence, was meant to controul the freedom of the congregation, and inferen- tially to adopt as a creed the limits of that toleration which it was their object to extend — to sanciion restrictions with which their most eminent divines were dissatisfied and practically refused to comply ; as if a creed, in short, was imposed by those, who, whenever the point came directly before them, declared they would impose none. Besides 49 chapels, and, occasionally, ministers' houses, there are other charities, consisting of the profits of various funds, which the trustees are usually directed to distribute among Dis- senting ministers generally ; or perhaps, as in the case of Lady Hewley's charity, (using the language of the day,) " among godly preachers," or " preachers of the Gospel," or « Christ's Holy Gospel." The varying state of the law in some measure accounts Reasons for for the generality of these expressions. At one tmie all pressions. Dissenting bodies had been tolerated ; at another they bad been deprived of every religious privilege. It was some- times doubtful whether the law was or was not invaded, or how long it would permit the existence of such charities ; and prudence required a manifestation of intent to keep within legal bounds. We have before us an instance of one charity of this sort, in which the trusts are directly framed so as to open or shut as the law should either extend or contract; and to permit the advantages of it to be enjoyed by any preacher duly chosen ; he complying with what- ever legal test or subscription the law might, for the time being, impose. The legal consequences are thus carefully provided against, and at the same time the discretion of the minister and of the congregation is left as unchecked as possible; and this must have been the intent of all con- sistently acting upon the principles then avowed by the Presbyterians. In a trust deed now before us, of this pe- riod, it is expressly provided that there shall be no inter- ference with the doctrines preached by the minister. " The ** minister is not to be accountable to any man or any body *' of men for what he preaches." We shall notice hereafter a Norwich charity, very similar Practical to that by Lady Hewley, founded " for Protestant Dissent- ^^lll^^ ^^^^ " ing Ministers," by a lady of a notoriously Arian congre- tent gation ; and which has, like many other Presbyterian chari- ties, been always distributed among Presbyterians, Inde- pendents, and Baptists. The Presbyterians had tried to combine all Dissenters by abolishing distinctive creeds; but failing in this, they, as in such instances as Lady Hewley's, £ 50 practically acted on their comprehensive principles, and in- cluded in their benevolent solicitude even those who refused to be united with them in social or devotional communities. We know of no instances of this sort among the Inde- pendents. With hardly an exception, all the Presbyterian trust deeds are without restrictions, and contain no clauses of restraint of the course of opinion in the congregations for whose use they were immediately founded. Neither the minister nor his congregation are bound to pursue any given set of doctrines. Every freedom is afforded to the pursuit of theological inquiries. There can be no error as to the intention. The question, " shall there be a creed "imposed or not," was well known; it had been argued, and its determination formed a badge of distinction. Had the founders been attached to their own sentiments so strongly that deviation from them would, by them, have been treated as objectionable, how happens it that no ex- pression denoting such feeling is to be found in their trust deeds ? How is it that their congregational acts did not as- sist or promote it? The Independents did not thus act. Religious belief is, on the admission of their ministers, di- stinctly stated. By practice the members of their congre- gations are called upon to make confessions of faith, and to express a determination to adhere to them. The difference in the whole course and practice of the two parties indicates a distinguishing principle. There was nothing to prevent the limitations required by the one from being required by the other, or the confessions of doctrines demanded by the one from being demanded by the other. The silence of the endowments, especially taken in connexion with the uncertain state of the law, would alone demonstrate that the governing principle of the Presbyterians was to leave that liberty to others which they claimed for themselves; to look to Scripture as the sole rule of faith ; to admit to its full extent the right of private judgement ; and virtually to admit the inno- cence of involuntary error. Had the perpetuation of a peculiar system of discipline or doctrine been intended. 51 what prevented the declaration of such an intent ? Why are the deeds silent respecting the unsound doctrines, when the Nonconformist world was ringing with the controversy as to whether heresy should or should not be repressed by subscription? If endowments to propagate Calvinism, or to support chapels and a ministry favouring it, were intended, why were no fences erected to prevent the prevalence of er- rors, as some represent them to be, which were seen and were debated by the very persons whose indignation we are now told would have been excited by them? No barrier against the manifest heresy was raised ; no protection was framed to exclude the offensive creed ; and no sepai'ation was at- tempted from those who publicly and openly were known to advance the criminal doctrines. Was the evil seen? It was seriously considered, and the solemn decision, — even of those who saw its extent, — was that its consequences must in consistency be allowed. Were the guilty parties pointed out for rebuke ? They were eminent and learned and pious, and their ministry was encouraged. Is there any other ad- missible conclusion, then, than this, — that the principle of the Presbyterians was not to interfere with doctrines; to al- low all to act upon their own responsibility in receiving or rejecting any religious opinions ; and not to censure any for acting in the honest exercise of their judgement? Their sen- timents were latitudinarian, and the expression of their trust deeds general; and an injustice is committed and the plain and obvious intent is violated, under the pretence of carrying it into effect, when unlimited terms are re- stricted, and definite expressions substituted for those pur- posely left indefinite. By the constitution of nearly all the Presbyterian chapels. Election of the election of the ministers is in the congregation. They """inters, decide, by a majority, the fitness, competence, and doc- trines of their teachers. Little inconvenience has arisen from the system, and it is almost universal. The trus- tees have not governed the congregations. In some deeds provision is made for the trustees being members of the congregation, in order to prevent as far as possible any im- E 2 52 proper exercise of power. If they and the congregation entertain heretical opinions, it has not been from the corrupt conduct of trustees, but from the moral effect of those causes which have affected both the trustees and the conarregations. Rules in the administra- tion of a charity. Cases re- quiring in- quiry into doctrine. In order to determine on the due administration of any charity, it is necessary to ascertain the intent of its founder. " It is clearly settled, that if a fund, real or personal, be given " in such a way that the purpose be clearly expressed to be, " that of maintaining a ' Society of Protestant Dissenters,' " promoting no doctrine contrary to law, although such as " may be at variance with the doctrines of the Established " Church, it is the duty of this Court to carry such trust into " execution, and to administer it according to the intent of " the founders*." It becomes, therefore, essential to ascer- tain the intent, and to collect that evidence relating to it, which, in any trust indefinite in its terms, may be supposed best to declare it. " When a body of Protestant Dissenters " have established a trust without any precise definition of " the object or mode of worship, I know no means the Court " has of ascertaining it, except by looking to what has passed, " and thereby collecting what may, by fair inference, be pre- " sumed to have been the intention of the founder*." In thus referring, in the case of Presbyterian charities, to the past, the right of private judgement prominently and fore- most presents itself. This was the great Presbyterian prin- ciple. In other cases the past confines itself to limited considerations, narrowly restraining the design and intent of the foundation. Various cases might be put where inquiry into the actual doctrines of the founders would be proper and necessary. Such would be those of institutions, the founders of which had asserted the necessity of articles and subscriptions, and proposed either as the test of qualification ; who, having adopted a peculiar interpretation of certain words, have di- * Lord Eldon, in 3 Merivale — " Attorncy-Gciieral r. Pearson." 53 stinctly desired assent to such interpretation with all its pecu- liarities. Foundations by members of the Church of England would be within this rule: but a Presbyterian foundation could not be subject to it, if " stinted creeds" were, as was most undoubtedly the case, rejected by Presbyterians. An instance more difficult of determination would be that of a foundation by one belonging to no known body of Dissenters, who should take upon himself to compose a creed, and re- quire subscription to it ; for instance, a sweeping sub- scription, such as that of Wesleyan Methodists to the doc- trines contained in certain writings of Mr. Wesley. The inconveniences accompanying such an inquiry are only a degree greater than those attending the former case. The whole system is, in the Presbyterian view, false and Mischiefs of mischievous. It may preserve unity in a church, because ''*^ system. those who doubt, — though they may form the majority, or even the entirety of the congregation, — must either acquiesce or withdraw. Every one, under such a system, is subject to those very restrictions, for which Establishments are consi- dered so open to objection. Had the circumstances which create belief and enable assent to any proposition to be given been duly considered, neither creeds nor liturgies nor articles would have been enforced by violent persuasives or dissuasives. Facts not within our knowledge, or the in- ferences they admit of, can only be believed in proportion as the evidence connected with them is strong or weak. If the evidence is strong, the belief it occasions is involuntary, and can only be affected by presenting a new series of circumstances to the mind. Expressions may be uttered indicating a state of mental affection not actually expe- rienced; but immoral or interested motives must first be excited. If the Pi'esbyterians were at any time generally Trini- Presbyteri- tarian, it was not from abhorrence of other doctrines. ""1^!^^'* ' _ orthodox Their preference was accompanied by no such feeling, were so by It simply appeared right to the individual to prefer one p"cfcrence doctrine to another, for his own religious guidance; and o"'y. he left his neighbour to adopt a difll'ennt conclusion, if 54 his judgement so directed him. Interference with religious belief was regarded as more mischievous than all the er- rors ignorance or weakness might produce. To each individual the power of acting upon his own responsibility was afforded, and the mischief of an improper decision was the motive to avoid it. Any other course would have pro- duced a habit of pursuing error, or, by favouring indiffer- ence, have perpetuated mischievous opinions. The main- tenance of the doctrinal unity of a church — or rather of its property — would have been, in their view, a poor compen- sation for the loss of liberty of inquiry. The principle of per- manent adherence to special tenets, or a careless reliance up- on those capable of error, may chain all within the narrow circle of Conformity. But was indifference or inquiry, at the period of the Reformation, a moral duty? If inquiry was then a moral duty, v/hy does it cease to be so now ? If it is a duty, in what consists its merit, if the adoption of given conclusions is to be compulsory ? They who express fears respecting certain religious opinions, forget the manner in which their own doctrines were established. Was tradition rendered unauthoritative by subscriptions, or were supersti- tions exposed otherwise than by the force of evidence? If articles of belief are free from doubt, consent is involuntary, and subscription needless*. If they are doubtful, is it moral to set up motives which may tempt the expression of assent in the absence of belief? And is it not the duty of all, and of courts of law particularly, to preserve a high state of moral feeling, and to lean against articles and subscriptions as contrary to sound policy, rather than to afford them en- couragement? There may be limits to the principle urged, but they are not doctrinal. It may be checked, if it " produce * " This is the miserable condition of a convict heretic : the punish- " ment which fell on him for expressing thoughts heretical, he must en- " dure for barely thinking ; which is a thing not in his own power, but " depends on the evidence which appears to him." — Bishop Hare on the D'lfficvlties and Discouragements which attend the Study of Scripture in the nay of Private Judgement. 55 peace-disturbing enormities." But he who would think tcis not it necessary to prevent all the evils which indiscretion ^'"'^f"'"*- and folly may create would, in his attempt, so bind up the thoughts and creeds of every conscientious man, from the fear of possible danger and possible mischief, as to restrain all inquiry. How can the character and ten- dency of opinions be judged of by a court of law, ex- cept so far as they plainly aftect the peace of society ; and that obviously and directly, not presumptively or by infer- ence ? If the peculiar opinions of any sect are submitted to the judicial determination of the Court of Chancery, what is to be considered if the question relates generally to religion? The Episcopalian accuses all of schism; of disturbing the uniformity of the worship of the State ; of the severance and abolition of one of its prominent insti- tutions, necessary, as such Episcopalian contends, to the peace and welfare of the community. The Nonconformist can only defend himself by asserting the conscientious na- ture of his belief, and that the peace of the community is not affected by it : — at any rate, that it would be most af- fected by any attempts to restrain him. The same limit must govern the toleration extended to every sect ; and the mischief anticipated is purely imaginary. At the date of most of the Presbyterian charities, the old Intent of Presbyterian system, as has already been shown, did not rjan^ounl exist. The connexion between congregations was merely ders. voluntary. General discipline was not acknowledged, and there was no general organization. For whose benefit, and with what intent, were the Presbyterian charities founded ? Whoever rejects the imposition of all statements, positive in their terms, respecting disputed doctrines, — who refuses to acknowledge the authority of any person to require such statements, — must, if he found a religious charity, be pre- sumed to intend to favour those who with himself contend for the liberty of free inquiry. If the peculiar doctrines of such a person are sought to be ascertained, and all depar- ture from them is to be restrained, an attempt is made to set up a standard of belief for ailoption, and to require '56 opinions to be approved of, which the party professing them held to be fallible, and did not impose. In other words, the great principle which the founder asserted is opposed, instead of being carried into effect. It is impossible he should not have perceived that variation of opinion was the direct and necessary consequence of the exercise of that principle, any limitation of which would render it worthless, and would be an act inconsistent with the principle itself. It would be grossly absurd that a religious body should admit a principle, and then be declared dissolved in consequence of the natuj;al and necessary operation of that principle. The moment any restriction is imposed, implicit assent to creeds, liturgies, or articles is required, and exclusion from the charity follows from their rejection. It is affectation to admit that liberty of inquiry was a principle which governed the conduct and intent of the founder, if his opinions are to be a standard of belief. Liberty of inquiry, if it exists at all, must be full, complete, and perfect, unconfined by authority, and unrestrained in all the paths it may pursue. Once recognise it, and the limits of its course are bound- less. Restrict it, and you create a special creed. It mat- ters not to say that the restraint is slight; — «rzy restraint is inconsistent with the principle. An arbitrary power is as- sumed, and rules are laid down to govern the intent of men, who during their lives had denounced such rules as unscrip- tural and uncharitable. They were governed by kindly and benevolent feelings, by lofty and high notions of the bounty and mercy of the Deity ; nor could they comprehend how any one seriously receiving the Scripture as his rule of faith, should fall into error affecting his future condition. They who restrict the principle of free inquiry, contradict all the pure and elevated sentiments which animated those whose intentions they pretend to expound. But such a restraint only is desired as shall exclude those who deny the Church of England doctrines of the Trinity and Original Sin. That the last of these dogmas should be in- cluded with the former strongly shows the difficulties which arise out of any attempt to fix essentials of belief. Upon the 67 doctrine of Original Sin, it was observed by Sir Charles We- therell in his argument in Lady Hewley's case, that Dr. Pre- tymanTomlin, Bishopof Winchester, had (after adverting to the discrepancies of opinion maintained on it, and particular- ly by St. Augustine, who did not receive the doctrine of Ori- ginal Sin as set out in the Thirty-nine Articles,) remarked, " It must be acknowledged that original guilt, considered in " this point of view, is a difficult and abstruse subject; and as " the Scriptures do not inform us what were the full andpre- " cise effects of Adam's disobedience upon his posterity, it is " perhaps scarcely to be expected that there should be an " uniformity of opinion among divines upon that point. We " may, liowever, observe, that the difference between those " who confine original guilt to a mere liability to death and " sin, and those who extend it to punishment also, is not " very material, since both sides admit that Christ died as a " propitiation for all the sins of the whole world." So that one of the prelates of the Church itself holds that uniformity on this doctrine, as received by such Church, is not important; and that the mode in which it receives it may be rejected. The doctrine itself need not, for our purpose, be specially considered or weighed. It is sufficient that many pious Christians doubt it ; even the Calvinists are at this time en- gaged in a controversy respecting it. It is unwise and inju- dicious for any Protestant to assert its essentiality. An infallible Church is entitled to every excuse, if it excludes those from terms of communion who, in any degree, dissent from it; but how can a Church, — admitting itself fallible, be privileged to determine for all men what are essential doc- trines? " Believe as we believe" was the lanffuaffe of the Church of Rome. " Believe as we believe" is the language of themodern Independent. What the Presbyterian founders of any charity would have regarded proper to be believed, and whether they would have considered Original Sin or the Trinity essentials or not, are inquiries the result of which is, in reference to the present question, a matter of perfect indifference. We do happen to know that their opinions were latitudinarian, and there is abundant evidence in 58 existence to show that their reply to those who might urge them to lay down in terms any doctrines they them- selves held as fundamentals of behef, would have been, " That as they commended themselves to divine favour by " their own conscientious conduct, so they would not in- " terfere with the course others might justify themselves in " pursuing." The principle contended for admits the re- ception or the rejection of any religious doctrine. What one individual might attach importance to, another might esteem of secondary moment. Both are within the pi'inciple which grants to each the authority of so determining, and approves of the decisions of each, though they may be con- tradictory. Original Sin one man may regard as a momen- tous doctrine; another may reject it; and if all the variations from the doctrines entertained by the founders of these cha- rities might be traced, however extensive they might be, they are but the necessary consequences of a principle which the founders admitted. Bishop That no limitation should be imposed upon this principle Hare s ex- Qf inquiry^ js expressly maintained in the very admirable and theprinci- excellent treatise of Francis Hare, Bishop of Chichester, ^ ^' " On the Difficulties and Discouragements which attend " the Study of the Scriptures." He maintains that the doctrine of the Trinity is a subject of debate, and strongly inveighs against the injustice and ill treatment experienced by those who question it. For freedom of inquiry in all its consequences he distinctly contends, and strongly asserts its necessity. " You may reject arguments brought from the Old Tes- *' tament to prove the Trinity as trifling, and proving no- *' thins but the iirnorance of those who use them. You " may think prophecy has a literal meaning, when com- " monly the mj'stical is thought the only one. You may " think that many texts in the New Testament which are " strong against the Socinians do not prove against the " Arian notion. That the title, Son of God, has not al- " ways one uniform meaning in the Gospel, analogous to " generation in men. That the identical consubstantiality " of the Son, the eternal procession of the Spirit, and many *' other notions relating to the Trinity, though they may be " true in themselves, are not so in virtue of the texts alleged " for them. These notions learned men have fallen into ; " and from thence it is to be presumed i/ou will not easily " keep clear of them. 1 choose to instance chiejiy in matters " relating to the Trinity^ because it is the controversy now on ^^foot ; hut the like may be said of many other articles in ** which the truth is one and the errors iiifinite*." The writer then states the misrepresentation and abuse to which those are exposed who doubt such received doc- trines ; and he strongly comments upon the consequences. " Did these learned men decline this study because they " wanted the abilities proper for it? Surely that will not " be said of men of their confessed learning. Or was there " want of inclination or good will to it ? No ; they were *' men of virtue and good Protestants, as well as scholars "and men of letters. What then? Did they who had " taken so much pains upon other books, and with so much " success, think the Scriptures the only ones that needed " not their help ? Neither can that be pretended. They " saw the sacred books, through the injury of time and the " ignorance of scribes, had suffered as well as others, and " much more by false and absurd interpretations. To be " plain, the one thing that turned them from so noble and " necessary a study was the want of liberty^ which in this *' study only is denied men. They found it was dangerous " to examine impartially and speak freely ; that the}' must ** write without liberty or with no safety; that it would be *' expected of them to strain all their wit and learning, to " patronise and palliate gross errors, instead of exposing "or mending them ; and to support the received interpre- *' tations, however absurd, instead of such as reason and " learning convinced them were the only true ones. But ** this was a task men of ingenuous minds, whose integrity " and love of truth was equal to their penetration and great * Page 9. The Edilion quoted is the Sixth, published in 1715. 60 " abilities, coukl not submit to ; for men to have eyes and " understandings of their own, and yet not to see or to un- " derstand but as they were bid, and that by men who could " not see or understand themselves; ca§ upyaXiov 7rp«yju,a ! " To make such blind use of their learning and abilities was, " they thought, to pervert the very end of them, and really " to dishonour God, whose service they were given for. " Since, therefore, they could not bear the thoughts of stu- " dying the Scriptures on these terms, no part was left men " who could not be idle but to turn to some other study " in which, without fear of danger or offence, they might " freely go whither truth and reason lead *." " If some inconveniences would arise from the liberty I *' contend for, they are nothing in comparison of those " which must follow from the want of it. Till there is such " a liberty allowed to clergymen ; till there is such a secu- " rity for their reputations, fortunes and persons; 1 fear I " must add, till so difficult a study meets with proportion- " able encouragement, 'tis impossible a sincere, impartial, " and laborious application to it should generally prevail : " And till it does, it is impossible the Scriptures should be " well understood : And till they are, they are a Rule of " Faith in name only. For 'tis not the words of Scripture, " but the sense, which is the Rule : And so far as that is " not understood, so far the Scriptures are not our Rule : " whatever we pretend, but the sense that men have put on " them ; men fallible as ourselves, and who were by no " means so well furnished as the learned at present are with '* the proper helps to find out the true meaning of Scrip- " ture. And while we take the sense of Scriptures in this " manner upon content, and see not with our own eyes, we " insensibly relapse into the principles of Popery, and give ^^up the only ground on which we can justify our separation ^'■from the Church of Rome. It was a right to study and to "judge of the Scriptures for themselves that our first Re- " formers asserted with so good effect ; and their successors " can defend their adherence to them on no other principle, * Page 21. 61 " If, tlien, we are concerned for the study of tlie Scrip- " tiires, further than in "joords ; if we in earnest tJiinJc them " the only Rule of Faith, let us act as if we thought so ; " let us heartily encourage a free and impartial study of them; " let us lay aside that malignant^ arbitrary^ and persecuting '^pojrish spirit; let its put no fetters on meiis understandings^ " nor any other hounds to their inquiries but 'what God and " truth have set. Let us, if we would not give up the Pro- " testant principle, that the Scriptures are plain and clear *' in the necessary articles, declare nothing to be necessary " but what is clearly revealed in them .... Upon the whole, " a free and impartial study of the Scriptures either ought " to be encouraged or it ought not. There is no medium^ " and therefore those who are against one side, whichever " it be, are necessarily espousers of the other. Those who " think it ought not to be encouraged, will, I hope, think " it no injury to be thought to defend their opinion upon " such reasons as have been brought for it till they give " better. On the other hand, those who think these reasons " inconclusive, and can't find better, will find themselves " obliged to confess, that such a study ought to be encou- " raged, and, consequently, must take care how they are " accessory to such practices, as in their natural conse- " quences cannot but tend to its discouragement, lest they " come into the condemnation of those who love darkness " rather than light, and for their punishment be finally " adjudged to it. There is in this case no other medium " between encouraging and discou7-aging but what there is " between light and darkness*." Nothing seems clearer than that the Presbyterian foun- Piesby- dations, on the very principle asserted by Bishop Hare, Nations not were not established with a view to the maintenance ^'^^'^^ "» of Trinitarian sentmients agamst Unitarian, — of any doc- ance of any trine as opposed to another — or in assertion of any point which can strictly be called a point oi faith. They were • Page 24. doctrine. 63 founded to secure the benefit of regular religious worship, unfettered by liturgies, and the advantage of Christian ordi- nances in what appeared to be a scriptural form. This was the object, and the trusts were created merely to secure it. Doctrine was at best a collateral consideration ; if it had been the leading consideration, the chapels would not have been built; as their founders generally agreed with the Church. And admitting that the'early Presbyterians, in doctrinal opinion, agreed with the Church, still it is plain that they did not set any such agreement in opposition to the great principle which they upheld ; — namely, the duty of forbearance to fetter free inquiry, and of bringing and letting all bring every doctrine to the test of its conformity with Scripture, of which the interpretation lay in the pri- vate judgement of each individual. The intention is sometimes implied to be limited by the meaning of a mere phrase. " The founders were ortho- dox." Granted; — but it is nevertheless denied that those who do not agree in the doctrine of the Trinity are not or- thodox also ; in the proper sense of those who insisted on the Scripture as the only rule of faith, of which each, accord- ing to his ability, was the true and only judge. And here it may be as well to remark a great distinction between non- agreement and denial. The modern Presbyterian, like many of his early ancestors, may not deny the doctrine of the Tri- nity; for evidence may be irresistible to others, which to him is questionable. He does not agree to it, but is always ready to receive those impressions respecting it to which an inge- nuous mind is liable. But then he is not orthodox. "What " is every man's immediate standard of orthodoxy but his *' own opinions? Should ye object that the standard is not so " fleeting a thing as opinion : it is the word of God and right " reason. This, if ye will attend to it, will bring you back to " the very same point ye seek to avoid. Thedictates of Scrip- " ture and of reason, we see but too plainly, are differently " interpreted by differentpersons, of whose sincerity we have " no ground to doubt. Now to every individual, that only 68 " amongst all the varieties of sentiment can behisrule, which " to the best of his judgement, that is, his opinion, is the im- " port oi' either. Nor is there a possibility of avoiding this " recurrence at last. But such is the intoxication of power, " that men, blinded by it, will not allow themselves to look *' forward to the dreadful consequences. And such is the " presumption of vain man, (of which bad quality the weak- " est individuals have generally the greatest share,) that it is " with difficulty any one person can be brought to think that " any other person has or can have as strong conviction of " a different set of opinions as he has of his*." To affirm of the modern Presbyterian, as opposed to his Presby- predecessors, that he is not orthodox, means, with the In- such— have dependents, if anvthinff, that he does not adopt all the "° standard doctrmal opniions oi the early Presbyterians ; a variation doxy. which would be important in speaking of those who might hold themselves out as members of the Church of England, whose standard of orthodoxy is the Thirty-nine Articles, and which no member of that Church can question without being guilty of Dissent. But the Presbyterian has always disclaimed any fixed standard of orthodoxy, and has never looked with disfavour upon those who differed from him. He never was orthodox at any period subsequent to the Restoration, if the term implies more than the acceptance of certain doc- trines by individuals, influenced in such acceptance by their own judgement. He had no symbol of his faith save the Scripture ; and he held that all were entitled to expound it in such manner as they were best able, bound by no interpretation which others might have made. Some take high ground, indeed, in the argument, who The Chris- refuse to those who dissent from the doctrine of the Trinity, rJf"s"d to the title of Christians. Unfortunately for the character Unitarians. and consistency of Dissenters, tliis has been heard from the mouths of legal advocates instructed by them, and the * Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, by Geo. Campbell, D.D. Princi- pal of Marischall College, Aberdeen. 64 weight of whose authority is given to the assertion. It may be proper, therefore, to say a few words on a subject which we are aware none would approach with greater disgust than some of the most respected members of the Inde- pendent body itself. The charge was used of old as well as now ; — quite early enough for the old Presbyterians to have sanctioned it, by inserting terms of exclusion in their deeds, if disposed so to do. " It is very hard and " unjust," said Whiston, " that in this case I am still "joined with deists, blasphemers, and atheists; and my " great and honest designs for the restoration of the pri- " mitive faith, worship, and discipline, must be reckoned " among the fatal attempts for setting up, not only heresy, " but infidelity and profaneness among us. But just so did " the first persecutors of the Christians give them the name " of atheists and enemies of the gods*." There are asso- ciations connected with the terms "Atheists" and "Deists," which deter many from exposing themselves to the reproach they are meant to convey. A doctrine which some Christians assent to is rejected, and its rejection is converted into a denial of all the fundamentals of Christianity; language that shows great ignorance, or a most culpable misrepre- sentation, of the truth. Complex The metaphysical Articles of the Church of England, re- character of j^^j-jj^g ^^ |.|j^ j^q fjj.g|- persons of the Trinity, are, be it ob- the doctrine O » . . thus as- served, what the Dissenters were required to subscribe ; and essemil" ^^ y;\\aX their founders are to be supposed to have implied as to Chris- their creed. It is the refusal of assent to these, therefore, '^"' ^' which is denounced as a denial of Christianity. We believe there are very many among the orthodox Dissenters who would shrink from pledging themselves to all the proposi- tions involved in these Articles ; and, at any rate, it is no- torious that a rigid examination of their conformity to them would at all times exclude many from the endowments of which such Articles should be supposed to be the quali- fication. They are as follows: * Whiston's Account, p. 55. 65 " I. That there is but one living and true God everlast- Article* of ... -Ill • c- r -^ the Church. ** ing, without body, parts, or passions, ot innnite power, " wisdom, and goodness, the maker and preserver of all *' things, both visible and invisible : And in the wn^Vj/ of the " Godhead, there be three persons of one substance^ power, ** and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. " II. That the Son, which is the Word of the Father, ** begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eter- " nal God, of one substance nsoith the Father, took man's " nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, of /z rencetoiaw duals establishing the charity. Those sentiments will gene- for thr ' pose. la pur- j.^^1^ denote the intent where it is otherwise doubtful. They are to be discovered either by the writings of the parties themselves, or by the historical evidence which relates to them. In administering the funds of the charity, the intent must of course be made coincident with the law, or rather the charity must be administered according to law. In this case, it is true, the law will and must sometimes violate the actual intent. But the law is not ascertained in or- der to oppose the intent, but to carry it into effect as far as the law will admit. If a law repealed is to affect the historical evidence of the intent, in order to limit its opera- tion, the court administers the charity, not by existing laws, but according to the course of some repealed law. The inquiry is then, not what is the law, but what was the law? And why is this inquiry made? From a desire religiously to carry into effect the wishes of those who contended for the principle of freedom of inquiry ! But the point in issue, after the intent of the founder is once discovered, is merely to determine whether the trust is against any law now in exist- ence. If the authors of the trust contemplated a variation from the doctrines they themselves professed, without con- travening the will of the legislature, are we thence to con- clude that those variations were never to be opposed to an early law, if the time should come when they might be sanctioned by one of a late date? The present trustees of certain charities contend that they are acting in ac- cordance to the law as they now find it ; that they dc not act in defiance of, but agreeably to, its provisions. Whether any of their predecessors were as conscientious as themselves or not, cannot affect the present administration of the trust. They slate the views of the founders to have been those of men governed by an unbending wish to pro- mote unrestricted religious inquiry, and they ask whether a court of law can profess to be governed by a desire to advance the founder's intent, if it shall set up the doctrinal Articles of the Church of England, and require implicit consent to them. Either the law must admit the principle 85 of free inquiry in its full extent, or it must narrow the will of the founders of these religious charities to the orthodoxy of thirty-five and a half of the Articles. Which plan of the two would be most consistent with Lord North ington's observations* — " If the court does not pronounce the in- ** tent which the words bear, it does not declare the testator's " intent, and acts not with the integrity of a court of justice, " but in the narrow spirit of a cloister It is true, I " am sorry for it, that there are old precedents, &c., but I " found the equity of this court liberal and impartial, — no " respecter of persons, — and, please God, I will leave it so."? The monstrous injustice of the argument, — in the mouth injustice of especially of a Dissenter, and of one professing a religious '^'^ j'^"' desire to carry into effect the founder's intent, — is manifest in those numerous cases where the well-known sentiments of the founder were notoriously opposed to the law, and would totally destroy that intent, and divert the charity to persons wholly adverse to the opinions of the founder. Lady Hewley's particular doctrinal sentiments may be con- sidered sufficiently doubtful to prevent any pain to the minds of those who call for the limitation of her bounty to persons of their own creed. But if it be sufficient to say — this is a foundation before 1813, the founder's intent must be sup- posed to be consistent with the then state of the law, and none but those whose orthodoxy was legal before 1813 can be benefited by it; — then, in many cases, injustice will be practised under colour of law, and such a proceeding will be one of gross immorality and dishonesty, by whomsoever committed. To what length, moreover, is this stationary principle to Extent to be carried? If the existing state of the law is to be conclu- ^^^'^"^'^ !^® . . PI 11 principle sive, the existmg state of knowledge, of science and other would go. collateral matters may also, with equal propriety, be called in aid; and the legal circle which surrounded the founder must be a magic boundary, for ever to confine the scope of his bounty. Some instances of the perverse extent to which * Eden's Reports, 4S2-7. 86 the statu quo principle might thus be pushed have been put by the Lord Chancellor, in a recent speech in the House of Lords. The case of the Small- Pox Hospital, as a Medical Charity, is one remarkably affected by vicissitudes in science. When founded, inoculation would have been an offence, as the wanton spreading of a pestilent disorder. In a short time, however, the hospital itself became, by inoculation, the dispenser of the disorder. A new change came, and inoculation, which had just been hailed as a beneficent act, was declared to be a common law offence, and was punished. What should we say to him who should propose to direct such a charity by rules to be inferred from the state of knowledge on such subjects in the founder's day, or by the state of the law arising out of it ? If, in the progress of theological and biblical knowledge, the Church shall acknowledge the propriety of amending its version of the Scriptures, and in so doing shall discard or alter some of those texts which have been hitherto regarded as tests of orthodoxy, is the old standard to remain the invariable rule on which our Bible-distributing Charities (so far as they are in possession of funds contributed before the change) can alone be administered, according to the state of the law and of biblical knowledge at the time of the original foundation ? Application A reference to the former state of the law affects not only toother Dis- Unitarians, but those connected with what are called ortho- senters and ' otiier cases, dox foundations. All chapels built before the Toleration Act may at once be taken fi'om those who now hold them. Many others would probably not stand a minute inquiry. The ecclesiastical privileges of every class of Dissenters will be affected, and the title to their property shaken. Alarm may properly be felt by all denominations. Informations may be filed against every minister ; tests founded upon a former state of the law may be applied, and the most outrageous inquisition established, in order to obtain possession of funds granted by benevolent persons previous to the existence of the present tolerant laws. We have already observed, that those Presbyterian chapels which were founded by professed Arians and Unitarians during the last century, would all. 87 under the new system, either pass to other sects or be taken possession of by the crown, to be administered as it should think fit. But if their preaching be still an offence at the common law, then even the Act of 1813 affords no relief; and their charitable foundations are liable to the interpo- sition or seizure of the crown. Are we to believe that this is the state of property in England, devoted to religious purposes or to pious uses ? Those engaged in these schemes of confiscation cannot surely have studied religion, or they must be governed by that spirit which was once called re- ligious, whose influence made it dangerous to think on re- ligion, or to doubt the propriety of the doctrinal preten- sions of the Church of Rome. Is the principle now contended for to be applied to aca- Case of demies? Is theological instruction to rest where it did a ^cidemicai <=> Institutions. century ago ? If attempts to improve the English version Homeiton. of the Scriptures are to be restrained, a fortiori the text itself must be sacred. If Christ's Holy Gospel is the re- ceived version, (and the judge can go no further as his test,) are we to teach forgeries because our ancestors would have viewed their rejection " with horror " ? Is this a principle which the deservedly admired and respected tutor at Ho- merton will approve ? Does he teach his students to receive " the heavenly witnesses " as part of " Christ's Holy Go- *' spel," because the founders of the institution he is con- nected with would have witnessed its rejection " with " horror " ? Does he conceal from them that some of the passages most relied upon as defending the " Gospel " doctrine of the Trinity are abandoned by the learned of all sects; — that a passage, for instance, on which Doddridge expressly states that he principally relied for his rejection of the Antitrinitarian scheme, and which he therefore pe- culiarly prized, as part of "Christ's Holy Gospel," is with- out doubt spurious? We know that he is far too much a lover of truth, and too well acquainted with the progress of Scriptural criticism, to hesitate upon such matters. More- over, have not the trustees of that institution found it expe- dient, and have they scrupled, to meet the altered views of 88 their denomination by relaxing the strictness of the laws of the foundation ? They were not, as in Lady Hewley's case, left with a wide discretion ; but the founders are understood, as regards one at least of the funds, to have positively di- rected that to be done which the trustees have determined shall not be done. We allude to the abolition of subscription. Did not the founders show their conviction that subscrip- tion was necessary to protect the utility of the institution ? Did not the trustees conceive that they were acting on the spirit of their duty by taking and acting upon different views, which experience and further inquiry convinced them were better suited to the realization of the main design ? And are the men from whom the moi'e liberal administration has originated, such as the assembly of divines would have recognised as true believers, or have denounced as sheer Arminians? Is the stationary principle to be the perpetual rule at Highbury? Its principal founder publicly disclaims in newspapers the enforcement of creeds and subscriptions, with which his institution was charged, in answer to the Dissenters' application for access to the Universities. But of what avail is this disavowal ? If the doctrine which his counsel are enforcing in the suit in which he is relator be correct, the object will be equally and substantially answered by legal inferences, in spite of his personal disavowals, and of what we therefore know to be his intention. Will the re- lator of a hundred years hence have anything to do but to make out the founder's creed, and apply that, with all the incidents of the date of foundation, as an irrevocable law for regulating admissions to the benefits of his noble institu- tion ? So that, in fact, though subscription may not be re- quired, no one can have the benefit of the charity who does not profess a fixed creed ; and this creed the trustees will be told to inquire into, at the peril of dismission from their office. Another difficulty also arises, if those who founded cha- rities are to have their intent governed by the state of the law at the date of the foundation. The declared object of '89 many trusts is the support of the Protestant rehgion, and presump. no words expressive of Dissent are employed. Should these charities be brought before the Court of Chancery, and the test is to be subscription of the Articles, what excludes the appropriation of the funds by members of the Established Church, in case subscription is declined ? Interference is to take place on the ground that those who are now the beneficiaries of the charity are not willing to assent to the Articles. It then becomes necessary to seek a class whose doc- trines approach nearest those of the thirty-five Articles and a ii-'ction. On this principle, not Independents, not Bap- tists, but those who receive all the Thirty-nine Articles, will surely be entitled to be preferred. Indeed, it may be ques- tionable if it is not the bounden duty of the Court to press such a construction of the trust, if the rule contended for, as arising from a former state of the law, is to be admitted. Should it look for doctrines assimilating to those of the old Presbyterians, it would not be Independents but Church- men, in whose favour the trusts should be administered. No doubt the intent will thus be violated ; and it will equally be violated if other sects than those for whose benefit the charity was established are solely to profit by it. The same injustice might extend to all other religious denominations, as well as Presbyterian, and many sources of extensive charity would be directed in a manner not originally con- templated. What, in any point of view, is the prevailing claim of Peculiar the Independents in particular? Will they admit, any ind™pen- ^ more than the Presbyterian or Baptist, that the Articles '^^"'''• of the Church of England correctly express their religious doctrines, or, rather, that they both do so now, and did so at the date of the Toleration Act, or at the date of their early foundations? If incorrectly or insufficiently, there is an evasion in subscription, and a doubt is cast upon their title to their own endowments ; and, if correctly, they cer- tainly did well to abolish subscription to the Assembly's Catechism, or the task of reconciliation might be difficult. They surely will not contend that Presbyterian chapels 90 were founded only to preach therein a Hcensed creed. Was subscription resisted, and the law petitioned against, to allow only future congregations to dissent from thirty-five Articles and a half, and not to affect by its repeal the ex- isting congregations ? What was the offence, what was the ground of complaint, if the Articles were unobjectionable? Ministers of chapels petitioned, congregations applied to the Legislature, — yet the acts of the Legislature, it is said, were not to extend to the petitioners, though made at their request. The absurdity of the whole proceeding is singular, if the representation of it be correct. Certain Dissenters are offended at particular laws ; at their request the laws are repealed. Yet the repeal of the law is to assist non-com- plainants, and its oppressive enactments are still to affect those who induced the Legislature to grant their repeal. The Independents may ask for subscription, and be willing themselves to subscribe. Do they admit Bishop Tomline's sense of the Articles, or what other will they support? In what character will they subscribe? Are they Arminians or Calvinists? They subscribe, and are the former: — they preach, and they are the latter. They are plaintiffs: are they so as Baxterians? What other designation will they claim ? What character will they next undertake to personify? They say the Presbyterians are not Baxterians ; that their identity is gone, and claim to succeed them. The charac- teristics of other sects in the lapse of time have changed; will they repeat the same demand in those cases also ? The Baptist and the Quaker are exposed to their grasp ; every ancient charity is liable to their interference, and may be- come the prey of their inordinate claims*. * Mr. Robertson, an Independent minister, in his very able and liberal Pamphlet of remonstrance against the proceedings of his brethren in the Wolverhampton case, entitled, " Religious Liberty, applied to the case of the old Meeting-house, Wolverhampton," (1818,) observes, "The So- " ciety at Wolverhampton was once Trinitarian : its first members were " Trinitarians : it is now a Unitarian congregation. It has become such " through the prevalence of error among its members. Nobody of Uni- " tiuians from another Society has forcibly invaded and taken possession 91 Religious charities may in general be classed according Distinct to three distinct cases. 1. Where some direct test has been '"'J?*^? °^ religious imposed. 2. Where some catechism or book of instruction charities. is ordered to be taught. 3. Where no test or catechism whatever is prescribed. As to the first, there can be no doubt that whenever subscription or assent to articles is required, those only can be entitled to benefit by the charity who make such sub- scription or express such assent as is imposed on them. The second case will be more specially noticed hereafter ; Reference but here it may be observed that a great distinction exists '".' l^" J _ ^ chisni, &c. between the cases, of a direction to teach a catechism in connexion with a creed or formula of faith, and of a direc- tion given to use a catechism by those who notoriously " of the place ; but the present profession has sprung up and acquired its " strength in the original soil, precisely as other errors have predominated " in places once pure in profession. Antinomianism in like manner has " clianged the face of many religious societies ; and Antinomianism is " surely an error of the worst kind. Is the latter to be cured by either " attaching illegality to the persons who profess it, or by expelling them " from the situations in which another doctrine was once maintained, " that is now subverted by their anti-evangelical creed? Every jjerson " acquainted with the writings of the Nonconformist divines knows, that " many of them entertained the strongest possible aversion to Arminian- " ism, against which they manifested the greatest hostility, classing it with " Arianisra, Socinianism, Deism, and even Atheism. Not a doubt can " be felt respecting their opposition to the introduction of Arminian sen- " timents into the congregations of which they were the pastors, and, in " connexion with others, the founders. But if, in any particular case, it " should be proved, as it is believed it easily might, that the minister and " congregation who have succeeded seriatim these professors of high Cal- " vinism are, in sentiment, more nearly allied to the Arminianism which " their predecessors abhorred, than to the rigid Calvinism which they " avowed ; will it be contended they ought to be expelled by a legal " interference from the place which they occupy ? I could refer to " SEVERAL CASES OF UNQUESTIONABLE DEVIATION IN RELIGIOUS OPI- " NIONS, IN THE PRESENT OCCUPANTS OF MEETING-HOUSES, PROFESSORS " OF EVANGELICAL PRINCIPLES, FROM THE TENETS ASSERTED BY THE "ORIGINAL worshipers; AND THESE SOCIETIES, ACCORDING TO THE " DOCTRINE OF NINE MINISTERS, ARE TO BE EJECTED ON ACCOUNT OF " THESE DIFFERENCES ! WhAT BECOMES, THEN, OF RELIGIOUS FREE- " DOM ? " 92 objected to any fixed creed or formulas, and with whom therefore the selection might be quite accidental, either as being considered the best then published, or as the most popular among particular persons, and therefore suited to the object of general instruction, — but without any approval of the compilation as a creed ; — of desire to hold it forth as a standard of the founder's faith, or of imposing it as such on others*. The third case has been anticipated in our preceding re- marks ; and we have contended that the general declaration test or rule, of assent to the truth of the Scriptures is amply sufficient to cover the requisites of such a foundation ; and that its spirit is utterly repugnant to all attempts to frame a specific creed, as a restraint upon the right of the congregation to judge for themselves. It is not denied that the case of a charity of this sort is one liable to be attended with prac- tical difficulties. " Every man is obliged, and has a right, *' to judge for himself in religious matters. It cannot, " indeed, be pretended but that this may, in some cases, " have its inconveniences ; and what is there which is not " liable to the same objection ? f " A congregation may. become divided by a change of opinion among then)selves, or of the minister; and this undoubtedly is an evil of some extent. But it- presses on all forms of Dissent, and is the argument relied on in favour of Establishments and of the interference of the State in ecclesiastical matters. If all religious teachers are conscientiously and seriously desir- ous, not of supporting a given set of doctrines, but of ascertaining what doctrines ought to be supported, there is no voluntary church against which this same objection may not be taken. A teacher of the Established Church has no discretion: he must pursue one continual course of conformity to certain doctrinal articles. It is not so with those who have no fixed test of belief. A member of a re- ligious congregation professing the right of free inquiry * See before, (page 44,) the quotation from the " Vindication " of the Ministers in 1719. f Calaniy's Life, vol. i. p. 255. 98 has no just cause of complaint aojainst his associates, if a change of doctrine among them occurs. He is one of a vokmtary society, formed upon terms fully understood ; prepared from the moment of its formation to meet all the inconveniences which the principles it professes may create*. The possibility of separation is necessarily con- templated at the very time of association. " Whei'e an " institution," said Lord Eldon f, " exists for the purpose " of religious worship, and it cannot be discovered from " the deed declaring the trust what form of religious wor- " ship was intended, the Court can find no other means " of deciding the question than through the medium of an " inquiry into what has been the usage of the congregation " in respect of it; and if the usage turns out upon inquiry " to be such as can be supported, I take it to be the duty " of the Court to administer the trust in such manner as " best to establish the usage, considering it as a matter of " implied contract betweeii the members of the congregation. " But if, on the other hand, it turns out that the institution " was established for the express purpose o{ such form ofre- " ligious 'worship, or the teachings of such particular doc- " trines, as the founder has thought most conformable to " the principles of the Christian religion, I do not appre- " hend that it is in the power of individuals, having the " management of that institution, at any time to alter the " purpose for which it was founded." We agree that if an institution be formed for the express Facility of purpose of advancing particular doctrines, or supporting p^Jshyt^. a particular form of religious worship, little difficulty can rian chari- arise in its administration. The intent of the founder is eifect. • The earliest Presbyterian Church provided in its Articles of Disci- pline, that in case of dispute between office-bearers and the people, the congregation should be assembled, and that which they or the major part of them should judge or decree, the same should be a lawful decree or ordinance, of sufficient force to bind the whole congregation and any member of the same. — Discourse on the Troubles of Franckfort, printed in the Phanix, ii. 136, 137, and quoted by Onne, in his Life of Owen, page 201. t 3 Merivale, 400. 94. plain, and, if it be not improper, oiiglit to be carried into effect. But we contend, on the same ground, tiiat if the deed of trust declare no precise form of worship or doctrines, and the administration of the institution may be left to usage, there is nothing in the law to oppose Presbyterian charities acting upon the principle already stated ; and that the principle is, in fact, the only one really consistent with the true basis of Protestant Dissent. An implied contract exists, sanctioned by usage, that alteration and change of doctrine may take place, regulated by the governing body. If the congregation elect the preacher, by it the change must be approved, — if the trustees, by them. The possibility of abuse exists in all cases, and its occurrence must be checked by those most interested in preventing it. In Presbyterian congregations, a majority generally deter- jnines the choice of the minister ; and looking at the prac- tice in those societies for more than a century, their consti- tution and the exercise of their power have been accompa- nied with no mischievous results. In some cases divi- sion, followed by secession, has occurred. The instances are not very frequent, the influence of a majority being ge- nerally too strong to make ill-will perpetual. The language of Lord Eldon does not oppose the principle of such cha- rities ; and there is no case in the books at all restrictive of it. On selfish principles those calling themselves orthodox may be reconciled to the application of the liberal principle by the recollection that it is equally applicable to the ap- propriation of such endowments to the contrary system of opinions, if the progress of inquiry should lead the Pres- byterians in the next century in an inverse direction to that of their course during the past. He who now avows what are called Unitarian opinions, leaves the succeeding con- ffrearation to the same freedom which his ancestors en- joyed; and if the Independent's views be the truth, and his confidence in it be strong, the reversion that awaits him will be a compensation for the temporary evil. Who is it that shows his trust in the final power of the truths of the Go- 95 spel, — in the triumphs of pure and primitive Christianity,— i he who fences it round with creeds and subscriptions, or he who erects his house of devotion, and leaves the worshipers therein free to follow their unbiassed convictions ? A case of what may be called reciprocity in the action of Case of re- the principle we are contending for is now before us. The '^'P'^"" ^' chapel in question was built by persons holding Unitarian opinions, and was vested in trustees entertaining the same. The congregation and the minister became Trinitarians, and the trustee filled up the trust with the names of persons of Trinitarian opinions, and left the property for the use of the majority; thus fully acting according to the Presbyte- rian principle. It has been generally in this way that the alleged departure from the doctrines of founders has taken place. The trustees have rarely had any power to inter- fere ; and the congregations, having chosen ministers who agreed in their professions of belief, were not opposed by them. We have seen that, in the attempts now made by the In- Recent pre- dependents to obtain the possession of Presbyterian chari- ^^"'^^^. °' ties, and to change their present destination, it is pretended the foun- that, by confining their advantages to certain sects or opi- nions, the intent of the founders will be advanced. That they were not instituted by Independents is admitted; that they were not instituted to propagate fixed doctrines is also admitted : but they were, it is said, instituted to ad- vance doctrines not Antitrinitarian, and the use of them by Unitarians is a violation of the intent. Whatever opinions the Presbyterians have adopted can be ascribed to no de- sire of personal or temporal objects. To preserve their chapels and property, motives are now set up to check, if possible, the conscientious expression of belief. Hitherto no such motives have existed ; and we believe that the founders intended none such should exist. No anxiety of worldly gain, but the love only of pursuing the truth has prevailed. The natural result of this is now held forth as constituting an offence. That there are among the In- dependents persons of high and cHstinguished excellence. 96 far above all sordid views and actuated by correct motives, there can be no doubt. But there are those who seem bent on forcing on others the reception of the doc- trines they themselves hold. The chapels and posses- sions they seek to obtain are not theirs, and never belonged to any person connected with their denomination. They are the foundations and the offerings of Presbyterians, purchased chiefly by the ancestors of the very individuals now sought to be ejected. They are possessed in trust by those who point to the burial-grounds of their pre- decessors and ancestors, of their families and relatives, and ask why the memorials of their dead are to be taken from them? Why ground consecrated by the piety of children is to be occupied by the stranger? Why feelings of affection and love are to be thus outraged? They turn to their chapel registers, and trace a long line of entries, records of domestic events, notices of their remote ancestors and their immediate parents. They look at the deeds of endowment, and still the same names appear. They are ignorant of guilt or of any criminal act, and ask why this severe penalty of expulsion and removal is to be inflicted upon them ? Is the pursuit of truth so dangerous, has it been so preju- dicial, that this mighty sacrifice is to be made? The pre- sent possessors are not aware when the changes made in the doctrines of those who preceded them occurred; they have endeavoured to ascertain whether those changes were cor- rect, and their inquiries have satisfied them they were. They had been educated with strong feelings of responsi- bility, and of the necessity of inquiry ; and that the expres- sion of their belief was the highest moral duty, both in its connexion with religious as well as civil actions. They now find this converted into a crime, — a crime against those whose precepts and whose injunctions to inquire, and to avow the result of their inquiries, have been their earliest lessons ; — and thus what they have thought a duty, is to be penal in its performance. What evidence more strong could they require to confirm the rectitude of their own proceedings, than the conduct of those by whom nan name. 97 they were instructed, — their liistorical and domestic tradi- tions? Their families were sufferers and Nonconformists; their most eminent teachers were descendants of those who were persecuted for their belief; every association taught them that they were but following the footsteps of those whose names they revered and of whom they are descend- ants. Cruel infliction, to make religion an instrument of their annoyance, to make it productive of painful and bitter feelings, to invoke in its aid — not charity — but per- secution ! In the discussions which have taken place on these sub- jects, much has been said of the name of Presbyterian being improperly used, — of its having now little or no- Piesbyte- thing of its original or etymological sense. It has also been urged that the exclusively proper appellation of the body of persons now claiming this title is Unitarian ; and that the Presbyterian name is now retained or assumed by Unitarians, after it has lost its proper and original signi- fication, merely for the purpose of giving a colour of title to the possession of the old Presbyterian endowments. Our observations, and a consideration of the history Titieaiways and character of the body called Presbyterian, fully ex- pose the incorrectness and inconclusiveness of these asser- tions. If the sense in which the term can now be used is but a secondary and artificial one, so it was also when the founders of Presbyterian churches, after the Act of Uni- formity, first used it. The adaptation is no modern act, and arises out of no design. There has been, and there is now, variety of opinion among the persons so called; but it remains to be shown that tliis variety of opinion is any vio- lation of the founders' object. On the contrary, it may be, and we trust we show that it was originally and is now, the legitimate consequence of the very principles entertained by the founders. The change that has occurred has been gradual and successive. There is no period from the be- ginning of the last century to the present, at which any particular set of doctrines were professed as generally and permanently Presbyterian. If there is one standard, there H 98 are half a dozen. Which race or which class of professors is lo dictate to the rest of the Church? In the words em- ployed by a writer on the subject some years ago, " Whose "wife is she of the seven, for the seven had her to wife?" As little sense or propriety is there in setting the term Unitarian, or any other profession of doctrine, in opposition to that of Presbyterian. Doctrinal appellations have been of late more usual than those supposed to refer to forms of church government and discipline, about which the world now cares comparatively little. The extension of direct toleration to Unitarians had the natural consequence of assisting to give currency to a doctrinal designation. The greater number of Presbyterian congregations are certainly now, as regards the opinions of their members, Unitarian ; so once they were Calvinist, afterwards Baxterian, after- wards Arian — and they may again be either or all. It may in some sense, from the strictness of adherence to creed, be con- sidered almost the same thing in this country to speak of an Independent and a Calvinist, because the Independent churches require their members so to be; but, in fact, the same person may be both or eithei*. The term Unitarian requires at least additional terms to discover exactly the class of persons to which it belongs, even among actual pro- fessors of Unitarianism in England. We have Unitarian Presbyterians, Unitarian Baptists, and proper Unitarian congregations of modern foundation, which may perhaps be called Independents as properly as any others. And in like manner we have Presbyterian Calvinists, Presbyterian Arians, and Pi'esbyterian Unitarians. In America all the Unitarian churches are avowedly and distinctively Indepen- dents. Will the persons who say they have proved any per- son not to be a Unitarian because he is a Presbyterian, show why any one would be improperly called a Presbyterian an Independent, or a Methodist, or a Baptist, because he is a Calvinist? And are those the fittest persons to wrangle about the precise meaning of a term, (the application of which, in practice, is well known,) who persist in calling these very Unitarians Sccinians, when they know that 99 the term Socinian with no original aptitude belongs to them. But all this branch of the discussion is in fact a jargon of Dispute words and sophistry. The real and only question is, whether ^^"^^'^ ' a body of men who, by the exercise of the right of private judgement, first seceded from the Church, and have since relinquished their own original standard of faith, as well as the institutions from which they derive their name, ever im- posed, — whether it could have been consistent with their principles and practice to impose, — restrictions upon the successive members of their congregations, in order to pre- vent their acting according to the light afforded them and the dictates of their conscience ; — whether they could mean, as a penalty for varying from their sentiments, to consign over their endowments to those from whose principle of action they most widely differed, and to annihilate that liberty for which they conscientiously strove? Presbyterianism, as the denomination has been used in Acceptation England from the origin of Nonconformity, has no re- Presbvtc- ference to the existence or the want of a government ''•*"• by classes or synods ; nor yet does it imply the profes- sion of the creed of the Assembly of Divines, or any other ; but refers only to the doctrine of the equality of all Chris- tian ministers, as differing from Episcopacy, and to a dif- ferent plan of conducting church affairs from that adopted by the Independents. Although the actual conduct of church affliirs among the Presbyterians has undergone con- siderable alteration, it now differs even much more decidedly than it did at first from that of the Independents. There is no probability, from any present resemblance in the con- stitution of the churches, of the sects being confounded ; whilst the want of doctrinal uniformity among the Presby- terians has been alone sufficient to maintain the distinction between them and other societies or sects which endeavour to secure a fixed standard of faith. The doctrine of the right and duty of individual judgement in matters of reli- gion, with practical freedom from all restraints on inquiry or attempts to exercise control in such affairs are, and have H 2 100 Contest is really a re- ligious one. Chancery jurisdic- tion as to belief. Conse- (juence of acting on the Court' principles. for much more than a century been, the real characteristics of English Presbyterianism. A Presbyterian may be a Tri- nitarian, or an Arian, or an Humanitarian, a Calvinist or an Arminian, reputedly Orthodox or Unitarian. He is not a person boundhy any " stinted" creed. He offers as his creed the Scriptures only ; and will admit of no interference with the free exercise of his judgement. Such is the English Presbyterian. The contest is purely religious. It is a movement for the most part arising out of the true odium theologicum ; an attempt to fight over again the battle of 1719, under the singular pretext of carrying into effect the intent of the per- sons who then solemnly decided against religious restric- tions. It turns entirely upon this consideration, — whether the principle, so often mentioned, of free inquiry, can ex- tend to the doctrines in question. The petty warfare about forms of discipline and government, ordination, &c., is ob- viously useless. The Irisli Presbyterians, who have ad- hered to all the old forms of discipline, have not on that account escaped persecution ; and it is obvious that ad- herence to such forms would not have protected their En- glish brethren. The Court of Chancery, in order to aid its determina- tion in Lady Hewley's case, which involves the questions we have considered, has, by a remarkable process, called upon the defendants to state upon oath the special mode of their belief, and, in imitating the High Commission Court, has established a precedent which, if not dangerous, is odious and offensive. Assuming the jurisdiction to have been properly exercised, what are the circumstances and principles upon which pro- s perty founded by Presbyterians, and possessed in regular and undisturbed succession by their descendants and suc- cessors, is to be transferred to Independents ? If, because the Presbyterians have varied in the profes- sion of their religious doctrines, the Court determines that the Independents may benefit by certain charities, though they do not entertain all the doctrines of the founders, — 101 that opposition to those doctrines by a Presbyterian is ob- jectionable, by an Independent uncensurable, — and that in one case they are a standard for disqualification, and in the other no standard for qualification. If the Court is of opi- nion that the principle of free inquiry in the interpreta- tion of the Scriptures ought to be limited ; — then, (omit- ting the consideration of the importance of avoiding such a determination upon the great justificatory maxim of Protes- tant Dissent,) it sets up its authority on the mode in which certain doctrines of Christianity are to be professed, and the opinion of the judge becomes, not simply a decision be- tween contending parties, but between all learned divines ; and it pronounces what are fundamentals of Christianity. If, simply because a deviation from the religious profes- court must sions of the early Presbyterians has occurred, the Court de- J"dge theo- . , . . ... . logical con- termines that the principle of free inquiry justifies dissent in troversies. the first instance, but that the principle is not again to be exer- cised, however erroneous the doctrines first entertained may appear. If, because the doctrine of the Trinity is rejected, it determines, notwithstanding the 19th Geo. III., that the fundamentals of Christianity include that doctrine, and that they who, after a dispassionate consideration, should reject it, are pursuing a course of error, though the legislature consi- dered a general declaration of belief in Scripture a sufficient test of Christian faith, — in this the Court acts purely as a judge of theological questions. Before therefore it decides, it would necessarily be compelled to hear the arguments with which the doctrine is incumbered. Justification of dissent must be understood, before it can be said to be bad. " The " terms * person ' and ' nature ' may be employed in propo- " sitions bearing ninety different senses, and there m.ny be " ninety subscribers, and no two agree*." A doctrine to which importance is attached should at least be declared in distinct expi'essions before belief in it is required. It has been shown by historical evidence what were the Present practical * Mordpcai's Letters : Letter I. p. 71, Second Edition. 102 Wolver- hampton case. lasesofiegai Opinions and sentiments of the Presbyterian body at the controversy, ^jggij^j^ipg ^f ([^q jgth century. From this source, the in- tent, which it may be presumed should govern their religi- ous charitable foundations, has been traced. The limits which the law imposed upon that intent have been stated, and also the change which those limits may be considered to have undergone by certain alterations in the law. And we have also examined the difficulties to which any judge is ex- posed who shall endeavour to control the operation of the principle of freedom of inquiry, which the Presbyterians have at all times maintained. We now proceed to review the cases in which these sub- jects have been discussed in the Court of Chancery. The first case in which considerations of this kind were judicially discussed, was in an information filed in 1818 against the Trustees of a chapel at Wolverhamp- ton. The trust was created in the year 1701, and was for the support of " a meeting-house for the service and worship of God." It was a Presbyterian foundation, and was characterized as others of the sort are. It was provided, that if the worship and service of God should be prohibited by law, and the meeting-house should thereby become useless, the Trustees might sell the same, and dis- pose of the proceeds to such charitable uses as they might direct, or convert the chapel into an hospital for poor people. There were also other trusts connected with it, arising from endowments and donations, made subsequently to the date of the original trust. And there were some trusts coincident in date with avowed declarations of Unitarian opinions ; being created on the occasion of the choice of a minister of Unitari- an opinions, and as a provision for his ministry. The congre- gation regulated all matters of faith, doctrine and discipline; the power of the Trustees was merely administrative. Simi- lar changes of doctrine had taken place in this as in other Presbyterian chapels, and Trinitarian doctrines were not preached in it for many years previous to the happening, in the year 1813, of a vacancy in the office of minister. In this year the congregation and the Trustees invited the Rev. 103 John Steward to officiate as minister; he professlnj^ at the time Unitarian doctrines. The invitation was limited to a term of three years, and with that limitation it was accepted. Mr. Steward changed his sentiments, and preached Trini- tarian doctrines. The congregation were dissatisfied with his conduct, and called upon him to resign. What other course could he have followed, acting consistently or honourably, than to have done so? His sentiments were part of the condi- tion of his aj^pointment, — his recommendation. He was per- mitted to officiate during the term of three years, and when again called upon at the end of that time to retire, refused. An information was filed in the Court of Chancery by a person who had many years before seceded from the congregation, to quiet Mr. Steward in his possession, and necessarily evict the whole body of worshipers by whom he was chosen; to ob- tain an injunction against the Trustees, and for other pur- poses. Minutes of an order were pronounced by Lord Eldon to restrain the defendants from legal proceedings, and refer- ences were made by him to one of the Masters of the Court respecting the moneys and funds in the hands of theTrustees, andtheparticulars of the agreement made on the appointment of Mr. Steward, and to inquire " what was the nature and " particular object (with respect to worship and doctrine,) "for the observance, teaching, and support of which each " and every of the charitable funds and estates, respectively, " were or was created or raised." No order was drawn up, — the cause was afterwards set down for hearing, and a decree to the same effect was taken, but it was never prose- cuted. So that no specific decision was, in this case, pro- nounced upon the questions since raised in Lady Hewley's case. Mr. Steward had entered upon his office under a special Aiguments stipulation with the congregation and Trustees, and then en- 'I'^n used. deavoured, with certain Independent ministers, to seize the property and expel the congregation. They employed the same arguments as have been lately advanced in Lady Hew- ley's case, and under similar circumstances. No specification of belief is contained in the trust deeds, nor is any special 104 doctrine or form of worship lequired by them. The first occupants had received the Bible, and the Bible only, as the foundation of tlieir religion, and to it only they looked, as containing the expression of their faith. The chapel was devoted to the worship of God, and for that purpose it was used. The founders had prescribed no doctrines ; their actual personal belief was a matter of some uncertainty, though the strong probability is, that they professed the modified doctrinal opinions which then generally cha- racterized the English Presbyterians. A great part of tile pecuniary endowment was clearly made after de- cided manifestations of Unitarianism. There was a dis- honourable breach of faith in forcibly imposing on the congregation tenets which they did not approve. If Mr. Steward was convinced he was in error, he should have pointed it out to his congregation, and have endeavoured to convince them. If he failed, it was his duty to retire. Instead of adopting this uf)right course, he joined with other persons, more designing than himself, and charged the Trustees and the congregation with the commission of a penal offence, denying that he himself, upon his appoint- ment, or they previously, had been occupied in the worship of God. He had no interest in the property but that arising from a limited contract, on the expiration of which the con- gregation possessed the power of again making an appoint- ment. Resistance to a new appointment was made, an inva- sion of the privileges of the congregation took place, and the Presbyterians were to be ousted. A new sect stepped in who fanned the unfortunate difference between the minister and the congregation into a flame, and under the pretence of care for the doctrines of the Gospel, commenced inquiries into the belief of those to whom they opposed themselves, and called upon the Court of Chancery to interpose and silence what they termed a heresy. This case excited a considerable sensation at the time. It was publicly advertised by a bodj of Independent ministers as a " valuable precedent", and subscriptions were solicited to further it. The design, however, seems then to have met 105 with no very general favour. Many hesitated at its morality, and, as Protestant Dissenters, doubted the consistency of taking advantage of a change in religious opinions, to turn any persons out of property to which the founders affixed no restrictions, and which, at any rate, was never theirs*. While in these observations we have been led to express Piocced- f 1 I'll '"S^ disa- freely our opmions on the proceedings ot the attackuig body, vowed by it is due to others to record one striking instance among the ^°'"^- community to which they belong, of indignant disavowal and eloquent rebuke of such proceedings, as inconsistent with the plain principles of religious liberty, and particu- larly with the profession of Protestant Dissenters. We al- lude to the pamphlet of the Rev. James Robertson, an Independent minister, which has before been referred to in a note. Mr. Robertson's indignation was particularly and justly Mr. Robert- excited at the spectacle, then and since exhibited, of Pro- ^°"- testant Dissenting ministers urging on appeals to Courts of justice on the strength of persecuting laws, in order to dis- credit their opponents in the eyes of tribunals already natu- rally disinclined to them, and for the purpose of procuring the confiscation of property subscribed for and belonging to persons not long escaped from persecution. It was then professed that no such use of these laws was Discussion intended ; and that they were only referred to as extrinsic ^^ ^"^enu circumstances of evidence, indicating the founder's intent, used. Mr. Robertson powerfully exposed the fallacy of this asser- tion, and indeed it is difficult to see how it could help the * " Till the pi'ofessors of Christianity obtained possession of secular " power, or became the objects of its patronage, they never thought of " compulsory measures for promoting the faith, or restraining the reli- " gion, of others. The renunciation of all dependence on civil authority " in matters of religion, and of all connexion with tem.poral governments, " forms an essential part of consistent independency ; the abandonment " of everything like force for promoting or preserving the interests of the " Gospel follows as matter of course A persecuting Independent is " a monster, because he is acting in opposition to the life and glory of his " own system." — Orme's Life of Owen, p. 80. from M Robertson 106 parties out of the dilemma in vviiich recourse to such wea- pons involved them. The case then under consideration was one in which, as to part at least, the fund could only be taken away by an application of the legal presumption arising from the state of the law in 1783; by which the donors are presumed to have favoured what is called an orthodox ministry, though it is notorious that they them- selves were then electing a Unitarian minister. The law, instead of being used in explanation of the founder's intent, was turned directly in opposition to it. Improper The employment, by a Dissenter, of the machinery of w'LVons'b^ persecuting laws, to affect the position of his fellow-noncon- Dissenters. formist. Can by no sophistry be palliated. It has no parallel but in laws, now justly execrated as infamous. Extracts Mr. Robertson's observations are so pertinent and forcible, and bear such ample testimony to our interpretation of the proper principles of Protestant Dissent, — independendy of all particular usage among English Presbyterians, — that we shall make no apology for extracting some of the leading passages. Supposed He meets, as the early Presbyterians did, the old objec- necessity of ^^^^ ^^ jj^g rejection of creeds ; and comments on the sup- checks on *' . . error. posed necessity of checks and precautions agamst error. " Are not moral means, which are the only proper means " for religionists to use in support of their principles and " practice, the same to all, equally accessible to Trinitarians " and Unitarians? If the former can preach, so can the lat- " ter. If the one can write and publish, so can the other. " Nothino- can be more evident tiian that moral means are " the same to all parties, the only difference which it is " possible to consider as existing between them being the "essential difference of truth from error. " ' Give advantages to the cause of Christ,' — and what " advantages would they ^n;^? it ? They would have it placed " under the protection of secular Courts; they would have " themselves as its friends, to walk abroad and breathe at " large under the guardian care of the laws of England ; 107 " and they would have impugners of the doctrine of the " Trinity, and ' such as have removed to the greatest di- *' 'stance from the truth,' (of which deviation they must to "be sure be the judges,) made indictable at common law. " These are their advantages.'^ " Political checks, then, are the restraints which it " seems are to be used, and political provisions the ad- " vantages to be given to a jiarticular religious profes- "sion. And in what part of the New Testament are " such means prescribed for the support of Christ's cause? " Moral means are the only ones which he has appointed, " political checks and advantages he has forbidden ; they " are not for his service. If religious societies run into " error, they must be reclaimed, and their disorders cured, " by means widely different from those which my misguided " opponents have taken under their direction. ' Remember " ' whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first " 'works.' The application of intolerant laws 'is no way " « that God has appointed to inform the judgements of " ' men, or alter their way of thinking.' Arguments founded " in truth, and addressed to the understanding of the flilien, *' are the only means which we can use for their recovery, " and if these, accompanied by our prayers and our tears, " fail to convince and to reclaim, we have exhausted the " means of restoration, and must leave our erring brother " to abide the trial of that day, when his adherence to the " opinions from which we have thus sought to turn him " will be impartially and correctly estimated, by the only tri- " bunal competent to pronounce its character, as an attach- " ment to truth, or a culpable pertinacity of error. " Did these ministers learn to write in this manner about " ' checks and precautions to hinder religious societies from " * running into error,' from their own observation of the "efficacy of the common law to preserve religion in its "purity; or from their historical knowledge of the preven- " tion of error, by the application of human laws to the "subject of religion? They must have been singularly " fortunate, indeed, in tlieir connexions and in their read- 108 No particu- lar doctrine required to founde intent. *' ing to be able to derive from any memoranda in their ** possession, the conclusion that political 'checks and pre- ** 'cautions' are the proper means to prevent religious soci- *' eties from running into error. Other persons would most *' probably infer that they might produce a very different *' effect, as they are persuaded from the historical docu- " ments of all ages that secular power has provided ' checks " ' and precautions', in regard to religion, only to corrupt *' and ruin it in all its interests." Mr. Robertson then forcibly puts the true principle of construction which should be applied to cases where the satisfy the founder has prescribed no exclusive system. " If the patrons of this case had gone into Court with a " trust deed, which specifies Calvinistic Trinitarians as the " class of religious professors to be held as sole and exclu- " sively occupiers of the Meeting-House and its appen- " dages, and with testamentary bequests devised specifically " for the support of religious worship among Calvinistic " Trinitarians, their case had been very different from what " in reality it is. They have no such specific deeds. The " only description of religious professors included in the " trust deeds is that of ' Protestant Dissenters' ; they define " the use to be ' for the worship and service of God' and " for ' Protestant Dissenters'. As the deed, therefore, " which creates and constitutes a trust, defines and limits " the objects of the trust, there is, on the face of the deeds, " neither alienation nor abuse; the place being used for " ' the worship of God' by ' Protestant Dissenters'. ' A *' 'stern, inflexible support of the cause of justice' might " therefore be satisfied so long as ' Protestant Dissenters' " are in possession of the place. " Those deeds, it is said, and with truth certainly, con- " tain a provision for the application of the trust in case " 'the Act of the 1st of William and Mary, commonly " ' called the Toleration Act, should be repealed, and the " ' congregation or society of Dissenting Protestants should '' 'by law be pi'ohibited to assemble or meet together for " 'the service and worship of God.' This clause is per- Effect of clause re- ferring to Toleration Act. 109 •' fectly intelligible and consistent with the representation " above given. The first occupants of the place, — admit- " ting the principle, the only one tenable by Protestant *' Dissenters, that the Bible alone is the standard of reli- " gious doctrine, and acting upon it themselves, — might *' intend that their successors should exercise the same " right. They have not provided a creed to be subscribed; " they have not specified any tenets to be professed ; they " have included in their deed no other title or description " of persons than Protestant Dissenters ; no other direction " as to its use than for the worship and service of God. " But as the repeal of the Toleration Act, and the prohi- *' bition by law of Dissenters from assembling together for " worship, would necessarily be followed by the total alie- " nation of the property, or at least would place it in a state " of indefinite and insecure possession, they properly pro- " vided, that when religious professors of Protestant Dis- " senting principles should be hindered by the civil autho- " rity from meeting together for worship, the property " should go to other uses, " They have not said — when Trinitarianism shall be " no longer allowed ; nor have they said — when Trini- f' tarians shall be hindered from meeting; but they have " made choice of the words ' Protestant Dissenters'. And " while such persons are the occupants, and the place is " used for religious worship, who that understands the *' nature of religious liberty, and respects the rights of con- " science, would attempt to expel them? " It is quite sufficient — for the purpose of showing, in the " most satisfactory manner, that the construction now given " of the clause inserted in the deed of trust, while it is the " only construction that can be maintained consistently " with the principles of religious liberty, may have been the " only construction in the minds of the original parties — •' that if the excluding clause of the Toleration Act of 1st *' of William and Mary, cap. 18, which exempts pei'sons im- " pugning the doctrine of the Trinity from the benefits of " its provisions, had not been inserted in that Act, — if no ex- 110 True Pro- testant Dis- senting principle inconsistent with such restraints. " ception of this kind had been made, — still the clause in *' question of the trust deed, which provides that the pro- " perty shall go to other uses in case the Act of Toleration " should be repealed, might have been inserted precisely *' as it now exists. The only evidence which this clause " supplies is, that the persons who inserted it in the deed " had still in their remembrance (how could they indeed " ever forget them?) the prohibitions and proscriptions of " the preceding times, the suppression of all opinion and " worship apart from those of the Established Church. " The times were too unsettled to permit them to indulge *' the expectation of continuing to enjoy their rights as se- *' paratists without disturbance. The exiled Stuarts had " then the hope of another restoration to power in Britain; " and the consequences of their return, it was well appre- " hended, would include the putting down of Nonconform- *' ist worship, and the alienation of all property in the " possession of Dissenting Congregations. The clause " was intended to provide for such a disastrous event, " which, in the minds of our fathers, was constantly as- " sociated with the fears of renewed outrages and suf- " ferings ; and had no reference, I am fully persuaded, to " doctrines of any kind. I should indeed much ques- *' tion whether the authors of the clause were at the time " in the recollection that the Toleration Act contained the " exemption under notice. I have known some sensible *' Dissenters, not unacquainted either with their own princi- " pies or the history of their cause, who were not apprised " of the existence of the excepting clause. Nor is this sur- " prising. It was overlooked even by Locke himself." " "What is the principle of Protestant Dissenters, of " Christians understanding and complying with the requi- " sitions of the will of God? That the Bible is the sole " rule of faith, the whole religion of Protestants. As this " is the common property of all persons acknowledging the " authority of Revelation, every one must be his own judge " of its messages and its obligations, and must form his " own conclusions as to the practice which it requires him Ill " to adopt. Should an individual fall into error, his neigh- " bour may admonish him; but he cannot attempt to re- " strain him; he cannot proceed to punish him. If a so- *' ciety, once known to be correct in their faith and reli- " gious practice, deviate into the paths of error, and adopt " principles widely different from those which they formerly "professed, it is the same. Errors in religion, of every " kind, are errors which it is not competent to man to re- " strain, but by means which are in themselves adapted to " induce the acknowledgement of them as inconsistent with " truth. It makes no matter what is the description of " error ; it may be Unitarianism, it may be Antinomianism, " it may be of a lighter or a darker shade; still it is error, " and must be treated as error by the adherents of the op- " posite doctrines. We may lament it, we may view its " progress with distress, but we must not lay our hands " upon it: and I think it is quite time for us to suspect " either our own knowledge of the truth or the purity of " our attachment to it, when we feel the inclination to em- " ploy human authority, or any species of worldly power, to " arrest it, to silence its abettors, and to impose external " restraints upon them." " If many societies once Trinitarian are now Unitarian, Changes in " it is also true that many societies, a considerable number J^'«sciuing . . Chanties " of the old Dissenting congregations, were once Presby- reciprocal. *' terian. I could give a list of places, now before me, " the title-deeds of which specify that the property which " they are intended to secure shall be for the use of * Pres- Picsbyteri- " ' byteriansJ' These places are now in the hands of In- "" piices 1 T 1 I now held I)y " dependents ; who, accordmg to the very elegant repre- independ- " sentation of the authors of the 'Reply,' 'have, with '^'"'*" " ' cuckoo insidiousness, taken possession of nests they " ' never built, and hatch their brood in stolen habitations.' " The loose declamation of the authors of the ' Reply' may " be directed against Independents, occupants of these " places ; who have seized upon property belonging to " others, and given for the support of another denomina- " tion. They propose the case of the Wolverhampton 112 " Meeting-house ' as a valuable precedent.' Let them pro- *' ceed in their brilliant career, and their ' stern inflexible " * support of the cause of justice ' may overturn some inte- " rests that may disturb thr-^; own repose." Restrictions " No Congregation of religious professors, vi'ho admit the '"rdcuiar" " exclusive authority and the sufficiency of the Scriptures, doctrines " can bind their successors in the place of worship in which ofScripturai " ^hey had been accustomed to assemble, to the reception liberty. « of any doctrine. They have no right to do it. They can "judge and determine in matters relating to their own pro- " fession, but they cannot dictate to or control the con- " sciences and profession of their successors, who have an " equal right with their fathers to examine the Scriptures " for themselves, and to exhibit publicly their own sense of " its doctrines. The authority which binds in religion, that " on which the truths of Christianity are to be received, " is a Divine authority ; and this we find not in the opinions " of our predecessors, but in the word of God. If the " former are to oblige us, of what use can the latter be ? " The inquiry then would be. What did our ancestors be- " lieve ? and we must endeavour fully to ascertain the sen- " timents which they professed, for the purpose of exhibit- " ing them to the world. But how much soever this prac- " tice may agree with Popery, it does not comport with " Protestantism. The Scriptures are our authority ; and we " receive nothing, we believe nothing, but from them. Our " fathers used the liberty, which no man could take from " them, of examining the Divine word, and founded their " profession upon their own conviction of the truths which " they understood to be included in its testimony. They " are gone to give account of themselves as to the manner " in which they conducted their examination of the Scrip- " tures, and supported the doctrines which they received as " from God. And we, having a like account to give, and " living in the constant expectation of the judgement that " shall try us, have the same duty to perform. The Bible " is our religion. We cannot bind those who shall arise " after us as occupants of places set apart for Christian wor- lis " ship, nor can we be bound by those who have preceded " us. The Hberty of the first worshipers, is the liberty *' of the last: those were exclusively judges of their own " rights and duties, and these challenge and appropriate to *' themselves the same competence." The open protest and powerful arguments thus directed Suspension by one ot then- body agamst the principle oi the proceed- veihnmpton ings in the Wolverhampton case, probably led to the sus- ^""• pension of the suit; but the public, and especially those not conversant with the mysteries of a Chancery suit, which, though it may slumber, rarely dies, will perhaps be sur- prised to hear that though the old promoters long since abandoned it, new prosecutors have appeared and adopted it after a lapse of nearly sixteen years. Mr. Steward having abandoned his possession, the vacant house did not long want an occupant ready to contend for the legal prize. A new swarm has come to the empty hive ; having no sort of connexion with the old institution or its olijects, and the cause is likely soon to be again heard in a new form. There can be at present no public knowledge of the shape which the cause now assumes ; but it must, in some way, be de- termined to whom the endowment (mainly consisting ol money, contributed, as before observed, when heresy was avowedly rife,) is now to pass. Another cause, — now pending in the Court of Chancery, Lady Hew- and which has excited the most attention, from the import- ^^ ^ '^^^'^' ance of the subject matter, and the striking anomaly of taking away from the sect of the founder even a share of the bounty which she liberally extended to all, — concerns the admini- stration of two charities founded by Dame Sarah Hewley. Lady Hewley was the daugiiter of Robert Wolriche, iieiUistory. one of the benchers of Gray's Inn, and wife of Sir John Hevvley, a representative of the city of York in the reign of Charles II. She was a great support to the Noncon- forming ministers, and afforded them extensive relief. Those to whom she was attached were Presbyterians, and not Independents. She belonged to that body which has I Hi A been already described as anxious to be connected with the Church of England, and to be included in the schemes of comprehension. Calamy was favoured by her, and received an unsolicited mark of her respect. She was one of many benevolent ladies, who, in the period of religious persecution, protected those who had been ejected under the St. Bartho- lomew-Day Act. The Presbyterian chapel of St. Saviour Gate at York received assistance from her, she having been there accustomed to hear divine service. And after the separation of the Presbyterians and Independents in 1694, and the establishment of the " Congregational Board," she subscribed, together with two of those per- sons afterwards nominated by her as Trustees of her chari- ties, to the " Presbyterian Fund." Having attained an advanced age, and the political state of the Established Church not promising any advantage to the Nonconform- ing clergy, she devoted a large portion of her estates and property to the endowment and perpetuation of a Dis- senting ministry ; probably the earliest example of such endowments in favour of seceders from the Established Church. Her religious opinions were no doubt Bax- terian or Arminian ; with indications (arising out of her ap- parent preference of Bowles's Catechism,) that she partook of the rising inclination to prefer Scriptural to dogmatical phraseology, the result of which was soon apparent; with this further circumstance indicative of the character of. the theology around her, that one of the then ministers at St Saviour Gate Chapel so conducted his ministry, that the congregation which survived him and Lady Hewley chose an avowed Arian as his proper successor. The catholic spirit of her benevolence is manifest, not only in the liberal character of her provision for Nonconformists generally, but in the fact, that other branches of her bounty were directed towards charities of the Established Church, from which she was expressly excluded. In 1704-, Lady Hewley conveyed to certain distin- guished Presbyterians certain manors and lands, directing them to dispose of the rents arising from them: " First, 115 *' to poor and godly preachers yor the time bei?ig of Christ's - " Holy Gospel ; secondly, to poor and godly widows of poor "and godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel; third- *' ly, in such manner for the encouraging and promoting " of the preaching of Christ's Holy Gospel in such poor " places as the said Trustees for the time being, or any " four or more of them should think fit ; fourthly, for exhi- *' bitions for or towards educating young men for the mi- *' nistry of Christ's Holy Gospel, never exceeding five at " one time ; fifthly, to pay the surplus, after the previous ** dispositions are satisfied, to godly persons in distress." And also, " that whatever charitable dispositions or allow- " ances by the said Lady Hewley should have been made " to the persons and places in York or Yorkshire imme- " diately or shortly before her death, should be continued " and paid by her Trustees, until they should see reason " to discontinue the same." In 1707, Lady Hewley conveyed certain messuages to Almshousej Trustees as an hospital or almshouse. The Trustees were '" ^'^^' to appoint to the hospital ten poor persons, nine of whom were to be poor widows or unmarried women, so long as they should continue unmarried, being of the age of fifty- five and upwards; and the tenth person was to be a pious and sober poor man, who might be fit to pray twice a day, morning and evening, to the rest of the inmates ; and in default the tenth person was to be a poor woman quali- fied as the rest. Lady Hewley approved of certain rules which were framed under her direction, and desired that they might be observed in the management and direction of the hospital. Among them are these: That the persons admitted be ^^ poor and piously disjjosed, and of the Protes- " tant religion"', that " every almsbody be one that can re- " peat the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Command- *' ments, and Mr. Edward Bowles's Catechism." That *' all almspeople, when not disabled by weakness, duly " repair to sotne religio?is assembly of the Protestant religion '• every Lord's day, forenoon and afternoon, and at other •' opportunities, to attend the worship of God." I 2 116 Trustees' As to licr Trustecs, the only restriction or qualification dons. "^^ imposed was, that they should be persons " of good repu- " tation." Charities These two charities, it must be observed, are perfectly stinct. ' distinct. The terms of the trust relating to the first are perfectly general; of the second, possibly restrictive ; but to what extent shall be presently considered. Compre- The terms of the endowments are comprehensive, and terms of the apparently leave to the Trustees a perfect discretion in the endow- choice of those who are to become beneficiaries. " Poor mentg. *' and godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel " were to be benefited. She could mean no other persons at that time than the Nonconforming ministers, with many of whom she had been on terms of intimacy, and to many of whom she had afforded constant relief She was herself a Pres- byterian ; her Trustees were Presbyterians ; and the great body of Nonconforming ministers in the North of England 1 wei'e Presbyterians. " Poor" implied those who never de- pended upon, or who had been deprived of, fixed sources of income as the payment of their ecclesiastical services; those who were dependent upon voluntary charity, or had once participated in the income of the Established Church, and now relied upon private munificence for endow^ments which might aid in removing part of the precariousness of their means of living. " Preacher" was a common Puritan term, used in contradistinction of those who attached great im- portance to the Liturgy*. " Of Christ's Holy Gospel" * Bishop of London. — " Because this, I see, is a time for moving pe- " titions, may I humbly present two or three to Your Majesty? First, " that there may be amongst us a praying ministry, it being now come " to pass that men think it is the only duty of ministers to spend their " time in the pulpit. I confess, in a church newly planted, preaching is " most necessary; not so in one long established, that prayer should be " neglected." His Majesty {James /.). — " I like your motion exceeding well, and ." dislike the hypocrisy of our time, who place all their religion in the " ear, whilst prayer (so requisite and acceptable, if duly performed,) " is accounted and used as the least part of i-eligion." — Conference at Hampton Court : Fuller's Church History, book x. p. 15. tees. 117 is an expression of that general character which accords with the true Nonconformist principle of leaving to each individual the right of private judgement. Sects there Were, vet none are named. Doctrines were disputed, yet none are distinguished. An absolute and perfect discretion is afforded to the first and succeeding Trustees, of deter- mining what preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel should par- ticipate in the charity. The necessity of the Trustees exercising some great Necessary degree of discretion was rendered actually necessary, not jj^s^ra^io" merely by the general expressions of Lady Hewley's Will, bytheTrus- but still more so by the changes which took place in the different Dissenting denominations. The Presbyterian chapels early diminished in number, from causes already mentioned. The nobler and richer classes of persons con- formed to the Church, while the old body of Nonconformists, who had associated and were tied together by the remem- brance of their common sufferings, was in the course of time much broken up ; and both new and old congregations being unconnected, and acting without any combined ob- ject, a great portion of the former appearance of unanimity among the Presbyterian body passed away. Lady Hewley had directed certain " places and persons benefited by her " in her lifetime" to the notice of the Trustees. York had been tlius favoured. St. Saviour Gate Chapel had been attended by her, and it has always received a portion of her bounty. Many of the old chapels having fallen off, and others arising, the Trustees, looking at the general expressions of Lady Hewley's Deed, and seeing no test, no creed, no articles, no confession of faith required, considered themselves at liberty to give the greatest possible extension to the words. To have favoured peculiarly those of their own opinions would not have been improper. To have granted assistance to Preshytcrian chapels, — whether Trinitarian, L^nitarian, or otherwise, — would almost appear to have been the con- fines of their power. To have sought out the successors of the old ministers, and to have looked for those only who lis Increase of the Fund, and conse- peculiarly represented the ejected ministry, might have been considered a duty. Nevertheless they acted with a more Uberal spirit. Changes had occurred in all the Dis- senting bodies. Most of the Presbyterians gradually adopted Unitarian tenets, and had deviated no doubt from the more prevalent doctrines entertained in Lady Hewley's time, and personally held by her. The Independents also maintained opinions to which Baxterians had been opposed ; and the Baptists, though a liberal and en- lightened body, were not more expressly contemplated as participants of the charity than the Independents. Had the Trustees endeavoured to favour their own doctrines, an outcry might have been, though with injustice, raised, that they had erred and differed from a large body of other Christians, and from personal motives sought to favour their own sentiments. The original Fund increased in value, and the amount of the profits enlarged. The Trustees might either have quentappii- confined the bequests to strictly Presbyterian congrega- tions, without any regard to doctrine, or they might have enlarged the institution without any regard either to sect or to doctrine. They would have been excused in doing the first; the second was acting in a most perfect spirit of Christian benevolence and disregard of every selfish and party feeling; looking upon doctrines as unfortunately too much the cause of hostility and dissension, and making the charity rather a means of mitigating monstrous evils, than perniciously increasing their extent. Baptists and Inde- pendents, both of the new and old associations, were all admitted to participate in the charity. The old Presby- terian congregations were allowed to have a preference in the distribution ; and, though their tenets were not espe- cially favoured, grants of assistance were made to new Unitarian congregations, which may be appropriately called Independent. Not more, however, than three of these last congregations were added to the list of bene- ficiaries. Actual In order that the fairness and equity of the Trustees 119 may be made more apparent, it is proper to notice the man- latest dia- ner in which ahnost the hitest distribution was made- The "■'''"^'""• accounts, made up to September 1829, show a total sum distributed, according to the halt' year's list, of 1398/. lO.v. Of this 237 preachers were allowed stipends, amounting in the whole to 1075/.; students, 60/.; and poor widows and others, exclusive of the almswomen, 263/. IO5. Thirty- seven only of the ministers were shown to entertain Unita- rian sentiments, exclusive of Mr. Wellbeloved ; and there was divided among them only 246/. IO5, The other 199 ministers receive 788/. Thirty places upon the list existed in Lady Hewley's time, and are many of them " places "benefited by her in her lifetime." Thus the Trustees, so far from being desirous to sup- Application press doctrines which they did not adopt, or to make the iibc7aUnd funds in their hands contribute to the maintenance of reli- impartial. gious bitterness and hostility, have endeavoured as far as possible to allay contention and to nourish kindly feelings among those who in common receive the Scripture, though differing upon its interpretation. Arian, Unitarian and Trinitarian sentiments had been professed by them and their predecessors. What they themselves believed, they desired not to encourage others to adopt, by offering those temptations and advantages of pecuniary assistance, which may in many cases affect and prejudice the judgement. One grant of assistance by the Trustees has excited par- Rosendaie ticular dissatisfaction. It is that to the minister and con- ^'^'""" gregation at Rosendaie. They were not Presbyterians. In the course of their religious investigations, they were led to doubt many of the doctrines usually received ; among others, that of the Trinity. They were advised, being poor persons, to make an application to Lady Hewley's Trustees. There was no substantial obstacle to the grant. On the same terms on which the modern orthodox Independent or Baptist was admitted to the number of beneficiaries they were included. Their doctrines could not create offence any more than those of an opposite description would have done. The only doubt which can exist respecting 1*20 their application is connected with the apparent levity of the mode and the terms in which it was made. They were conscious of the rectitude of their intentions, and the pub- lications of their minister are far from being in any way dis- creditable. Their neighbours had spoken in terms of reproach of their conduct, and the expressions used were inserted in the memorial. It is very doubtful if the memo- rial was seen by the Trustees ; but at all events the error of the Trustees, if any in this case, was one of indiscretion. The doctrines of the minister and congregation of Rosen- dale could not and ought not to create offence, unless ihey wei'e dishonestly adopted, or were professed from dis- creditable motives. Were the Trustees critically to test the good sense of applications for their assistance, when the cases were in their judgement substantially proper? No one who knows the character and turn of mind of those who have hitherto administered Lady Hewley's charity, will believe that, however they may have shut their eyes to little sectarian extravagances, they were persons in whose judgement any extravagance would have formed a ground of predilection. Had the Trustees objected to those variations of opinion which have taken place in the Presbyterian body, the effect would have been to have excluded those who were the di- rect successors of the former ministers by insisting upon a test. They found no articles of belief which were to be subscribed. They were themselves the successors, and in many cases the hereditary descendants, of the most distin- guished Presbyterians. The chapels they were connected with were founded or endowed by members of their own families. They contained the records and memorials of their relations and connexions. All those associations which are usually of the strongest character operated upon them, as they might upon others similarly placed. They esteemed the departure from the opinions of their ancestors as authorized by that love of truth which their religious education taught them to cultivate and to prize as a constant rule of action. Variation of doctrines had taken 121 place in all their congregutioDs, sanctioned and encouraged by their principles. They might have insisted upon the pro- fession of peculiar doctrines. The torpidity of conformity might have ensued, and a unity of profession might have been, in their own congregations, obtained by the sacrifice of that great moral duty, of not receiving doctrines without being satisfied of their truth, and ol not yielding assent to opinions without inquiry into their correctness. A new sect, into- lerant of all others, might easily have been established. But investigations into conscientious differences of those with whom they were connected would have been unjust, and would have deprived congregations of that latitude which makes each of their members act upon his own responsibility, and takes away that self-humiliation which those must incur who, without investigation, hastily give assent to formularies of belief. The Trustees could not prevent religious inquiry, and impropriety would not have been authorized in the attempt. Leaving cour"e bu" out all consideration of the discretion they possessed of the one forming other congregations than Presbyterian, of ad- mitting various sects to participate in the charity, with what equity could they impose confessions of faith ? The honesty and character of the Presbyterian ministers were not called in question, and their lives were irreproach- able. They and their predecessors endeavoured by the aid of reliffion to favour all moral motives, and to diminish the force of those impulses which might trespass upon religious investigation. Were they to oppose this intent, wisely pro- vided for by the absence of all restriction? Were they to diminish the efficacy of liberty of inquiry, and to place Presbyterians upon the level of those who, to attain con- formity and uniformity, encourage interested considerations and sacrifice charitable feelings to belief? They could not mistake those whose intentions they were carrying into effect. Looking at the general terms of the trust deeds, and seeking from " within their four corners" the intent, a liberal and comprehensive rule for the administration of the charity was that only which they could frame. Re- 122 garding extraneous circumstances, the adoption of a similar rule was necessarily suggested. To have even attempted to discover the doctrines of the founder in order to establish them as a test to which her beneficiaries should comply, would have been a violation of that intent which the best and the strongest evidence proved. The history of the parties themselves, their complaints of religious persecu- tions, and their lamentations of the importance attached to creeds and articles were too instructive to be forgotten. To protect the pi'ivilege of inquiry was the duty of the Trus- tees ; and this was best effected by opening the charity to all Christian bodies, leaving the truth, ever permanent, to establish itself. Every object of religion was thus most likely to be attained, and no outrage committed under the pretence of advancing the interests of Christianity. One of the prominent — the earliest — of the cases of com- plaint made against the Trustees relates to the continuance of the allowance to St. Saviour Gate Chapel, when, by the election of Mr. Cappe, Arianism predominated. It illus- trates forcibly the insensible gradation of opinion, and the extreme difficulty of inquiring into opinion as a ground for limiting the extent of Lady Hewley's bounty. Mr. Hunter forcibly observes"*^ : — " The majority chose Mr. Cappe ; and having chosen " him, whatever claims or rights belonged to the office with " which he was invested, were legally and morally vested *'in him. Now, of what parties did that majority consist? " Why, of persons who had been the congregation under " the pastoral care of Mr. Hotham, whose theological pre- " possessions were formed under his influence. He had " been so long their minister that very few of them could " recollect any other minister before him. He had, indeed, " been one of Lady Hewley's own pastors ; for in her days " there were two ministers in the chapel at York, Dr. Col- " ton and Mr. Hotham. Surely there can be no reason to "impeach the conduct of the Trustees in continui ngthe * Historical Defence of the Trustees of Lady Hewley's Foundations. By the Rev. Joseph Hunter, F.S.A. London, 1831. 123 " stipend which Mr. Hotham had enjoyed to Mr. Cappe, " who was a regularly educated minister, chosen with all " the necessary formalities, and who was moreover elected " by a congregation whose religious sentiments, whatever " they were, had been adopted under tlie ministry of one " of Lady Hewley's own pastors. This is an unfortunate " case for the Relators to have selected as their poiiit d'ap- "pui. For see how the matter really stands. Lady Hew- " ley had especially commended the York congregation to " the notice of the Trustees. Mr. Cappe was regularly " elected by that congregation to be their minister. To " have refused to continue the allowance to him, they must " either have neglected to conform to one of the most ur- "gent injunctions of the foundress, or they must have in- " terfered in the election of the minister, and suspended for " the time the constitution of the York society." Besides, had another course been adopted, and a test What creed been imposed, the doctrinal articles of Lady Hewley's be- ^""^^ sdec^t- lief were not known. She might personally have approved ed by them. of Bowles's Catechism. She might have desired also to favour other doctrines. Who could set the limit to the number of essentials the Trustees might require? Opi- nions perfectly adverse to those held by proper Calvinists might be inserted, and their exclusion effectually accom- plished. Certain doctrines might be expressed in such a manner as to make none but Churchmen admissible to bene- fit by the foundation, or they might be expressed according to thirty-five and a half of the Articles of the Church of En- gland in an enlarged form, so offensively as to exclude all Dissenters. Doing this, the language and interpretation of Churchmen upon their own Articles need only to have been employed. Will the testing " Christ's Holy Gospel" by the Church Articles satisfy a Calvinistic creed ? By no means. In some modern arguments for the dissolution of the State connexion with the Church, we are told by Lide- pendents that "avast majority of its ministers" (theArmi- nian portion,) " do not preach the Gospel." These mini- sters clearly meet the Vice-Chancellor's views of orthodoxy, 124 but with the Calvinists they fall under the same censures as the Presbyterians. The law, however, in Lady Hewley's day required assent to the Articles. The Trustees are not limited, and they might form a creed in the Church — or Arniinian — sense of the Articles, and exclude Inde- pendents. Allow the power of framing articles, and it cannot be confined to the Trinitv and Original Sin. Every objection which might be most offensive to Cal- vinists may be included in the creed, and the advantages in which they at present participate be wholly with- drawn. If the Articles of the Church of England are to be the guide, their alteration and modification might be made agreeably to the general Scriptural expressions of Bowles's Catechism, in such a manner that those most loud in complaints against the Trustees for establishing no confession of faith would be most injured by the com- pilation. Result of The result of thus limiting the discretion of the Trustees imposing a jj^ |^|jjg ^j^^ similar cases would be wantonly and unneces- creed to de- _ _ _ "^ _ _ feat liberty sarily to destroy all liberty of inquiry, the great principle of of inquiry, ^.j^^ body to which the founder belonged; to prevent all in- vestigation of the truth ; to attach importance to creeds and articles; to contradict the principles advanced by the most eminent and influential Presbyterian divines ; to oust the present congregations from many of their chapels ; to de- prive them of the grounds in which their fathers and relatives have been buried ; to take away endowments made upon the faith of respecting principles essential for the establish- ment of the truth ; to make charities, now liberal, secta- rian ; to deprive those who have been taught to depend upon certain funds, of part of the means of their subsist- ence; to take away all discretion benevolently exercised ; to deny the right of interpreting Scripture otherwise than according to some formulary which the Court of Chancery may prescribe. And yet the pretence for these encroach- ments upon existing congregations is, that it is supporting the intentions and the principles of the immediate prede- cessors and ancestors of the present Presbyterians ! 125 The hospital also founded by Lady Hewley has not Admini- been exclusively administered. Of the present inmates 1^^*^"°;. two only are known to profess Arian or Unitarian senti- tai. ments. The Trustees in all cases have been tolerant, and governed by the same spirit of benevolence which may be presumed to have influenced the excellent person whose intentions they have endeavoured conscientiously to fulfil. Sir James Scarlett, when Attorney-General, was asked Cause of to institute proceedings against the Trustees officially, and ^.^cefd- refused. A bill was then filed in Chancery on the relation ings. of certain Independents. Upon the defendants being called upon to put in their answers, they made a general de- claration of their belief in Scripture ; such a course being that which, according to the principles of all Presbyterians, they held most correct; and such general declaration being by the Act of the 19 Geo. III. considered by the legislature a sufficient profession of Christianity to entitle Protestant Dissenters making it to the enjoyment of civil privileges. Whatever opinions they held, whether opposed to the doc- trine of the Trinity or any other, they considered them- selves competent to administer the trust funds, and others competent to enjoy them. To have admitted the propriety of being subject to make Propriety a specific statement of the mode in which they received °'^.o",^ui5 certain religious doctrines, would have been to yield up sory decia- without contest the very principle of free inquiry which it opinions. became them to preserve inviolate. Had they allowed the inquiry, it would have been inconsistent with their constant declarations against the propriety of framing tests of belief. In the case of The Attorney-General v. Pearson', a clause inserted in the trust deed of a chapel was commented upon by Lord Eldon, which rendered the appointment of a Trustee null, in case he should become of any other religion or per- suasion than that of the congregation. Lord Eldon held, that if the question before the Court was, " whether a trus- " tee has been properly removed ; and that point depends " upon the question, whether the trustee has changed his " religion, and become of another different from the reli- 12a Extent to which the Court should in- quire into religious belief. *' gion of the rest of the society ; it must then be ex *' necessitate for the Court to inquire, what was the reli- " gion and worship of the society from which he is said to " have seceded; not for the purpose of animadverting upon *' it, but in order to ascertain whether or not the charge is " substantiated *." But ought the Court even then to require more than general declarations of belief ? If the congregation held the Scripture only as the rule of faith, ought the Court to re- quire more than the general acceptance of the Scripture by the Trustee ? If the congregation professed any particular mode of belief, ought the Court to require more than a ge- neral assent to, or rejection of, the doctrine professed ? What are the consequences of a contrary course? Suppose the case of a charity to be administered for the benefit of members of the Church of England. The doctrines pro- fessed by those in connexion with that Church are specified in the Thirty-nine Articles. The charity, it may be sup- posed, is not administered among the members of that Church ; — its affairs are then brought into Chancery ; — general declarations of belief are insufficient; — the inqui- sitorial process of the Court is exercised. Should one arti- cle be demurred to, when the specific mode in which it is understood is interrogated to, the course of the Court is clear. It has not the power to judge of the respective value of each particular article : they are all fundamentals of the Established Church, and all must be received. The Court cannot say, assent to one, it is important ; another, is indifferent. It must, not being satisfied with general assent, require an orthodox interpretation of all ; or the charity must be administered by and to more learned and more orthodox persons, whose interpretation shall be satis- factory. Those who may adopt the language of Bishop Tomline can receive no favour, if the doctrine of Original Sin is not received as it is set forth in the Articles, and the true sense of those Articles must for that purpose be pre- * " Attorney-General v. Pearson," 3 Meriv. 413. 127 viously determined. Difficulties without end would follow. Some contend that the orthodoxy of the Articles is to be ascertained by the sentiments of those who composed them ; others, on the contrary, that a latitude in their explanation may be allowed. Between these contending parties the Court of Chancery must step in. Many bi- shops ex officio administer charities connected with the Church of England ; general assent to the Thirty-nine Articles is insufficient; the orthodoxy of one of the bishops is suspected : is he to be brought before a civil Court to clear his orthodoxy? Perchance he may have been so indiscreet as to have exhibited the possession of great learning, and the fruits of a studious life, and have pub- lished sentiments which, properly or improperly, are sus- pected. The critic who shall attack him, needs not raise a cry of suspicion ; a more plain process to ascertain the orthodoxy he questions is before him, — the Court of Chan- cery, sitting as an Inquisition, will lend its aid. In 1695 a quarto pamphlet was published, with this Application title, " The Charge of Sociniaiiism against Dr. Tillotson cipieo/""" " (Archbishop of Canterbury) considered;" and the author Ch'?"'^^''y" in the preface states, that his animadversions upon Dr. Til- church lotson were made " before the death of that unhappy man." "^^'^' Now, if the precedent of Lady Hewley's case is good, Dr. Tillotson might have been examined on Chancery interro- gatories respecting the special mode in which those doctrines which led to the " animadversion " were entertained by him. Lady Hewley's Trustees objected to the questions put ; Opposition contending, that as the charity they administered was not °^^^^ ^ restricted, a general profession of Christianity was sufficient. The contrary was determined. The same precedent would make general assent to the Articles of the Church of En- gland insufficient. The cases are parallel. The Trustees were upon oath required to declare, " Whether they rejected '' as utterly unscriptural the doctrine of the Trinity of the " Persons of the Deity ; (he doctrine of the Incarnation, or " true and perfect divinity of the Person of the Son of God ; *' the doctrine that the Son of God is the second person in 128 " the Trinity, and equal with the Father ; the doctrine of *' the divinity and 'personality of the Holy Ghost or Holy " Spirit as the third person of the Trinity, and equal with " the Father and the Son ; the doctrine of the forgiveness ** of sins and salvation, through the merits of the atonement *' and satisfaction for sin made by the death of Christ; " the doctrine that Jesus is really and truly God, and as " such the proper object of religious worship ; the doctrine " of Original Sin, or that man is born in such a state, that *' if he were to die in the condition in which he was born " and bred, he would perish everlastingly." Negatives to any of these interrogatories were to incapacitate the Trustees from administering, and ministers from j'eceiving Lady Hew- ley's bounty ; these doctrines being fiecessarilt/ those con- tained in " Christ's Holy Gospel," according to the in- terpretation of the plaintiffs. The defendants answered, " We receive the Scripture as a sufficient rule of faith, and *' interpret it in that sense which we believe to be true," With this reply the Court was not satisfied. It was however the answer of those memorable men who commenced the Reformation, when charged with heresy by the Church of Rome. They knew not whether Transubstantiation was a doctrine they could assent to, but they piously and earnestly read the Scripture, satisfied of the rectitude of their inten- tions. The plaintiffs set up a standard of doctrinal belief, which the defendants opposed, and unfortunately in vain. The principle of the freedom of inquiry was involved in the dispute; thei'efore the defendants resisted its violation. Question as If the Court of Chancery feels itself bound by its rules to practical j.^ gnforce minute and distinct answers to its interrogatories resistance. _ _ . ° on modal belief, however inconvenient and contrary to Protestant principles, the question appears to be, whether the most effectual way to put an end practically to the system will not be peremptorily to refuse to obey. It is not at all probable that any one would, in these days, dare to appeal to the process of the Court to enforce compliance; and, if such a proceeding took place, it is plain that an effectual remedy would soon be supplied. In England, in 129 the 19th century, it would not be possible to tolerate an Independent Inquisition, and to imprison the contumacious in the dungeons of the Court of Chancery. Upon the cause coming on to be heard upon the .Questions , . . , . . , , aigued in merits, the principal question raised was, what persons coun. Lady Hewley intended in empk)ying the terms " poor *' and godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel." Her intent, if to be shown by other evidence than the trust deed, could, of course, only be discovered by a consideration of the circumstances which politically affected the Dissenting parties which existed during her lifetime, and of the opi- nions professed by that particular party to which she was at- tached. What the intent might be presumed to be, from the consideration of such circumstances, has been already shov.'n*. The following conclusions appear inevitable. That Lady Hewley herself, and her trustees after her. Conclusions ^ T 1 1 . ^ 1 • • 11 . to be drawn were not Independents, were not Calvinists, had no parti- tVom the cular or ardent zeal for what are called orthodox doctrines, *^'^'^. ^* '® the intent. but Without doubt belonged to that class of Dissenters called Presbyterians : — That in her lifetime, and ever since, that body have strongly insisted upon a resistance to all imposition of arti- cles of faith, and upon the right and duty of every one to form his religious opinions for himself from Scripture: — That in the exercise of that right, and the performance of that duty, there had taken place in the lifetime of Lady Hewley a certain departure from the principles which had been in the time of the civil wars declared to be Christian truth, varying in extent; and that there was a tendency manifested for still further departure, with a distinct refusal to repress it: — * And see a pamphlet entitled, " Observations on tlie Title of Unita- " rians and other English Presbyterians to administer or partake in the " Benefit of English Presbyterian and general Protectant Dissenters' " Trusts, &'c." 1831 ; — a Letter to a Friend, by a Gentleman of long stand- ing at the Bar; from which ])ublication we have throughout these pages derived important hints, and to which we refer for many valuable re- marks on some of 'the most material points and principles involved in cases of this description. 130 That the duty was maintained in the Presbyterian body of great toleration towards persons of divers sentiments, and the setting love, union and peace above the maintenance of points of faith : — That while in this state, and being cognisant of the dif- ferent tone and feeling of the Presbyterian body of her time when compared with what it had been in her youth, Lady Hewley, notwithstanding, placed her estate in the disposal of persons of that communion, without laying upon them any restrictions of inquiry into the particular religious opinions of those who were to be the participants of her bounty : — That the persons who now set up the principle, that there must be an accordance, more or less exact, between the religious faith of the present participants and that of the foundress, are setting up a principle which is decidedly op- posed to the great governing principle of the religious com- munity of which Lady Hewley was a member : — that no man had authority to fix the faith of another person, but that each must inquire for himself in the only authority, the book of Holy Scripture ; and that this principle extended even to such important doctrines as that of the Trinity: — That the terms on which the Presbyterians and Inde- pendents were living at the time when this trust was created were such that it would seem that the especial benefit of the latter would hardly enter into the contemplation of this Presbyterian benefactress : — That for the Independents now to come and seek to ap- propriate to themselves the -dchole of the bounty, shoulder- ing out the very denomination to which the foundress her- self belonged, and arguing that the very congregation of which she was a member should take no benefit of the trust, can hardly be considered in accordance with her in- tent. Peculiarity There is a peculiarity affecting that part of the case re- aimshVu^se ^^ting to the hospital, which does not extend to the charity established for poor preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel. It is, the rule respecting the qualification of the almspeople, les s of this Catechism. 131 and their capncity to repeat the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments and Bowles's Catechism. Tliese bow formulce Lady Hewley desired that the persons received Catechism should be capable of repeating, while at the same time she simply expresses her wish that the objects of her bounty should go to some place of Divine worship on the Lord's day. So that whatever may be the effect of the rule, it was ftot framed for any sectarian purpose. The doctrines contained in this Catechism were the sub- Doctrine ject of much debate in the suit. The Independents find it to be " racy in Trinitarian doctrines," and the Presby- terians, on the other hand, (with perhaps one exception, relating to Original Sin,) do not object to its theological tenor. It is not pretended by any that it is properly Calvinistic; but as Bishop Hall boasted that he could " bring all the Catechism of the Westminster Assembly "out of the Catechism of the Church of England*," by similar ingenuity all the Assembly's Catechism may perhaps be found in the one of Mr. Bowles. But this mode of disposing of the difficulty is too easy to be ad- mitted as correct. The Catechism of Bowles, obviously the first fruit of rising distrust of the ancient formularies, is purely Scriptural in its language, and differs from that of the Assembly by the omission of dogmatic terms and phrases which are objectionable. It follows the general plan of the Assembly's Catechism ; but the object is only the more marked of avoiding its dogmatism, and of using terms which each party would receive according to its own Scriptural construction. The Assembly's Catechism con- tains these questions and replies: '• Q. How many persons are there in the Godhead ? " A. There are ihree persons in the Godhead, the Father, " the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one " God, the same in suSstance, equal in power and glory. — " Matth. xxviii. 19. I John v. 7. *' Q. Who is the Redeemer of God's elect ? " A. The only Redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus " Christ, who, being the Eternal Son of God, became man ; • ralamy, vol. i. p. 272. K 2 132 General results of Bowles's Catechism. " and so was and continueth to be God and man in two " distinct natures and one person for ever. — 1 Tim. ii. 5. « John i. 14. Rom. ix. 15. Heb. xii. 24." Bowles's Catechism nowhere employs the term person, nor speaks of the substance or equality of the Godhead. It asks, " Q. What is Jesus Christ? " A. The Son of God manifested in theflesh. — Gal.iv. 4. « 1 Tim. iii. 16." It uses no language in this or any other passages, with perhaps one exception, which the Unitarian would refuse to use. The doctrine of Original Sin is stated in a very doubtful form. The modern Presbyterian admits that man is by nature frail and liable to fall into sin, but not that he will be punished everlastingly for an}' sin of his birth, if he have not knowingly and wilfully transgressed the commands of God *. Mr. Bowles has used expressions which render it somewhat doubtful whether he extended this doctrine, that is, whether he held that man should perish everlast- ingly for mere sin of his birth. His Catechism is not in any way Calvinistic. It nowhere mentions the divine de- crees of election, of effectual calling, of justifying faith or of the perseverance of the saints, all of which are stated in that which is called its prototype. But this much is cer- tain, — that the two catechisms differ ; 1 . In the use, the one of symbolical and the other of Scriptural phrases. 2. In the mode of dealing with Calvinistic doctrines f. Mr. Bowles. Mr. Bowles was a resident at York, a Presbyterian mi- nister of liberal sentiments, highly respected by Tillotson and Stillingfleet. Calamy relates of him, that " being asked * See this doctrine urged by Jeremy Taylor ; Works, vol. ix. pp. Ixx. 107, 108. f See the two Catechisms compared, and the whole of Mr. Bowles's repiinted in the recent Pamphlet by Mr. Tottie, entitled, " A Plain " Statement of the Trusts and recent Administration of Lady Hewley's " Charities, as now in proof in the Suit of the Attorne3'-General v. Shore, " Esq., and others ; with Remarks on Efforts now making to effect ' a " ' total Disconnexion between Clunxh and State'. By Thomas William " Tottie. And an Appendix, containing the Catechism of Mr. Edward " Bowles, &c. London, 1834." 133 " by a friend in his last sickness, what of Conformity he " disHked, he answered, ' The whole ;' " by which he meant to repudiate all submission to human impositions. He did not lone survive the Restoration, in which he took part, receiving the delusive promises of Charles in favour of a comprehensive reform in religious matters. It seems that Bowles was one of those who would have gone as far as Baxter in his terms of comprehension. His Catechism was His Cate- the most liberal of the day ; its expressions being studi- '^"'^™- ously coincident with those of Scripture, on the principle contended for by the genuine Presbyterians ; and there certainly is no trace of its satisfying Culvinists. It is framed upon the Scriptural scheme adopted in several other catechisms about the beginning of the eighteenth century, when the dogmatic character of the Assembly's Catechism became distasteful. Long before the present Trustees of Lady Hewley's charity were appointed, it was out of print. In Calamy it is to be found, and is there called scarce. Even the Information in Chancery refers there for it, and not to any substantive copy. It was never used by Calvinists. It is to be found in no school of the Indepen- dents, and among the Presbyterians it pei'haps fell early into disuse. It seems doubtful if it ever was much used by any body of men. The Trustees were not called upon to re- print it; and if it was not to be obtained, its disuse is ex- cusably accounted for. They were not to teach it. The almsbodies, as a qualification, were to be able to repeat ity and this only was required. How soon the custom of doing so, if it ever practically existed, ceased, the tradition even of the hospital affords no information. Why do the Cal- vinists now praise it when its omissions, in their view of Christianity, are so apparent, and its insufficiency in ex- pressing their doctrines is so manifest ? Is it moral thus to play with confessions of faith, and to lay a stress upon a catechism as a text-book of orthodox doctrines, which those calling themselves orthodox have never employed and never sanctioned? In this as in other questions con- nected with the suit, a sacrifice is made of everv moral ]34- consideration, and no regard is paid to any other object than the stake which evasion and religious pretences may secure. Could Lady Hewley witness these proceedings, she might indeed "shake with hori'or." Expressions of high devotion and respect for the doctripe of the Trinity are accompanied with an indecent neglect of the most ordinary moral rules. If the Catechism does not perfectly or generally even contain the leading doctrines of Calvin- ism, the Independents can only evasively approve of its contents. If its contents are satisfactorily expressive of their sentiments, how happens it that by them it was never employed ? How far Lady Hewley intended the Catechism to be a test must be determined by what we know of the general opinions of her and of her connexions. It might have been a mere test of learning and a security for the admis- sion of a superior class of persons to the hospital, not a test of doctrine. The former is by far the most probable. Many unfit persons might offer themselves for admission, and the purposes of the charity might degenerate. Then to be a literate person was a good qualification, and sufficient to maintain the character of the institution. The imposition of a test of faith is improbable. Her own sentiments had probably undergone modifications. She appears to have disapproved of the Assembly's Catechism, which in her youth she had no doubt been taught, . and to have recom- mended another, (thus showing her approbation of what was then in the nature of dissent from the old standard of belief,) possibly for the very purpose of keeping her benefi- ciaries from the use of Calvinistic, or what are now called orthodox, formularies. Is this improbable, when we find one of the ministers of the chapel she particularly favoured, Mr, Hotham, leaving his flock at the close of his mini- sterial labours in that state of religious prepossession, which induced them to select an Arian as his appropriate' suc- cessor ? That the Catechism was not intended as a doctrinal test, may also be presumed from Lady Hewley leaving wholly to the discretion of the almspeople themselves their 13.') place of woisliip; expressing oi»l^' a wish, tluvi ihey slioulii attend some place of worship. At all events, if it should be considered proper for the Court still to require the Ca- techism to be repeated, the doctrines of that Catechism cannot affect the administration of the other charity, the trusts of which do not even refer to it. The ministers of 1719 seem to have anticipated the argument founded upon this Catechism, when they asked in their " Vindication," " Shall that which is only to be used as a means of instruc- *' tion be set up as a test of faith ? " The evidence given in this suit was principally of a doctrinal character; on the religious sentiments of diffei*- ent classes of Dissenters ; on the doctrines of Bowles's Ca- techism, according to tiie construction of certain witnesses; and also respecting the works published under the sanction of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, to which some of the many Trustees of the charities were sub- scribers. The case was argued for some days, when the Vice-Chan- Decision. cellor delivered a Judgement, justly entitled to be called remarkable. He has himself thought it to be so from the unusual circumstance of his sanctioning its publication. Month after month a pamphlet containing this Judgement has been published, headed, " The Unitarians Defeated," and stated to be published by the permission of the Vice- Chancellor; apparently also revised by him*. Such a publication at all events makes the decision, what indeed it must, under any circumstances, have been, a fair subject for discussion and animadversion. In the course of the proceedings a list of works published Improved by the British and Foreign Unitarian Association was put * " The Unitai-ians Defeated. — Substance of the Judgement delivered " Dec. 23, 1833, by His Honour the Right Hon. Sir Lancelot Shadwell, " Vice-Chancellor of England, in the Case of the Attorney-General v. •' Shore, as to the Construction of the Trust Deeds of Dame Sarak " Hewley, deceased. Printed by permission of the Vice-Chancellor: " London, 1834." 13G in. It contained, among other books, " The New Testa- " ment in an Improved Version, upon the basis of Arch- " bishop Newcome's New Translation ; with a critical " Text, and Notes critical and explanatory." This book was in the catalogue of the Unitarian Association, on ac- count of the work, long after publication, having been confided to that Association, as a special ti'iist, on con- dition of applying its proceeds to its republication, or to the publication of any other vcrsio?i, which the progress of knowledge should make more correct. It was a work of ability and research, and was sold as such, nnd not as an authorized book, or one used for popular purposes or for pubUc worship. A copy was tendered in evidence, and ob- jected to before the Vice-Chancellor. It w.i- ivtl/i(!ra'w)i by the Relators, without argument, and consequently was not ju- dicially before the Court. So far as related to the ca-e before the Court, this Version was unknown, yet the Vice-Chancel- lor treated it as part of the evidence, and founded his Judge- ment upon it. The only Trustee of Lady Mewley's greater charit}' who subscribed to the A.-^uciation, was Samuel Shore, Esq.; and the only managers oi the Hojpital v»ho also subscribed, were the llev. C.V/elJ beloved, ]?ir. Uealby, and Mr. Kenrick ; — four out of thirteen of the Defendants. There was no evidence that any oi these four persons had seen, read or approved of the Version ; thej' might have censured it, criticised it, or com})]aincd of it; there was no evidence to the contrary before the Court ; and there could not well be, as it was not in issue in the cause. Grounds of The Vice-Chaucellor v.as not disposed to decide that the decision. Presbyterians do not preach or believe in " Christ's Holy " Gospel." The difficulty accompanying such a decision against lho.~e who receive the Scripture, and comply with the requisitions of the 19 Geo. III., was obvious ; and there- fore an ingenious device was resorted to. Tlie Vice-Chan- cellor being of opinion that the " Improved Version" was erroneous in many parts, concluded that as some of the Trustees subscribed to an Association publishing the Ver- sion, therefore all the Trustees, together with so7He of the 137 persons who participated in Lady Hevvley's cliarity, re- jected the true and critical text of Scripture, and did not receive " Christ's Holy Gospel." It ib necessary to quote part of the Judgement. " The first donation in Lady Hevvley's Trust was 'to poor judgement. * and godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel.' I cannot but suppose, as she was not a Conformist, that she did mean those persons, not being members of the Church, who did entertain, among others, the firmest belief of the divinity of our Redeemer's person, in the necessity of the sacrifice he made, because of the universality of sin, com- monly called Original Sin; and that she would, as Sir Edward Sugden has stated with great inopriety^ have shaken witli horror at the notion of hei- charity being given to the sustenance of persons w ho not only disbe- lieved these doctrines, but who actually preached against them. It has been argued that the principal object of this lady was to support poor ministers, widows of poor ministers, and other persons included in her trust deeds, who would themselves be the supporters of what was called the great doctrine of the Presbyterians — that sort of unrestrained method of dlsseminatino- the faiili which could not submit to be bound by any test or creed, or by anything except the words of Scripture. " Now, the book mentioned in the catalogue of books at the end of the Sixth Report of the Unitarian Society, which was called an Improved Version of the New Testa- ment, afforded a strong infeience that persons who would assist the imblication of it, cannot come under the descrip- tion of 'poor and qptW-^ jprcachcrs of Christ's Holy Go- ' spel,' even according to the view which has been taken of these words by the defendants' counsel. Surely it is immaterial whether a creed is expressed in a form of words, or whether a thing {}.) called a translation is pro- pounded to mankind which refuses to give the literal sense of words, and in lieu of words expressing the literal sense of the words in the original text, substitutes other words. .... Where persons had obviously gone out of the plain 138 ** way and had chosen not to give the literal meaning, for " the purpose of misleading the ignorant reader, those per- " sons must be considered as in effect imposing a creed " upon the reader, and not giving him the benefit of judging " for himself by means of the pure word of Scripture." Mode of Had the Vice-Chancellor determined that Lady Hewley thts^coiidu- intended to favour those only who held the doctrine of the sjon. divinity of the person of Christ and of Original Sin, his Judgement, resting on that ground, would be intelligible ; but whence would he have derived evidence sufficient to sup- port it? Evidence of what Lady Hewley considered in- cluded in the term " Christ's Holy Gospel " there is none ; nor is there evidence to show what opinions, sincerely enter- tained, she would have censured. The Vice-Chancellor therefore proceeds to give other reasons for his Judgement. The great doctrine of the Presbyterians, their nonadmission of any test or creed, he admits. The consequences of the admission were plain. To avoid them he insists, that an " Improved Version of the Testament," which some of the Trustees " assist in the publication of" — not preach — being framed in order to produce certain impressions on the mind of the reader, is a violation of the principle of free inquiry, as it prevents the exercise of private judgement. To prove the errors or mis-translations of certain passages, the Vice-Chancellor entered into a critical examination of many parts of the Version, and added, " I do not remember ** to have seen any translation which could be considered " more unsatisfactory, more arbitrary, more fanciful, moi'e " foolish, and, I am sorry to say, more false, than this thing " called by the Unitarians an improved version ; and sure " am I, that Lady Hewley would have thought it the worst " calamity that could have happened to her^ that persons " should be considered entitled to participate in her charity, " professing to call themselves ' godly preachers of Christ's " ' Holy Gospel,' who would give their sanction to such a " publication as that. For the reasons I have assigned, she '* would, if the matter had been duly explai?ied to her, have " seen that it militated against the principle which the de- 1S9 " fendants* counsel said.vVas the principle on which she de- " sired her charity to be administered, — namely, the prin-- " ciple of free discussion without creed, and by appealing " only to Scriptures as they stood I find, by the evi- " dence, that Mr. Wellbeloved and Mr. Kenrick', and some " third Trustee, were subscribers to the institution called " the Unitarian Society, which enumerated amongst the " books it circulated this improved version of the Scrip- " tures, as it was called; and my opinion is, that the " question being, not who should participate, hut xvhat " given individuals should be excluded, it is satisAxctorily " made out that no person who believes as Mr. Well- " beloved has stated in his sermon he believes, or who " acts as Mr. Wellbeloved has acted, with regard to sup- " porting that Unitarian Society which had published *' such a book as the improved version, could be considered " as entitled to share in the charity of Lady Hewley *' Therefore I think it clear that no stipend ought to be " continued to Mr. Wellbeloved or to anj' person preach- " ing the doctrine he does ; and it is also clear that the " charity itself cannot be administered according to the " intention of Lady Hewley, at least there is no reasonable " security that it can, if it is allowed to remaiii in the hands " of persons who thought as he did and acted as he had. " I have no evidence 'whatever to induce me to believe that " he had anything to do with the improved version, more " than in assisting by his subscription in the publication of "it Therefore my decree must in substance declare, " that no persons who deny the divinity of our Saviour's " person, and who deny the doctrine of Original Sin, as it " is generally understood, are entitled to participate in *' Lady Hewley's charity ; and that the first set of Trustees *' must be removed. It is sufficiently manifest that this " lady never intended that there should be Trustees of one " sort to administer the dealing out of the funds amongst " the persons named in the first deed, and Trustees of a " second sort to superintend the hospital which contained " the poor almswomen. J therefore think that all the Trus- 140 " tees who are Dissenters, and deny the doctrine of our Sa- " viour's Divine person, and the doctrine of Original Sin, " must be removed; and though there is no objection person- " ally to Mr. Palmer, yet as it appears that he is a member of . '■''the Church of England^ he ought not tobe continued aTrustee." Lad}' Ilewley, it is said, would have " shaken with hor- " ror"at the doctrines considered offensive by the Vice-Chan- cellor. Individually she might have disapproved of them, but non constat^ that she would have regarded that person otherwise than as a pious and sincere Christian who received them. The presumption to be drawn from the principles of the body to which she belonged, if acted upon consistently, — as we have seen they were to their fullest extent, even on those very points noticed by the Vice-chancellor, — is quite otherwise. What would one of the Vice-Chancellor's predecessors on the judicial bench have thought on the subject ? When the Presbyterian principle of inquiry was expressly determined to extend to the doctrine of the Trinity, his pithy way of charac- terizing the result was that ^Hhe Bible carried it." Milton, even in his day, viewed this latitude with no alarm ; neither did Bishop Hare, Locke, or others; nor did the seventy- three ministers who rejected the test at Salters' Hall "shake " with horror" at the notion of the rejection of the doctrine. Suppose, however, that the doctrines Lady Hewley would herself have professed could be distinctly ascertained, and that these, as is probable, were Baxterian, it is a consider- ation perfectly beside the question, in ascertaining her intent in founding a charity. The principle she approved of was that of unrestricted discussion. It is very probable she did not foresee all the conclusions it might lead to, but it cannot be presumed that she was ignorant it would lead to the adoption of other sentiments than those she herself professed. Foreseeing that changes and variation of religious opinions would occur, can it be inferred that she would not have tolerated them, or that she would or could have limited their extent, approving as she did of a principle certain of producing them ? 141 On what historical probability, it may again be asked, is it Historic that Lady Hevvley is to be presumed to have confined her ^"^^ "^ ' "^' bounty to particular doctrines, and to have intended to prevent the free exercise of opinion in her own denomina- tion. We know that Dr. Colton, her pastor, friend and chief adviser, v/as one of the most liberal school. In 1706, a contemporary thus describes him : " Fie is a very pru- " dent peaceable man of tlie ■primitive stamp : no bigot to ** any party, but a lover of all good men, of nsohat persua- *' sion soever*." The whole scope of the charity of Lady Ilewley shows The inter- that she acted in the true spirit of Baxter and the sue- [}'e,icJofthe ceeding Presbyterians, whose object bad been to maintain Charity. concord by laying the foundation of an institution wide enough to include all classes of opinion. This the mi- nisters brought up in Lad}^ Hewley's day, if there was any doubt about [the extent of the principle, afterwards specially proclaimed as including the doctrine of the Tri- nity ; and this not as the project or theory of the moment, but arising from the prhiciples on which they and their founders justified their dissent from the Church. In per- fect practical accordance with this principle, we find Lady Hewley extending the terms of her trust so as to embrace all Nonconformists, and not merely her own particular denomination, much less any fraction of that denomina- tion. Other instances exist of similar disinterested benevolence similar in- on the part of members of the Presbyterian body ; and com"ehen surely it is no very becoming return for such liberality, to '*'^e intent. exclude their descendants from acting in the very spirit which prompted such extended trusts, — which alone gave any other denomination any interest in the matter, — and which prevented their being made, what an Independent would, in consistency with his views of the propriety of surrounding Churches with " checks and precautions," have studiously rendered them — exclusive charities — exist- ing for the sole benefit of an exclusive denomination. * Dunton's Panegyrics, Defence, New Edition, 1818. p. 418. U2 Wherein appears the distinction to be drawn, either in legal construction or moral probability of intent, between Lady Hewley's case and that which occurred some years after, under the will of a lady of the Presbyterian congre- gation, at Norwich ? OUier doctrinal opinions there can be no doubt. She was one of the flock of Dr. John Taylor ; and his doctrinal opinions, we apprehend, are sufficiently notorious. He was a zealous maintainer of the liberal, catholic spirit of Protestant Dissenters. As early as 1724, five years after the meeting at Salters' Hall, we find him, — though then probably not fixed in his personal opinions on the doctrine of the Trinity, — expressing himself not satis- fied that subscription " is a means sanctified and appointed " of God, for either finding out or ascertaining the truth. " On the other hand," he says, " I am sure it has been " grievously abused from the first times of Christianity, to *' the dividing of Christians, and the destroying that love " and mutual forbearance which is the distino-uishinff charac- 'i ter of our holy religion, and the only bottom upon which " the tranquillity of the Church can be rightly settled." In 1737 we find him, in his " Defence of the Common " Rights of Christians," speaking more decisively of the attempt to impose subscription. *' This is Dissenting Popery. For Popery is not mere " error, seeing the best of Protestants may be in error more " or less. But Popery is human infallibility and persecn- " tionif laherever they are founds ^whether among Papists or " Dissenters. Human infallibility is making the judgement " or writings of any man or body of men, since the Apo- " sties' days, the rule of Christian faith, not to be doubted, " questioned, or departed from. Persecution is any degree " of hatred, or any kind of injury done to those who differ " from us in religious sentiments. And if human infalli- " bility and persecution are found among Protestants in " general, and Dissenters in particular, it is true they so " far retain a species of Popery, as they ground their faith " upon human schemes, and hate and injure those that " reject them." 14.3 ** Pretend not a power and liberty in every congregation, " to cast out and take in as they please. Such a power " they undoubtedly have, in opposition to all human power, " and so far as they touch no man's civil rights; but not in " opposition to truth, and the laws of the Gospel ; not to " tyrannize and domineer over one another's consciences; " not as if they were accountable to no authority but their " own, because they are accountable to no human autho- " rity. They must certainly stand before the judgement- " seat of Christ; and if they have held up their hands in " an uncharitable condemnation and exclusion of a true " disciple, how will they hold up their hands at that awful " bar? Every one concerned in this fact should commune " in private with his own heart upon these things, as he " valueth the life of his own soul." " The principles of the Dissenters as such, are these: " That the Scriptures are the only ride of Christian faith ; " that human -schemes, creeds and confessions, forms and " modes, in faith or "worship, are to be rejected, if imposed " as necessary terms of commwiion ,• and if other'wise, only ** to be received at pleasure, hy whomsoever imposed. The " Dissenti?ig principles are liberty, private judgement, free " inqidry and free profession, feace and charity, mutual ^^forbearance, moderation^ and good-will towards *all man- " land. And these are principles vi'hich men of the best " sense and fortunes need not be ashamed to own and " espouse. These principles, which the Dissenters hold in " common with all true Protestants, are indeed no other " than those of universal Christianity, and will stand as " long as there is truth, honesty and humanity in the earth, " or a good and almighty God in heaven." " If the Dissenters stand firm in liberty and love; if they " list themselves under no other head and leader but Christ " alone ; if they refuse all party-schemes, and stand upon " the single basis of universal Christianity ; if they allow " the free study of the Bible, and encourage the labours of " their honest and learned men ; if they are stedfastly de- " termined to establish then- faith, practice and worship 144 •' upon the Word of God alone, as it shall from time to " time be made known unto them ; and upon this bottom, " and no other, have true affection to one another, and to " all men ; then they will act up to their own true princi- " pies : and tliougli they may not be able at once to bring the " w/iole body of truth out of Herniation^ yet the day imll shine " still brighter upon them ; and their cause, thus ^et upon " its proper basis, will stand, nor shall the gates of hell " prevail against it. But if ever they abandon liberty and " love; if they stiffly adhere to party-names and schemes; " if they set bounds to Scripture-knowledge, and presump- " tuously say, Flither i^halt thou go, and no further ; if " they discourage the honest and learned, that would throw " in more light and truth among them, they will become " weak, and waste, and dwindle into nothing." Norwich Trained up in the spirit of such an expounder of the true trust. principles of Protestant Dissent, vi^e find the lady referred to, who could have had no doctrinal S3mipathy with Cal- vinists or Trinitarians, leaving, like Lady Hewley, a consi- derable fund for perpetual distribution among poor Dissent- ing ministers generally, with this restriction only, that they should be resident in her own or the adjoining county. She added a provision, which, at the same time that it perhaps prudently guarded against the imperfect state of legal tole- ration, showed that confidence in the principles of her Presbyterian Trustees which the result has fully justified. She expressly prohibited all interference vv'ith the completes! discretion on their part, and incapacitated any one who questioned it from participating in her bounty. The charity of this lady, — an Arian Presbyterian, — administered at her death by Trustees of similar principles, and now by con- firmed Unitarians, has always been impartially extended to suitable objects, without the smallest reference to creeds or denominations. The congregation to which she and her Trustees belonged has never received the smallest share of it*. * A similar case of an earlier date, in the same cit_y, occurs to us while referring to this charity. An eminent Presbyterian who died in 1715, 145 What distinction can properly be drawn between this simiiavity case and tliat of Lady Hewlev, thou£)h the facts, beincf com- '," ^^''^ paratively I'ecent, happen to be known with more certainty? case. Each donor extended her bounty to other sects, and yet each is now to be supposed, on legal inferences, to have meant to restrain the freedom of her own. There is no difference between the cases, except that the monstrosity and moral iniquity of the proposition for which the Inde- pendents contend, becomes too prominent to be denied, when it is considered that, in the Norwicli case the same legal presumption exactly applies as in the Wolverhampton and Lady Hewley's cases, and must, if it has any validity, equally avail to take tiie Norwich lady's bounty away from those to whose benefit it was devoted. We allude to the presumption that — looking at the contemporaneous state of the law, — she must, though an Arian, be held to have intended to favour such ministers only as were within the then existinij le^al bounds of toleration. Those who attentively follow the argument of the Vice- Reasoning Chancellor, will not be astonished if suits in Chancery are "fi''eChan- , . , cellor s interminable. He cannot mean that a Judge is, on the spot. Judgement. in each case, to constitute himself a judge of Greek and of theological criticism, and to determine the fact, — which, if it be material, should he proved like all other facts, — as to whether each man's version is a justifiable one or not, — whether it be a "creed" or "a version." The logical con- clusions of his Judgement must be peculiar to the Court in which they were delivered. The conclusion from his pre- mises, for which we have seen he had actually no evidence, would properly be, — supposing the " Improved Version" to be such as he represents it, — that the administration of the charity should be, by and amongst those persons who use the authorized version of the Bible. The conclusion like Lady Hewley, did not confine his religious charity even to Noncon- formists generally. He founded a Sacramental Lecture, to be delivered in alternate churches of the Establishment, and he extended his bounty to the schools of the Church and to those of Protestant Dissenters gene- rally. Many other instances of this catholic spirit of the early Presbyte- rians could no doubt be pointed out. 146 however drawn is, the present Trustees use an Improved Version of the Testament, which is not Christ's Holy Gospel, therefore the future Trustees are to declare their belief — not in the Scriptures generally, but — in the doc- trine of the Trinity and of Original Sin. An inference equally sound from the premises, as if a Judge, holding Cal- vinistic sentiments, had concluded, that therefore^ the fu- ture Trustees shall acknowledge the doctrine of Election ; or as if a Roman Catholic had declared the Judgement of the Court, with a ^therefore the Trustees shall assent to the doctrine of Transubstantiation.' Nor is this the onlv singularitv : " I acknowledije Ladv Hewley ad- " mitted the principle of free inquiry, but if the matter *' had been duly explained to her, she would not have per- " mitted the doctrine of Original Sin or of the Trinity to " have been questioned." She would have permitted inquirv, provided the doctrines she entertained were not opposed ! But the summary of the argument of the Vice- Chancellor is this : " The object of this lady was to sup- " port poor ministers, and among them, such as would not " be bound by any test or creed ; therefore my decree must " be, that no person shall enjoy the benefit of the charity " who will not submit to a test respecting the Trinity and " Original Sin*:" i.e. "You, the Trustees, have violated the * We have before noticed the difficulties which must arise out of fixing upon the doctrine of " Original Sin," as one of the tests of capacity for the enjoyment of a charity founded by the earlj- Nonconformists. The new Trustees must begin b}- defining it ; yet the doctrine itself is in actual controversy even among the Independents themselves ; and they have yet to determine whether the dogmas of Dr. Wardlaw, or the qua- lifications of Professor Stuart, as published under the auspices of Doctors Smith and Henderson, are to be held to be the true faith. The London Independents have appeared to patronise the former, which represent the old faith of the Calvinists ; but it appears, from a pamphlet by Mr. Yoimgman^, an able and highlj- respected member of this denomination of Dissenters, that this apparent patronage of the old creed, though very * Youngman's " Letter to the Committee of the Congregational Library, " occasioned by their publication of Dr. Wardlaw's Lectures on Christian Ethics." Norwich, 1S34. 147 " will ot'the foundress, and by the aid of a Version of the " Scripture imposed a creed : therefore I shall impose my " own creed, in order to carry her will into effect." prudent, considering the stationary doctrine proper to be inculcated while property is to be grasped, — is as little consistent with the real creed of the most enlightened of their own body, as it is reconcileable uith com- mon sense or Scripture. The Reviewer of Professor Stuart "s work, in the Congregational Ma- gazine, appears, on the other hand, to think it prudent and decent to keep the repulsive features of the old creed of his sect out of sight. " He," says Mr. Youngman, " reflects upon the Professor for bringing " into notice the ' extravagancies of the early theologians,' not considering ." that these ' extravagancies ' are actually embodied in the Westminster " Confession, and the Assembly's Catechisms ; and that, without implicit " obedience to these formulas, the Congregationalists can enjoy neither " the endowments of Lady Hewley nor of Mr. Coward Dr. " Wardlaw is the true authentic expositor of the ancient faith ; and there " is HO mincing the matter ; the Congregationalists must abide strictly by " the ancient formulas, or suffer the consequences of indulging the dan- " gerous liberty of free inquiry. " Mr. Youngman sees the impossibility of reconciling the true Protestant principle with a blind conformity, real or ostensible, with creeds, which have, in their true distinguishing features, been long practically aban- doned by the inquiring part of his denomination ; and he knows that such a state of things as he describes in the following observations, must be perpetual, if this branch of Dissenters continue to imitate the worst characteristics of an establishment, by putting conscience in opposition to interest, and hanging property on as a dragchain to check the too rapid progress of inquiry. " Theological inquiry-," he observes, " cannot " have in England a clear and open field. Both the Church and the " [Calvinistic .'] Dissenters are too deeply intrenched in their ancient " formulas, and their assumed infallibility, to admit even the possibility " that there are yet discoveries to be made in religion ; and that there " may be bulwarks, covered indeed with venerable ivy, and imposing to •' the eye of the beholder, whose foundations are unsound, and whosa " battlements totter to destruction. The ' Book of Homilies,' and the " ' Longer and Shorter Catechisms,' are the depositaries of all know- " ledge, and the termination of all inquiries. The right of making pro- " grass was buried in the graves of the Reformers. Happy men I to have " discovered all truth, and silenced all future disputations ! From these " causes the divines of the' Church of England and those among the " [Calvinistic?] Dissenters have, with much consistency, laboured to " keep out of England the results of German speculation ; and we are " at last forced to receive them by America, as the Baltic timber is sent L 2 148 Terms of The Decree, as it is drawn up, includes much less than ment" ^^" ^^^ Judgement of the Vice-Chancellor. It runs thus : — omitted in " This Court doth declare, that ministers or preachers of " what is commonly called Unitarian belief and doctrine, " and their widows, and members of their congregations, " and that persons of what is commonly called Unitarian " belief and doctrine, are not fit objects of, and are not en- " titled to partake of, the charities of Dame Sarah Hewley." Now it nuist be presumed that the Vice-Chancellor has thought fit to abandon that part of his Judgement in which he states that Lady Hewley would have objected to her charity being given to the sustenance of persons who dis- believed two given doctrines, and that he admits the diffi- culties attending the one relating to Original Sin. Unita- rian belief, as it is sometimes called, may include as well as exclude the doctrine of Original Sin. But what the Decree implies still requires much interpretation. Unitarian belief, with many, properly designates the belief of the Trinity IN UNITY. Metaphysical terms are avoided from the neces- sity attending their employment of accompanying them with definitions, in order to prevent the disputes arising from their varied and numerous senses. In avoiding such terms, a designation has been adopted which leaves it open to fu- ture inquiry to ascertain what are essentials of Unitarian belief: the Decree simply and necessarily substitutes other disputes for those now existing. The "im- On the character of this "Improved Version" the entire proved Ver- argument of the Vice-Chancellor depended. The work itself sion. o » has excited the commendation, in greater or less extent, of " to us round by Canada, to escape the jealous embargo placed upon it " by our considerate statesmen." Yet, in curious consistency with this striking picture of the bodj' of orthodox Dissenters to which he belongs, Mr. Youngman tells us, " I " have been educated in a denomination of Christians, by whom I have " been taught not to render implicit obedience to any human authority ; " to maintain inviolate the right of private judgement ; and to bring every " subject that was offered for my acceptance, to the proper test of its " truth." A principle constantly asserted, and constantly opposed, by the Independents. 149 many of the most learned divines; of Watson, Bisliop of Llandaff; of Bennet, Bishop of Cloyne ; and even of Dr. Pye Smith, one of the relators' zealous witnesses. It was undertaken with no olfensive intent; and had its object been improper, those concerned in its preparation could hardly be exempt from every term of reproach. Their weakness and their folly would indeed have been great, if it had been pos.sible for theui to have supposed that exposure and dis- grace were not certain. So far, however, from their being liable to any discreditable imputation, their character re- lieves them from every suspicion. Errors, it is possible, they may have committed ; in such a work they easily oc- cur, and their avoidance has not been effected even in the acknowledged version. Yet so far from having distorted the text, the work contains a critical examination of various readings, and affords a fund of biblical criticism useful for every student of divinity. The corrections of Griesbach, whose labours are universally praised, are with great care collected. Archbishop Newcome's text is the basis of the whole, and wherever any variations from it oc- cur they are noticed in the margin. If deception was in- tended, it is curiously accompanied with the means of detection ; and if the reader was to be misled, he has an op- portunity of ascertaining, at the same time, the extent of his error. So far from fraud being contemplated, or falsi- fication or interpolation of the text being attempted, every mode to prevent either has been carefully adopted. The compilers of this version are, without doubt, to be its object praised for their dili i gation reversed ; that a foundation established by a Presbyterian would go. confessedly Unitarian is, by the progress of opinion in the cono-reoation, appropriated by them to Trinitarian preach- ino". Are we to have an Information filed by Unitarians (if they would so far violate their principles and professions,) interrogating the possessors as to their creed, and inquiring what religious book-societies any of them subscribe to? Is the future Judge to test those books by an Unitarian " been persuaded that could no way be so well done as by the study of " his word and works, 'tis more than probable he had at this time been " orthodox ; and then, instead of his present treatment, his faults would " have been overlooked, his learning he excels in would have been ex- " tolled, and no defect would have been found in other parts of it. He " would have been cried up as the ornament of his age, and no prefer- " ment would have been envied or denied him Had the same " genius, the same sagacity and labour, been applied to the study of the " Scriptures, to settle the text in doubtful places, to mend corrupted ones, " explain liard ones, fix the meaning of ob«cin-e ones, and to trace out " the literal sense when it can be done ; should he, I say, have attempted " a work of this kind, instead of thanks and applause, 't is more than pro- " bable he would have been treated as a rash man, of no judgement, of " little learning, and less religion ; and if his works had been sentenced " to the fiames, a majority would have been for throwing him in after " them." — On the Difficulties and Discouragements which attend the Study of the Scriptures. London, 1715. pp. 13, 14, 21. 153 standard? Is he, for instance, if it be discovered that the unfortunate Trustees subscribe to the British and Foreiiin Bible Society, to examine the version of the Scriptures which that Society circulates; — determine, as he might with Unitarian lights, (used by him with as much propriety as his predecessor uses those of the Trinitarian,) that the version in many places represents a creed rather than a faidiful translation ; nay, more, that it sent forth as "Christ's " Holij Gospel," the forgeries and interpolations of the dark ages; — and thereupon decree the restoration of the charity to a strict observance of what should be thus determined to be the violated doctrinal intent of the founder, who was wise and consistent enough not to restrict it. What more or less has been done in the present case*? Assuming that the Judgement of the Court is correct in Removal of imposing a test upon those who shall in future claim advan- ^^^^^ tages from Lady Hewley's charily, it is conceived that the removal of the Trustees is entirely without cause. They are men of the highest character and station in society, en- trusted with the most important public offices, and alto- gether beyond the breath of suspicion, as to their desire and capacity to act in the fulfilment of such duties as may be imposed upon them. In the exercise of their discretion, the funds of the charity were distributed among many dis- senting denominations, — those professing Unitarian doc- trines, in common with others, — none having any undue advantage. This course was approved of by John Lee, At- torney-General, himself one of the Trustees, and indirectly sanctioned by the refusal of Sir James Scarlett, when At- torney-General, to file an Information on the part of the Crown. The present Trustees have imitated the conduct of their predecessors. Removal upon such an account has never, in any similar case, taken place. In the instance of the • The merits of tlie "Improved \'ersion" have been considered in " A Letter to the Vice-ChancoUor of England, in reply to his Honour's " Remarks relative to the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, " delivered Dec. 23, 18t33, in pronouncing his Judgement in the Case of " the Attorney-General v. Shore and Others. By James Yates, M.A." 154 Attorney- General v. the Corporation of Exeter*, the rents of a charity had been for many years misapplied, being ap- propriated in a manner not warranted by the terms of the trust. But no wilful misapplication had been made, and the Court did not charge the Corporation with it, nor remove them from the trust. The charity was established for the relief of the poor, and was applied to public purposes. The discretion, if any, was strictly Hmited. Error only had been committed, arising from no wilful misconduct, and no pe- nalty was inflicted in consequence. Lady Hewley's Trus- tees have a far stronger ground of justification. They im- posed no test, not considering themselves empowered to frame one, and no wilful misconduct is charged against them. If they improperly extended the limits of the charity, the rule of the Court would be their future guide. Their opinions surely do not incapacitate them from being " per- " sons of reputation" ; nor make them incapable of admini- stering the charity to any class of persons that may be pointed outf. While the Lord Chancellor, who administers im- mense Church patronage, may himself be a Dissenter, « 3 Russell, 395. f Instances are not wanting of persons of different religious opinions from the intended objects of charity, being selected as distributors on that very account. The Presbyterian Board, or Fund, has been on more than one occasion thus honourably selected. In 1798 a distinguished Independent, of strict Calvinistic opinions, intimated his wish to place in the hands of this Board a very considerable sum of money, the interest of which he desired should be permanently distributed by them among ministers, not of their own, but expressly of the donor's, religious opinions. In order to prevent misconception, (though, of course, the heretical views and religious opinions of the Board were well known to be altogether different from those of the donor, and no doubt formed the reason for selecting them as likely to be impartial in the execution of their office,) the Board transmitted to him a formal vote, stating that according to their fundamental principles, they did not require any declaration of religious sentiments from the ministers assisted hy them ; but that if he was pleased to intrust them with this mark of confidence, they would esteem themselves bound to comply with his wishes to the utmost of their power. And accordingly, being entrusted with the dis- tribution of the fund, they have done so, so far as they possessed general means of knowledge of the reputed opinions of the parties. 155 surely a Dissenter can administer a charity among his brethren, under any restrictions that may be imposed ! The Trustees are stated to have belonged to the " Unita- Principal " rian Association." Mr. Shore, one only of the Trustees of "^-'ly^ppiy the greater charit}', and three managers only of the hospital, to part. are subscribers to it; the other Trustees are not connected with it. To include all the Trustees holding certain opi- nions in the disqualification of the connexion, is an un- usual mode of reasoning and certainly unjust. The dis- qualification, indeed, of any of the Trustees, in consequence of their connexion with such an association, arises from what cause? The publication of immoral or improper works? No; the publication of a learned version of the New Testiiment; the attempt to correct presumed errors in the early English translation of Scripture. Had their conduct and their administration of the charity been necessarily connected with the publication, it could only affect those concerned in thepublication. The Decree includes those who may never have seen or used it, or, if having seen it, may disapprove of it. If not the acts, but the doctrinal opinions of one class of the Trustees are the disqualification, how is the removal of Mr. Palmer to be accounted for? He is a member of the Church of England, and upon the statu quo principle, is a most competent person to be concerned in the charity, and he also is disqualified ! In ordinary cases, — in all until the present, — the Courts look simply at the acts of the party with reference to the trust : if he has a discretion, its extent is ascertained If the discretion allow- ed has been exceeded, then interference becomes necessary. Can it be said an improper discretion was confided to the Trustees? The founder, then^ is the subject of censure. Has the discretion in this case been exceeded? Until the Court determined it had, it was not possible to say that Lady Hewley intended to appropriate her charity to the exclusion of Presbyterians, or to confine it to the support of particular doctrines, and of a particular sect with whom she had no communication. Such a determination, if it shall be made, will be binding on the Trustees, whatever association they 156 may be the members of, and whatever version of the Scrip- ture they may publish. No misconduct is imputed, no dis- honesty even suspected. The Judge himself declared this when he gave them all their costs. If the Court shall lay down a rule according to which the funds are in future to be administered, it will be the duty of the present Trustees, as it would be the duty of those who might supplant them, to pay to it implicit regard. Should it be unobserved, a direct breach of trust will then be committed, calling for judicial interference and punishment. It is in every day's practice to find trusts improperly administered from igno- rance or indiscietion ; but if the Court of Chancery was to remove the Trustees without being guilty of any wilful de- fault, it would act in opposition to those equitable maxims which in such cases have always governed its decisions. If the Court requires subscription to the doctrine of the Tri- nity and of Original Sin, it will be simply for the present Trustees to propose such a test to those among whom Lady Hewley's charity is distributed — the new Trustees can do no more. It would be reversing every precedent, if the de- cision of the Vice-Chancellor in this respect should be affirmed, and Trustees who are guilty of no misconduct should be removed*. * Since the preceding sheets were revised, the Lord Chancellor has suggested, for the consideration of Counsel in Lady Hewley's case, the same question which has been raised at pages S8, 89, — viz., whether, as a conclusion from certain given premises, preference ought not to he shown, in the administration of an ancient Presbyterian charity, to members of the Established Clnirch? Against the hidependents the argument is valid. They argue that such doctrines as were held by the founder ought to be favoured, and that the doctrines they profess ap- proach near to such doctrines. The reply is, Not xjou, but Churchmen, should be favoured ; for, according to the state of the law and the early inclinations of Presbyterians, the doctrines of the Church were preferred to those you receive. But the argument is invalid. Equal injustice would be committed, whether Churchmen or Independents seized the property in dispute. The Presbyterians were opposed to the Church. Lady Hewley (beyond all question an avowed Dissenter,) after all schemes of comprehension were given up {ante, p. 15, and Note), by making a per- petual endowment for " poor preachers," showed an intent to perpetuate that opposition, making Dissenters the executors of her trusts, and em- 157 The decision of the Vice-Chancellor has been appealed Proceed- from as erroneous, as opposed to the evidence, and as in- casesdepre- consistent with its own admissions. It is to be regretted '^''"*^i'- that a decision should ever have been required upon the subject. Those whom time and change have introduced to a participation in the advantages of the charity of Lady Hewley now desire to monopolise the whole, to propa- gate by it their sectarian opinions, and to administer it on exclusive terms. That course is just, which most ef- fectually promotes Lady Hewley's intent. If her spirit was tolerant and kind, governed by a noble generosity, for- bearing and merciful, an alteration in the present disposition of the funds is uncalled for; if she was harsh and narrow in her disposition, making her own fallible views of religion an excuse for compelling their acceptance by others, then indeed it is rijiht that the hands of those who shall become ploying terms peculiarly designative of Dissent ; and there is not the smallest probability, either in fact or in argument, to prove an intent, under any circumstances, to favour Churchmen. Her principles, and those characterising the body with which she was connected, become therefore a necessary inquiry. Did those principles admit the propriety of framing any fixed creed — whether one established by law, or arising out of Dissenting institutions ? There is not the slightest evidence that any symbol of religious association was ever framed by the body to which she Ijelonged. Had a sjanbol or a fixed authoritative creed ex- isted, its importance must at once be admitted ; but peculiar doctrines cannot be the subject of consideration if no authoritative expression of them is to be found, and still less can they be the subject of considera- tion when any authoritative expression of them was distinctly opposed by the Presbyterian divines. What, then, were the principles professed, doctrines not being a subject of inquiry? If any person rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, and admitting the propriety of leaving untouched the great principle of Protestantism — freedom of inquiry — was to esta- blish a charity, and the beneficiaries were to become Trinitarians, can it be possible to doubt that the principle would be upheld in opposition to the peculiar doctrines entertained by the founder? Why does not the converse hold good ? Unfortunately our prejudices are often too strong to peniiit our making those admissions which are necessary for the jus- tification of our belief. When the 2>iinciple favours our prejudices we admit it — we avoid its operation when it opposes them. The Presbyte- rians contended for the principle of free inquir}^ ; and this principle was not, and cannot, consistently be, subject to any restriction. 158 masters of her bounty shall not be guided by a feeling of catholic benevolence. Lady Hewley had seen and experi- enced the bitterness of intolerance; she had been driven with others from the feet of those teachers whose instruction gratified and of whose doctrines she had approved. A cruel persecution suspended the open practice of her religious exercises. Was she moved by resentment to support her tenets with the same bitter feelings as were exhibited against her connexions? What act of her life was tainted by ani- mosity? Those whom she favoured, and the body of which she was a member, displayed an anxiety to hush the angry exclamations of which religion had been the excuse. They renounced creeds, and articles, and tests, and all restraints which should interfere with the conscientious expression of belief; and now Lady Hewley alone is to be put forward as influenced by narrow and cloistered sentiments ! Well might Mr. Robertson, the Independent, indig- nantly exclaim, "At this time — With all the unrighteous " acts of the ages that are past, and the mischiefs which they " produced, as they poured their tides of vengeance upon the " unoffending and the virtuous, who regulated their I'eligious *' opinions by a divine law which required them to obey God " rather than men, demonstrating the absurdity and ini- " quity of restraining religious opinion by human authority; " — With these melancholy examples and lessons before " their eyes — At a time when the illuminations of knowledge " are throwing their light upon all questions interesting to " the moral probationers of earth, and the feelings of man- " kind are under the strongest excitement towards objects *' that include the consideration of their improvement as in- " telligent beings, the subjects of religion who must shortly " give an account of themselves to God — When the igno- " rant and the forlorn, for whose instruction preceding ge- " nerations had but ill provided, are taught and encouraged " to show themselves men, the creatures of God and the sub- " jects of his government, by the Bible circulated to their re- " motest dwellings, and fixing all their attention upon the *' word that 'shall judge them in the last day' — At this time, 159 " when the messengers of Christ, founding all their mea- " snres on his authority, and employing nothing but his " word as the means of effecting the objects of their mission, " are abroad in all lands, assailing superstitions, inveterate, " and powerful in all their associations with the hopes and " fears of men, and not deterred from any of their attempts " to destroy them, by the patronage which protects them ; " — In these circumstances, when strong in the confidence ** that knowledge is preparing the purest pleasure for every " man who loves his species, for every Christian who loves " his Saviour, religious men are fixing their attention on *' its free advances, and wish for nothing but its unchecked " circulation; — At such a time as this, for ministers of the " New Testament to exhibit their cause in connexion with " legislative prohibitions and common law proscriptions, is *' a spectacle strange and unholy, and calculated to excite " only one feeling in every generous mind, that of entire " abhorrence. " Where have they learnt this practice ? Not from the " commands of Christ : He has forbidden it. Not from his " example. Not from his sanction : He rebuked his disci- ** pies when, moved by intemperate zeal, they would have " inflicted vengeance on those who would not receive him. " ' Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.' The ** meekness and gentleness of Christ convey the recom- " mendation of very different means to his followers; and " they who would be approved by him * must not strive, " ' but be patient towards all men, in meekness, instructing " ' them that oppose themselves, if peradventure God will " ' give repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth.* " That is the province within which are bounded the duties " of Christ's Ministers. How deeply is it to be deplored " that they have ever gone beyond its limits ! " Ministers of the Gospel among Protestant Dissenters " appealing to the common law as the standard of Christian " doctrine, as they do who allege that ' Christianity as " ' maintained in the Church of England, is part of the " ' common law, and that Unitarianism is an indictable 160 " ' offence, because it is not according to the common law,' " is a most ungracious spectacle. Will these advocates for " the common law be pleased to tell us who is the expounder " of its religious doctrines? Who are the persons charged " with the official duties of explaining the theology of the " common law? I should like much to know the tenets of " religion which they would approve. They might maintain " the doctrine of the Trinity, but would they hold it in con- " nexion with an evangelical creed ? The doctrine of the " Trinity is, we well know, received by thousands who are " most hostile to the mode of preaching practised by the " patrons of the case, and who think a Calvinistic creed " most dangerous to the interests of mankind, as they assert " it to be contrary to the truth of Christianity. Suppose " the interpretation of the common law theology to be com- " mitted to persons of this description, with power to indict " and punish those whom they might pronounce offenders " against the common law, we might perhaps have Bishop " Tomline's ' Refutation of Calvinism ' provided as the " Test of Orthodoxy, and how would the nine Ministers " relish the application of the common law in this way to " themselves ? What would they gain by setting up the " common law as the test of doctrine? Their assent might " be required to other tenets than the doctrine of the Tri- " nity by their judges, who, were they even agreed with " them on this topic, might still find enough in their pro- " fession to charge them with opinions not according to " common law, but indictable by it." And if the time when Robertson wrote (1818) was unsuit- able to such exhibitions, what shall we say of the present? What shall we say of the consistency of these attempts to create petty establishments, to impose restraints on con- science and opinion, and to offer temptations to duplicity and disingenuousness, with the objections so loudly put forth against exclusive establishments and state patronage in clogging, in precisely the same way, the freedom of con- science and the progress of truth ? The Independents, moreover, are at present, with other 161 bodies of Dissenters, — with the very men whom tliey de- in the Uni- nounce as not Christians, — seeking admission to the EngHsh ^'^"'"^*- Universities, — Universities founded by Catholics, and, in the progress of Protestant Reformation, applied to a new system of I'eligion. They are in fact petitioning Parliament to per- mit them to participate in part of the endowments, first of the Roman, and then of the English Church. At the same moment, they are carrying on a war of persecution and ex- clusion upon account of religious differences. Singular incon- sistency ! Is it thus that religion is always to be a cause of discord, of a hateful and pernicious contest? The chapels of Presbyterians are to betaken from their present possessors, because their doctrines are not exclusive. Parliament is to interfere with the Universities because their regulations are exclusive. The principles of the one are tolerant, and there- fore are objectionable; of the other contracted, and therefore mischievous. What standard is to be set up, if restriction must exist? Are the Independents to monopolize all the endowments of the country, and grasp the funds of every relifjious institution ? Are their Calvinistic tenets to be those Parliament must approve of, and the Courts of law support? What injustice will ensue ! what painful consequences will follow ! The donations of ancestors are to be taken from their children. Chapels are to be transferred to new hands, and congregations driven from the places in which they have always worshiped. The Court of Chancery is to become an Inquisition, and its decrees are to forbid religious inquiry. The case now before us, if successful, is avowed to be the in- Application tended precursor ofmany more, unless the Court of Chancery cedent. shall justify those Presbyterians who opposed the simple words of Scripture to the authority of fathers and of coun- cils — who held as principles the innocence of involuntary error, the sufficiency of Scripture as a Rule of Faith, and the invalidity of human authority in matters of belief. The idle language of fear may be employed, and should it avail, and the interpretation of divines be held to supersede that of the Scriptural reader, an intelligible doctrine is advanced: M 162 — will it be in accordance with the justification of Protes- tant Dissent ? " Let them chant what they will of preroga- " tives, we shall tell them of Scripture ; of custom, we of " Scripture ; of acts and statutes, still of Scripture ; till the " quick and piercing word enter to the dividing of their " souls, and the mighty weakness of the Gospel throw down " the weak mightiness of man's reason*." Toleration The consequences arising from error are not such as can of religious gygj. j^g jj^g subject of Complaint, as a reason of State. The errors. Mr . . evils feared are those which arise from favouring the opi- nions of particular sects and in aiding the odium with which it is sought to affect the rest. Exclusive applause enlarges that desire for temporal superiority to which religion has been so often made subservient. It is only by depressing preeminence, so aided, that Christian charity can ever thrive; by filling the mind with a sense of its weakness, and of the errors it may commit. Religious peace is the result of amicable and kindly feelings, of mutual forbearance and universal charity. Favour the culti- vation of these, and religion can never distract society. " There be who perpetually complain of schisms and " sects, and make it such calamity that any man dissents from their maxims. It is their own pride and igno- " ranee which causes the disturbing, who neither will '* hear with meekness nor can convince, yet all must be '* suppressed which cannot be found in their syntagma. '* They are the troublers, they are the dividers of unity, " who neglect and permit not others to unite those dis- '• severed pieces which are yet wanting to the body of truth. " To be still searching what we know not by what we know ; '* still closing up truth to truth as we find it: this is the golden rule in theology as well as in arithmetic, and makes up the best harmony in a church ; not the forced " and outward union of cold and neutral and inwardly " dividing minds f." Did no evidence exist of the doctrine of the Trinity * "The Reason of Church Government,'" by John Milton. 1641. -J- Milton. 163 having ever been the subject of controversy among Pres- byterians ; had the}' made no determination that, as con- sistent Protestants, no restraints should be imposed upon any of their body who was disposed to question it; had the proceedings of the legislature in 1698, when the pre- valence of Arian sentiments was publicly discussed, and a law respecting them enacted, never occurred* ; had the con- troversy of Sherlock and South in 1695, and, a few years after, the proceedings in the convocation against Clarke, never taken place ; had there been no historical evidence of the notoriety and the currency of Arian opinions for more than twenty years before the death of Lady Hewley, — still it would be impossible to infer that she or those with whom she was connected, not having imposed restrictions upon the liberty of inquiry, were desirous that such liberty should be restricted. If all the Presbyterians could be proved to have acknowledged the importance of the doc- trine of the Trinity, the only inference is, that they, as individuals, were satisfied of its correctness. It was not professed as part of a symbol of faith, as being a portion * In the case of Carey v. Abbot, 7 Ves. 490, the Master of the Rolls had decided, that m consequence of the 31 Geo. III., cap. 32, declaring all dispositions considered unlawful before the passing of that Act should continue to be so, a bequest for educating children in the Roman Catho- lic faith was bad. In 1832, the 2 and 3 Will. IV., cap. 115, was passed, placing Roman Catholics on the same footing with Protestant Dissenters, in respect of their schools, jilaces of religious worship, education, and charities. Mr. Bradshaw, a Roman Catholic, by his will dated in 1823, bequeathed certain sums of money to Roman Catholic schools. He died prior to the year 1832. A question arose on the legality of the bequest. The Lord Chancellor (May 24, 1834,) determined that the Act of the 2 and 3 Will. IV. was in intention, though not strictly in form, declaratory, and consequently being retrospective, the bequests were valid. The prin- cipal cases are far more strong than this one. One objection to the ad- ministration of many of the Piesbyterian charities is in the nature of forfeiture not taken advantage of, while a law affecting their former ad- ministration was in operation ; it is not that the charities (at least, not so in many cases,) were originally illegal. But if all such charities were originally illegal, the principle applied to Mr. Bradshaw's bequests, if tlie case is correctly related to us, would extend to them. M 2 164 of a common creed, nor was it enforced by any rule of their association ; its validity or its weakness depended upon the same evidence. No disqualification affected those who asserted its weakness ; no encouragement was given to those who acknowledged its validity. All refrained from imposing upon their successors any test which might be presumed to embody the doctrines of which they approved. Those who are now desirous to establish a contrary practice, and to impose upon others their own limited standard of belief, sanction acts in themselves censurable, and only more gla- ringly so by the violence which has sometimes accompanied them. The same spirit which erected the stake, calls upon the Courts of law to establish the imposition of creeds. The character of the attacks upon the charities of the Presbyterians is too manifest to mislead. It is theological ; it is unconnected with any moral or religious feeling. If a diversion of property from any sect had improperly taken place, or the least semblance of fraud had been committed, the aid of the law would be properly asked, to punish the guilty parties, and to compel that justice to be done which a due sense of morality ought voluntarily to have suggested. But there has been no diversion of the property from the purposes to which it was originally destined. The right of the Presbyterians to the property in dispute is legally perfect and morally incontestable. At the assembly of di- vines at Salters' Hall, in the language of Sir Joseph Jekyll, Master of the Rolls, " the Bible carried it." It is for the Court of Chancery to determine whether the Bible shall carry it again. By such a determination only can inquiries, alike adverse to the spirit and the genius of the English law, be pre- vented. If articles existed, to which subscription could be made, the course to be pursued might not be difficult. In their absence the Bible only must be the Rule of Faith, and special modes of belief ought not to be considered. Any proceeding to the contrary would sanction, and render necessary, legal processes, both inquisitorial and odious. Precedents for it may be found amongst the hateful acts 165 of an abolished jurisdiction; but it has been the boast of those who have sat for more than a century in our Courts of Law, that they were precedents they would avoid, and not imitate; and surely this is not a suitable aera for com- mencin.> -^^--o* > >Z*r>