Page images
PDF
EPUB

It

established technical phraseology which the law, like every other profession, finds to be requisite for the due enunciation of its objects and intentions. Our present purpose will be accomplished by statements conveyed, as far as possible, in ordinary language. Generally speaking, then, as to private property, its possessor has full power over it. Generally speaking, we say; for it may come to him from its former possessor with limitations and restrictions. So, at least, the House of Lords have recently declared. is a singular fact, and deserves notice, that, on the same night that the Commons admitted to a second reading a Bill which gives to the present possessor of trust-property entire control over it, the Lords rejected a Bill by which Sir Thomas Wilson, the owner of Hampsteadheath, sought to obtain such control, because his father's will fixed certain limitations to it. Still, thus generally speaking, the owner of private property is thus free to do with it as he pleases. But the case is different as to trust property. The person who holds the property in trust would not have had the property but by means of the trust; and as he holds it only by reason of the trust, he holds it only for trust purposes. On this the law rests; and, in all questions relating to such property, inquires the intention of the original trustor, and directs the present trustee to use the estate in fulfilment of the conditions on which it came to bim. So far as the original document which creates the trust declares what these are, either in express terms, or by reference to books or other documents, the present Bill proposes no change; but where the intention is not in this manner expressed, but has to be gathered by inference from evidence, however good may be the evidence, or conclusive the inference, the Bill enacts that not this evidence is to be taken, but, on the contrary, that which the opinions or usages of the possessors for the last twenty-five years may furnish. That is, in such cases it shuts out the evidence which refers to the commencement of the trust

estate, and takes, instead, that which is supplied by the present possessors, however contrary that may be to the other. Now, this is our first and fundamental objection to the Bill. It alters the law of trusts; and when Lord Lyndhurst gave judgment in the Lady Hewley case, he not only said that the law was as he had stated it, and that being so it was adverse to Unitarian possession of the property, but that the law, as thus declared, had its foundations in reason and common sense. With the law, as thus laid down, the great majority of the Dissenters are satisfied; they wish it to remain as it is; and therefore have they so earnestly opposed a Bill which, being professedly for the Dissenters at large, is really, and by the conscious intentions of its framers and promoters, designed for the Unitarians alone.

And this constitutes our second general objection to the measure. If the property, of which it is intended to give quiet possession to the Unitarians, were indeed theirs in justice, and they were only kept from it by the operation of what was law when the various trust-estates were created, then should we have no objections on the mere ground that they who were to be relieved held what we believe to be essential and dangerous error. To justice, the Unitarians have as much right as the orthodox. Wrong as may be their opinions, they ought not by these to be prevented from enjoying what belongs to them. But this is not the case. If there be a fact in past history at all capable of proof, it is that at the period when these endowments were first formed, those who formed them were decidedly Trinitarian, and looked upon the opposite belief with views and feelings which would render it absolutely impossible for them to give their property for the promotion of Unitarianism. They might not know, in all cases, how to express themselves, so as to guard against a contingency, the possibility of which they never contemplated; but they never intended, they could not intend, that the property should ever

be used for purposes which they considered dishonouring to God, and destructive to the souls of men. This must be obvious to all who consider the case even in its principles. The two creeds are not two differing forms of the same religion, but two different religions. The professors of these systems do not rest on the same foundation. They cannot worship together. One of the two must be completely antichristian. And no one who loves truth on Christian principles, can love it otherwise than supremely. Liberty, in comparison with truth, is but a subordinate consideration. The endowers valued private judgment, but they valued truth more ; and they always declared, that they understood the Bible as it had been understood by the churches of Christ from the very beginning. But this is matter of absolute demonstration. We cannot enter at large into the proof here; but we take the opportunity of referring our readers to a pamphlet, recently published by Jackson and Walford, (pp. 36,) written by "Joshua Wilson, Esq., of the Inner-Temple," with the title," English Presbyterian Chapels proved to have been Orthodox Foundations, appropriated to Trinitarian Worship, and the preaching of Trinitarian Doctrines." In this short, but masterly, production, Mr. Wilson most abundantly proves the declaration of his title-page. One or two paragraphs we will quote; but we earnestly request all who feel interested in the subject to read the pamphlet for themselves. Were there the least particle of doubt in their minds, the perusal would at once sweep it away.

Mr. Wilson says, "If the leading Presbyterian Ministers at the time of the foundation of these chapels looked with an eye of equal favour on the holders of all opinions,-if their Trinitarianism was accompanied by no feeling of offence towards the opposite opinions,-if, in short, they were absolutely, or even comparatively, indifferent to doctrine,-whence their indignant repudiation of opinions supposed to bear some faint resemblance to those of

Socinus?

Wherefore their keen resentment and sensitive shrinking from the insinuation of the least taint of heretical pravity? On what principle can it be accounted for, that they would not endure a charge of erroneous doctrine, or of even the slightest deviation from the approved standards of orthodoxy? Why should they recoil with instinctive horror from any approach to Socinianism, a system which, be it recollected, did not proceed in the career of doctrinal deviation to nearly the length of modern Unitarianism?

"But if these men were so zealously orthodox and Trinitarian, so jealous of the slightest encroachment, so resolutely fixed in the doctrinal position they had taken up, so firmly determined not to be moved away from it, neither to abandon it themselves, nor to yield an inch to the enemies of the common Christian faith, then it will follow, as an inevitable consequence, that the chapels they built must have been founded by them as orthodox Trinitarian chapels.

"Their views and sentiments in reference to the Unitarian tenets actively propagated in England between 1689 and 1698, are matter of historical notoriety. Not merely did they regard them as erroneous; they accounted them wicked, heretical, and impious: not merely did they express, in reference to them, dislike and disapproval; they felt towards them the most unmitigated detestation, acted towards them with the most determined hostility, and spoke of them in the most unmeasured terms of horror and aversion, abhorrence and disgust.

"The reader must bear in mind the very important fact, that this was the very period during which most of these meeting-houses were founded; and it was quite impossible, in the then existing state of the law and of general feeling, that the founders could have contemplated the pulpits coming at any future time, through the cunning craftiness of seducing deceivers, to be filled by ultra-Socinian Preachers, men who should have proceeded to the ex

treme length of doctrinal deviation, -a length far beyond that which the arch-heretic himself had reached. The present occupants of the pews may be their own direct and lineal descendants; but who can doubt that the pious founders themselves would have greatly preferred that the buildings they erected should be razed to the ground rather than be perverted, by their own degenerate sons, to the propagation of doctrines which they so intensely abhorred?" (Pages 21-23.)

We regard it, then, as aggravating the general injustice of the Bill, that its real object is the endowment of destructive heresy, out of the spoils of orthodoxy. The Christian State thus undertakes to confirm a possession originally unjust, and to do it for those who have always been regarded, not as building on the right foundation wood, hay, and stubble, but as departing from the foundation itself.

And though the measure has been brought forward by those who, on other occasions, profess to be anxious to conserve the religious institu, tions of the country, its main supporters, but for whom it must have fallen through, are the avowed latitudinarians of the country, who think that Unitarianism is quite as good as orthodoxy; (if it be not much better;) and the avowed infidels, who conceal not their dislike of revealed religion; together with the Romanists, who are glad of every opportunity of unsettling, and thus weakening, Protestantism. Of the minority, some twelve or fourteen were Whigs; the rest were all Conservatives. Does Sir Robert Peel think that he is strengthening his position by thus enlisting some of his best friends against him, and placing himself at the head of such allies as those who swelled his majority?

One speaker, who ought to have known better, wanted to make it appear that "private judgment" was all that the endowers cared for. Undoubtedly he might find in their writings expressions showing the value they attached to this; and confining himself, as an Advocate, to these expressions, he might fancy

that he had proved his point. Had be spoken as a Judge, quoting all that they had said, his conclusion would have been of an entirely dif ferent character. But we only refer again to Mr. Wilson's pamphlet. We are greatly mistaken if the reader does not lay the book down with those melancholy feelings, which cannot fail to be awakened by the conviction, that a measure, unjust in itself, even were the situation of the parties reversed, assumes even an awful character when its specific object is considered; that object being to give countenance and support to what are, if orthodoxy be true, the most fatally destructive

errors.

We

Some of the speakers in its favour were pleased to express their sur prise that the Wesleyan Methodists, who have so often pleaded for religious liberty, should, on the present occasion, be opposed to it. reply, first, that the Wesleyans have never so pleaded for religious liberty as to show indifference to religious truth. There have been occasions when their attachment to religious truth has prevented them from moving with others in support of what was thought to be religious liberty. They have never shrunk from asserting that the Legislature ought to

acknowledge the truth; and what they have done before, they are now doing again. Right or wrong, they are perfectly consistent with themselves. We reply, secondly, and principally, that the question is not in the least degree one of religious liberty. It has no more to do with religious liberty than with the handwriting of the Emperor of China. Property was given, a century and a half ago, for certain purposes. Certain persons now claim to hold the property, thus descending to them in trust, for purposes completely destructive of the purposes in which the trust originated. The question is, Shall these persons be quieted in their inequitable possessions? Now what has this to do with religious liberty? No more than it has to do, in the intention of the framers, with putting a stop to litigation. The expenses of litigation are a

sufficient check. Who would go into Chancery with a doubtful case, of very small property? Something has lately been said of Chancery fees, and of pensions in lieu of them. The authors of such Bills as have lately been investigated, should not say much about the expences of litigation, or seeking to render litigation less frequent.

66

the

and speaking of the kindness with
which he had ever treated him, he
says, "I did not put you down into
the office of a Local Preacher."
And to another, speaking of the
wish on the part of some that the
assembled Conference should have
the power hitherto exercised by him.
self, he says, that he exercises the pow
er which he possessed "gently to
habituate the people to obey them
when I should be taken from their
head." And this is in perfect accord-
ance with his Deed of Declaration, by
which he constitutes the Conference
the supreme governing authority in
Methodism, its members being thus
made his successors, to do, after his
death, what he had done during his
life-time. As to the necessity of
episcopal ordination, he spoke of
the "succession scheme" as a "mere
fable, which nobody ever has
proved or ever can
"and
prove;
asserted his belief that he himself
was, to all intents and purposes, a
scriptural Bishop. He therefore
appointed Preachers to administer
the sacraments in Scotland, where
his Church-of-England reasons did
not apply, and the same, subse-
quently, in America. The whole ques-
tion is one of discipline, not doctrine;
and even in regard to discipline,
only one of time and place. As an
abstract doctrine, indeed, Mr. Wesley
held that the sacraments were not to
be administered by laymen; and this
is the doctrine of Methodism still.
Unordained probationers are not
allowed to administer the sacra-
ments, except, in cases of emergency,
that of baptism. But he did not
regard his Preachers in this light.
It might be added, indeed, that even
if what he said on this subject
amounted to a doctrine, it was not a
standard doctrine. The Wesleyan
standard of doctrine referred to in
the Trust-Deeds of their chapels, is
not found in just anything that Mr.
Wesley might write or say, but in
certain volumes definitely marked
out by him. Not all even of his
sermons are to be taken as such a
rule, but "the first four volumes"
only; and the sermon in which he
states that the sacraments were not
to be administered by his Preachers,
3 A

But Mr. Macaulay, in his anger at the Wesleyan opposition to Socinianism, goes beyond all the other speakers. We see that some newspaper Editors have spoken of his speech as carefully prepared beforehand. This must be a mistake. However he may seek to imitate Sheridan in getting ready his extemporaneous effusions, in what he said about Mr. Wesley and the Wesleyans, there must have been nothing but extemporaneous thought. Previous thought would have prevented such a pointless reference. The Wesleyans, it seems, receive sacrament in their own chapels" at the hands of their own Ministers, we beg Mr. Macaulay's pardon, "at the hands of laymen ;" and thus departing from the expressed intention of their Founder, they may themselves need the protection of the Bill! There are some subjects, it seems, that Mr. Macaulay has not studied; and this is one of them. Mr. Wesley did not regard his Itinerant Preachers as laymen. They were separated to the work of the ministry, though, on account of the peculiar relation in which he stood to the Church of England, and his strong wishes to preserve, if possible, a friendly connexion with it, he confined their ministerial labours chiefly to the ministry of the word. More than this friendly connexion he sought not. This is evident from the fact, that when Mr. Walker, of Truro, called on him to place his societies in that town under the care of himself, as Minister of the parish, he at once refused. And the light in which the Itinerant Preachers were regarded by him is evident from expressions occurring in two letters of his. Expostulating with one Preacher on some parts of his conduct of which he complained, VOL. XXIII. Third Series. AUGUST, 1844,

is not included in them. In principle there has been no change, and in practice there has only been an alteration in a disciplinary regula tion. Just as well might Mr. Macaulay have argued that the Wesleyans had departed from Mr. Wesley's doctrines by having public worship in their chapels in "church hours." The principles of Methodism are the same as ever, but altered circumstances have required some alterations of plan; and when the conduct of others has rendered such alterations necessary, the blame of it, if blame there be, attaches exclusively to them.

This is not the place, however, to discuss the reasons for the alteration. We are only pointing out its nature, and showing that its true character is altogether different from that which Mr. Macaulay attributes to it.

But wherefore this angry outcry? The Wesleyans, along with the great majority of the Dissenters, together with a large number of members of the Church, object to the alteration in the law of trusts, and state that their objections are greatly strengthened by the fact, that the alteration is proposed exclusively for the benefit of the Unitarians, to whom the Bill gives the quiet possession of property which they ought never to have possessed at all. And have they not an undoubted right so to object? But their objections, it seems, really proceed from the odium theologicum; and, therefore, fix on the objecters the indelible characters of bigotry. Be it so. We understand the charge well. And let the public understand it. It is only another way of asserting the unimportance of religious truth, the perfect innoxiousness of error. We have long seen, and seen with deep regret, the close connexion between what are called liberal opinions in politics, and utter carelessness as to the great truths of revealed religion. Locke introduced the leaven; and it now seems to have leavened the whole lump. If a liberal historian has to refer to the Clergy of the early part of the last century, it is to the Arians that he

gives the meed of praise. If, towards the conclusion of the same century, Socinian Clergymen (!) meet at the "Feathers Tavern," in Lon don, to petition to be relieved from subscribing articles which they do not believe, and yet to be permitted to hold the property given to the Church for the support of those doctrines, the same liberal Senators are their parliamentary advocates. At the beginning of the present century a specimen of their favourite Divines is furnished in Bishop Watson, and Dr. Parr. And if we come to the present day, not the slightest tendency to alteration appears. And this is not the worst of the case. It is not a phlegmatic indifference to what the church of Christ has always believed to be essential and characteristic truth,-to what the pious, however differing in other respects, have not only always held, but always held as most dear, their comfort in life, their hope in death, their salvation, their all,-it is not indifference that we have noticed, but an intensely bitter feeling of dislike. Talk of the odium theologicum, indeed! They who want to know what this means, must go into the regions of heresy and infidelity. It is in cold and barren Iceland that we find such boiling-hot springs of water. It is this powerful feeling of aversion to evangelical doctrine which developes itself in many of their political plans, otherwise often very plausibly represented. Some years ago we read a pamphlet on the amelioration of the criminal code, in which were many powerful arguments; but, at the close, the author could not help uncovering the cloven foot, by expressing his hope that "the demon of vindictive justice" (evidently referring to the demonstration of the righteousness of God, which is at the very foundation of the doctrine of atonement) would be "banished from the throne of the universe." Liberty is not to be sought by the establishment of a real infidelity; and its friends must henceforth be more careful in regard to their allies than perhaps hitherto they have been. It will not do for Christian believers to become the

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »