« AnteriorContinuar »
you shall not be judged of the Lord. apace, is bold as a lion, meek as a Humble yourself under his mighty lamb, and begins to speak in “this hand, and he shall exalt you in due name” to the hearts of sinners. time. “He that humbleth himself Poor Mr. Rich * has got an book shall be exalted.” And God has within him, which shall bring him promised you this preparation of at last to land. Meantime, I be. the heart, which is of him. His eve, with you, even his struggling work is before him. “Every valley in the net shall work together for shall be exalted,” (all the abjectness good, and spread the Gospel. I of your unbelieving heart,) “and shall hope for another line from every mountain and hill shall be Change-alley before I leave this made low,” (all the haughtiness and place. The Lord be the strength of pride of your spirit,) "and the your life, and your portion for crooked shall be made straight,” ever! (your crooked, perverse will,) " and Tell Mrs. Dewal not to mind that the rough places plain :" (your rug- envious gentleman who slandered ged, uneven temper :) "and then Lampe. His tunes are universally the glory of the Lord shall be re admired here among the musical vealed, and we all shall see it toge men, and have brought me into high ther; for the mouth of the Lord favour with them. Farewell ! hath spoken it.” Mr. P. joins in
C. W. hearty love and thanks for your kind concern for him.
* Proprietor of Covent-Garden theatre.
THE UNITARIAN ENDOWMENT ,BILL, THOMAS MACAULAY,
ESQ., AND THE WESLEYAN METHODISTS. In the recent debate, in the were their speeches confined to the House of Commons, on the second place where they were delivered, it reading of what is called the “ Dis- might be necessary, for the sake of senting Trusts Bill,” but which is freedom of debate, to continue in really a Bill for endowing Unitarian. this state of apparent ignorance, ism from the spoils of Trinitarian But the reports that are published gifts in trust, and which issued in go through the whole empire ; and the melancholy result of a large are addressed, in point of fact, to majority in favour of the measure, all the subjects of the realm. On several very strongly-expressed re- these reports, therefore,-assuming ferences were made to the Wesleyan nothing concerning their accuracy, Methodists, and to their decided but taking them just as they are, opposition to the proposed enact observations, explanatory or de. ment. According to the reports of fensive, may be indispensably rethe speeches contained in the daily quisite. And this, we think, is the papers,—from which alone those who
case on the present occasion. are not Members are supposed to Before, however, we proceed, with know what was said on the occa all due respect to the supposed sion, and to which alone, therefore, authors of the reported speeches, we can advert,-by no
but with all the fidelity which truth these references so explicitly made and justice require, to make some as by Mr. Macaulay, one of the remarks on the particular stateMembers for Edinburgh, son of the ments of individual Members, we late Zachary Macaulay, Esq., the wish to introduce a few both on the friend of Mr. Wilberforce, and general subject, and the singularwhose praise for genuine orthodoxy, we may add, instructive-character and for consistent piety, is “in all of the division which concluded the the churches." What Honourable debate. Sir Robert Peel is reported Members actually said, of course, to have said, that he "never knew we are supposed not to know; and a debate in which the preponder
ance of argument was so completely dowments. It is well known-fre on one side.” The remark only might say, it is on all hands ad. proves that very different opinions mitted—that such perversions of may
be formed of the same subject, trust-property exist only among by persons who regard it from dif- Unitarians. They, and they alone, ferent points of view. To us, the will be benefited by the Bill; and if real weight of sound argument ap- the framers of the measure would pears to have been altogether on speak out, they would acknowledge the opposite side of the question. that it was for them alone that it By a copious use of the old petitio was brought forward. We say noprincipii' fallacy, as well as by the thing now of the objections to the most perfect misrepresentation of manner in which it was brought forthe real facts of the case,-misre- ward, though these are numerous presentation not less real for being and weighty: Originally designed undesigned, there might be gained to include Trish cases, (and, indeed, an apparent conclusiveness to the especially contemplating them,) at arguments employed by Sir Robert first it appeared only to refer to such and his friends; but it was only ap as might exist in England. As at parent, as we think we can satisfac. first introduced, it contained a clause torily demonstrate. We may, of withdrawing all pending suits from course, be mistaken. We claim no its application ; but, after the third exemption from the usual fallibility reading, --so quietly, that the change of human nature. But we will give was not known till the Bill came our readers the opportunity of judg- down to the Commons, –in the place ing, by laying before them, explic of this clause was put another, by citly and honestly, the grounds of which suits then pending, and ripe our opinion.
for decision, were subjected to the What, then, are the real facts of newly-established law: this clause, the case ? The Bill, in the first thus introduced at the last moment, place, professes to have for its ob so that no opportunity was given ject Dissenting trusts in general. for the expression to the Lords of Now, on this, two observations are public opinion on it, being intended necessary. First, The vast majority to refer to a particular case then of Dissenters are opposed to the before the Irish Chancellor, ready measure; they are satisfied with the for decision, and decision on which law as it now is; and not only do was only postponed. The Irish pot call for alteration, but have, in Lady Heuley case, having been thothe most decided manner, expressed roughly argued, is about to have a their fixed opinion that decision pronounced similar to that should take place. Second, The pronounced on a like case in the orthodox Dissenters—that is, the English Chancery: was it not to immense majority-do not need any prevent this decision, intimated, but alteration. They hold no Unitarian not officially pronounced, that this endowments of which they are threat- unusual clause was introduced in so ened to be deprived by application unusual a manner ? to the courts of equity. The re But, passing by these objections verse, without a single exception, is to the manner of proceeding, we the case. The real, the exclusive come to the Bill itself. object of the Bill is to secure to Our first objection is to the altera. Unitarians the possession of pro- tion of the law which it makes. We perty which-according to the rules are glad that it is altogether unne. of law hitherto acted upon, and by cessary, on this occasion, to go into which the intention of the original any minute description of the law as trustor is made to govern, without hitherto declared by the courts of any application of the limitation equity. It is exceedingly difficult principle, the use of the property by all for unprofessional writers to treat subsequent trustees—can be proved, on such subjects, as not possessing by the evidence hitherto admissible, that perfect understanding of the to have constituted Trinitarian en precise meaning and effect of that
established technical phraseology estate, and takes, instead, that which which the law, like every other pro- is supplied by the present possessors, fession, finds to be requisite for the however contrary that may be to the due enunciation of its objects and other. Now, this is our first and intentions. Our present purpose
fundamental objection to the Bill. will be accomplished by statements
It alters the law of trusts; and conveyed, as far as possible, in when Lord Lyndhurst gave judgordinary language. Generally speak- ment in the Lady Hewley case, he ing, then, as to private property, its not only said tbat the law was as he possessor has full power over it. had stated it, and that being so Generally speaking, we say; for it it was adverse to Unitarian posses. may come to him from its former sion of the property, but that the possessor with limitations and re law, as thus declared, had its founstrictions. So, at least, the House dations in reason and common sense. of Lords have recently declared. It With the law, as thus laid down, is a singular fact, and deserves no the great majority of the Dissenters tice, that, on the saine night that are satisfied; they wish it to remain the Commons admitted to a second as it is; and therefore have they reading a Bill which gives to the so earnestly opposed a Bill which, present possessor of trust-property being professedly for the Dissenters entire control over it, the Lords at large, is really, and by the con. rejected a Bill by which Sir Thomas scious intentions of its framers and Wilson, the owner of Hampstead- promoters, designed for the Unitaheath, sought to obtain such con. rians alone. trol, because his futher's will fixed And this constitutes our second certain limitations to it. Still, thus general objection to the measure. generally speaking, the owner of If the property, of which it is inprivate property is thus free to do tended to give quiet possession to with it as he pleases. But the case the Unitarians, were indeed theirs is different as to trust property. in justice, and they were only kept The person who holds the property from it by the operation of wbat was in trust would not have had the law when the various trust-estates property but by means of the trust; were created, then should we have and as he holds it only by reason of no objections on the mere ground the trust, he holds it only for trust that they who were to be relieved purposes. On this the law rests; held what we believe to be essential and, in all questions relating to such and dangerous error. To justice, property, inquires the intention of the Unitarians have as much right the original trustor, and directs the as the orthodox. Wrong as may be present trustee to use the estate in their opinions, they ought not by fulfilment of the conditions on which these to be prevented from enjoying it came to bim. So far as the ori. what belongs to them. But this is ginal document which creates the not the case. If there be a fact in trust declares what these are, either past history at all capable of proof, in express terms, or by reference 10 it is that at the period when these books or other documents, the present endowments were first formed, those Bill proposes no change ; but where who formed them were decidedly the intention is not in this manner Trinitarian, and looked upon the expressed, but has to be gathered opposite belief with views and feel
. by inference from evidence, however ings which would render it absogood may be the evidence, or con- lutely impossible for them to give clusive the inference, the Bill enacts their property for the promotion of that not this evidence is to be taken, Unitarianism. They might not but, on the contrary, that which the know, in all cases, how to express opinions or usages of the possessors themselves, so as to guard against a for the last twenty-five years may contingency, the possibility of which furnish. That is, in such cases it they never contemplated; but they shuts out the evidence which refers never intended, they could not into the commencement of the trust- tend, that the property should ever
be used for purposes which they Socinus ? Wherefore their keen considered dishonouring to God, resentinent and sensitive shrinking and destructive to the souls of men. from the insinuation of the least This must be obvious to all who taint of heretical pravity ? On what consider the case even in its princi. principle can it be accounted for, ples. The two creeds are not two that they would not endure a charge differing forms of the same religion, of erroneous doctrine, or of even the but two different religions. The slightest deviation from the approfessors of these systems do not proved standards of orthodoxy? rest on the same foundation. They Why should they recoil with incannot worship together. One of stinctive horror from any approach the two must be completely anti to Socinianism, a system which, be christian. And no one who loves it recollected, did not proceed in the truth on Christian principles, can career of doctrinal deviation to love it otherwise than supremely nearly the length of modern UnitaLiberty, in comparison with truth, rianism? is but a subordinate consideration. “But if these men were so zealously The endowers valued private judg- orthodox and Trinitarian, so jealous ment, but they valued truth more ; of the slightest encroachment, so and they always declared, that they resolutely fixed in the doctrinal understood the Bible as it had been position they had taken up, so understood by the churches of Christ firmly determined not to be moved from the very beginning. But this away from it, neither to abandon it is matter of absolute demonstration. themselves, nor to yield an inch to We cannot enter at large into the the enemies of the common Chrisproof here; but we take the oppor- tian faith, then it will follow, as an tunity of referring our readers to a inevitable consequence, that the pamphlet, recently published by chapels they built must have been Jackson and Walford, (pp. 36,) writ. founded by them as orthodox Triniten by “ Joshua Wilson, Esq., of tarian chapels. the Inner-Temple,” with the title, “ Their views and sentiments in “ English Presbyterian Chapels reference to the Unitarian tenets proved to have been Orthodox actively propagated in England be. Foundations, appropriated to Trini tween 1689 and 1698, are matter of tarian Worship, and the preaching historical notoriety.
Not merely of Trinitarian Doctrines." In this did they regard them as erroneous ; short, but masterly, production, Mr. they accounted them wicked, heretiWilson most abundantly proves the cal, and impious : not merely did declaration of his title-page. One they express, in reference to them, or two paragraphs we will quote ; dislike and disapproval; they felt but we earnestly request all who towards them the most unmitigated feel interested in the subject to read detestation, acted towards them with the pamphlet for themselves. Were the most determined hostility, and there the least particle of doubt in spoke of them in the most unmeatheir minds, the perusal would at sured terms of horror and aversion, once sweep it away.
abhorrence and disgust. Mr. Wilson says, “ If the leading “The reader must bear in mind the Presbyterian Ministers at the time very important fact, that this was of the foundation of these chapels the very period during which most looked with an eye of equal favour of these meeting-houses were found. on the holders of all opinions,-if ed; and it was quite impossible, in their Trinitarianism was accompa the then existing state of the law nied by no feeling of offence to and of general feeling, that the wards the opposite opinions,-if, in founders could have contemplated short, they were absolutely, or even the pulpits coming at any future comparatively, indifferent to doc- time, through the cunning craftiness trine,-whence their indignant repu- of seducing deceivers, to be filled by diation of opinions supposed to bear ultra-Socinian Preachers, men who some faint resemblance to those of should have proceeded to the ex
treme length of doctrinal deviation, that he had proved his point. Had -a length far beyond that which be spoken as a Judge, quoting all the arch-heretic himself had reached. that they had said, his conclusion The present occupants of the pews would have been of an entirely difmay be their own direct and lineal ferent character. But we only refer descendants; but who can doubt again to Mr. Wilson's pamphlet. that the pious founders themselves We are greatly mistaken if the would have greatly preferred that reader does not lay the book down the buildings they erected should be
with those melancholy feelings, razed to the ground rather than be which cannot fail to be awakened by perverted, by their own degenerate the conviction, that a measure, unsons, to the propagation of doctrines just in itself, even were the situation which they so intensely abhorred?” of the parties reversed, assumnes even (Pages 21-23.)
an awful character when its specific We regard it, then, as aggravating object is considered; that object the general injustice of the Bill, that being to give countenance and supits real object is the endowment of de port to what are, if orthodoxy be structive heresy, out of the spoils of true, the most fatally destructive orthodoxy. The Christian State thus undertakes to confirm a possession Some of the speakers in its favour originally unjust, and to do it for were pleased to express their surthose who have always been regard- prise that the Wesleyan Methodists, ed, not as building on the right who have so often pleaded for relifoundation wood, hay, and stubble, gious liberty, should, on the present but as departing from the founda occasion, be opposed to it.
We tion itself.
reply, first, that the Wesleyans have And though the measure has been never so pleaded for religious liberty brought forward by those who, on as to show indifference to religious other occasions, profess to be anxi. truth. There have been occasions ous to conserve the religious institu- when their attachment to religious tions of the country, its main sup- truth has prevented them from porters, but for whom it must have moving with others in support of fallen through, are the avowed lati what was thought to be religious tudinarians of the country, who liberty. They have never shrunk from think that Unitarianism is quite as asserting that the Legislature ought good as orthodoxy; (if it be not to acknowledge the truth; and what much better ;) and the avowed infi. they have done before, they are now dels, who conceal not their dislike of doing again. Right or wrong, they revealed religion ; together with the are perfectly consistent with themRomanists, who are glad of every selves. We reply, secondly, and opportunity of unsettling, and thus principally, that the question is not weakening, Protestantism. Of the mi. in the least degree one of religious nority, some twelve or fourteen were liberty. It has no more to do with Whigs; the rest were all Conserva- religious liberty than with the handtives. Does Sir Robert Peel think writing of the Emperor of China. that he is strengthening his position Property was given, a century and a by thus enlisting some of his best half ago, for certain purposes. Cerfriends against him, and placing tain persons now claim to hold the himself at the head of such allies as
property, thus descending to them in those who swelled his majority? trust, for purposes completely de
One speaker, who ought to have structive of the purposes in which known better, wanted to make it the trust originated. The question appear that “private judgment” was is, Shall these persons be quieted in all that the endowers cared for their inequitable possessions ? Nov Undoubtedly he might find in their what has this to do with religious writings expressions showing the liberty ? No more than it has to value they attached to this; and do, in the intention of the framers, confining himself, as an advocate, to with putting a stop to litigation. these expressions, he might fancy The expenses of litigation