Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

the non-essentials on which men may safely differ, we at least gain little by the relaxation, for I know of no Church which does not regard as essentials those very articles which our name implies that we reject."

Can we suppose then, I repeat it, that this pious lady would have given her funds for the purpose of promoting and encouraging the preaching of doctrines in opposition to her own opinions in respect to points which have been universally considered, and which, we must presume, she also considered, as essential in matters of religious belief? At least, it would require some distinct evidence, or some reasoning which I have not heard, and which does not occur to me, to justify us in coming to such a conclusion. All the probabilities and presumptions are the other way; and, as a question of fact, I feel myself compelled to conclude that such could not have been her view and intention.

But another argument arises out of the Act of Parliament to which the learned Judges have referred, or rather, out of the Acts of Parliament of that period. Those preachers who denied the deity of Christ, were exempted if they preached from the *benefit of the Act of Toleration-that Act was passed in the year 1688. In 1698, ten years afterwards, and six years before the date of the first of these deeds-the Act against Blasphemy was passed, by which any person, who should deny that any one of the three persons of the Trinity was God, became liable to the severest penalties. Those doctrines were styled impious and blasphemous. To teach them was called a detestable crime. I am not justifying the law-I am making no comment upon it-I am stating only what the law at that time was. Those persons, who by preaching, denied the doctrine of the Trinity -I think the word is "teach"-who, either in writing, in teaching, or advised speaking, shall maintain those doctrines, are subject to the penalties of the Act. It was contrary to law, therefore, at that time to preach those doctrines. To give money for the purpose of encouraging and promoting

the preaching of them would also, of course, be illegal.

What is the rule by which the conduct and the language of persons are to be interpreted? The rule is this, and it is a just and reasonable rule, that where a construction, consistent with lawful conduct and lawful intention, can be put upon the words and acts of parties, you are bound to do it, and not unnecessarily to put upon those words and acts a construction opposed to what the law prohibits or enjoins.-I cannot, therefore, bring myself to the conclusion, that Lady Hewley intended to promote and encourage the preaching of doctrines contrary to law-that she intended herself to violate the lawit would be contrary to every rule of fair construction and legal presumption so to decide.

It was argued at the bar, that this law was now repealed, and it was supposed that the repeal of the law would make an alteration in the consideration of the case.-It does not appear to me, in the slightest degree, to affect the question:-the question is-What was her intention at the time? What, at the period when she executed this deed, she intended? Who were the persons whom she meant to include in it? What were the doctrines, of which she intended to encourage and promote the preaching? It makes no alteration in this respect, it makes no change as to her intention at the time, that in the course of a century afterwards the law has been changed, and that that is considered as innocent which at the former period was illegal. On these two grounds then, each of which appears to me nearly conclusivefirst, that I cannot presume that this pious lady intended that her estates should be applied to encourage and promote the preaching of doctrines directly at variance with that which she must have considered as essential to Christianity, and that she could not intend to violate the law. On these two grounds, I feel myself brought to this conclusion, that she did not intend, under the description of " godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel," to include persons who

impugned the doctrine of the Trinity; that she did not intend to promote and encourage the diffusion of those opinions. With regard to the law and her respect for its authority, we find some evidence of it in the second deed-the deed of 1707; for she directs," if by any lawful authority the objects of her bounty, in that deed, cannot be carried into effect," that her trustees shall make a different application of the funds.

It has been said, and the learned Judges have adverted to it,-it has been said, that the religious opinions of that day were liberal and comprehensive, and that in particular Lady Hewley entertained enlarged views upon the subject of religion. All this, however, rests in general statement, and from which I can deduce no precise or satisfactory conclusion. I feel bound, therefore, for the reasons which I have stated, having first established to my own satisfaction that Lady Hewley was, in her religious opinions and belief, a Trinitarian, -to come to the conclusion, that she never intended that her charity should be applied for the propagation of Unitarian doctrines. I am the more satisfied of the correctness of this result, because I came to it in the first instance, without at all knowing what were the opinions of my two learned friends, and without having had any communication with them upon the subject. I formed my opinion upon a careful consideration of the case, agreeing not only in my conclusions, but in the grounds and principles upon which they rest, with the learned Judges who have favoured

me

with their assistance on this occasion..

The remaining question then is this,-In what manner, and by whom, have these funds been administered? The trustees are, with one or two exceptions, (both the trustees and the sub-trustees,) proved to be Unitarians. Mr. Palmes is a member of the Church of England. Mr. Heywood was not proved to be an Unitarian. With respect to the rest, as I understand and read the evidence, they entertain Unitarian opinions. What are these doctrines?

What in

their answer do Mr. Wellbeloved and others of the defendants state to be Unitarian opinions? They say, "they believe it to be true that the class of Christians styled Unitarians do reject as unscriptural the doctrine that Jesus Christ is really and truly God, and as such a proper object of divine worship. They believe it to be true that the class of Christians styled Unitarians do many of them reject as unscriptural 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." These are the doctrines stated in the answers of Mr. Wellbeloved and several of the other defendants, as being the peculiar doctrines of the Unitarians.

An observation was made, I think by a learned gentleman whom I now see in Court, on the conduct of Mr. Wellbeloved, with respect to his answers, stating that they were obtained with great difficulty; that they were extorted from a reluctant defendant; I think I owe it to Mr. Wellbeloved, and the other defendants, to observe that, from the nature and delicacy of the subject, they were justified in using much caution; and if we can fairly refer the conduct of men to proper motives, we are not justified in ascribing it to such as are improper. Mr. Wellbeloved may have considered that the questions were put in such a way as to lead properly to the answers which he successively gave; he may have thought it his duty to exercise great caution on such a subject. But

leaving this, we have, in addition to the answers both from Mr. Wellbeloved and from Dr. Kenrick, clear and distinct statements of what the opinions of the Unitarians are upon the points in question.

I refer to a document which is in evidence-a sermon preached by Mr. Wellbeloved, at Hull, in which he states his opinions in these terms:"With the doctrines concerning the deity of Christ we also reject as equally unscriptural those which other christian sects bold to be of such vital importance, relating to his office and

the design and consequences of his death. We see nothing in the pages either of the Old or New Testament to justify the doctrines which are generally deemed orthodox, relating to Original Sin." He thus states that the Unitarians reject not only the doctrine concerning the deity of Christ, but that also which relates to Original Sin. In another part of the same sermon he says:-"But it will be said that we deny his deity;" (that is, the deity of Christ.) "We refuse to acknowledge him as the second Person of the Godhead; we do not allow him to be one God with the Father, coeternal and coequal, or even God of God. We confess," he says, "the man Christ Jesus, but deny him as that incarnate, suffering, and dying God which he is believed to have been by all others who bear his name. True, we do deny the Jesus of the Athanasian and the Nicene creeds, of the Liturgy, and the Articles of the Established Church, of the confessions of faith adopted by almost all the churches of Christendom." Nothing can be more clear and distinct than these statements, not only as to his own opinions, but as to the opinions of those who think with him, and who come under the class and denomination of Unitarians.

Now, as to Dr. Kenrick, another of the defendants upon this record, he says: "We are convinced that no doctrines can ultimately prevail among a people allowed to think and examine for themselves, which, like transubstantiation, involve a sensible absurdity; or, like the Trinity, a metaphysical contradiction. The surrender of their understandings," he says, "is a price which men will not long consent to pay for the belief of any system of theology." Such are the doctrines stated by two of the defendants as the doctrines of the Unitarians. I consider then, the great body of trustees and sub-trustees, as disbelievers in the divinity; or, to use the term of the Unitarians, the "deity of Christ, and disbelievers in the doctrine of Original Sin."

Having stated this, then, the next question is, How and for what

purposes have these funds been applied by these Trustees? In what manner have they discharged the important duty that was entrusted to them? If I am correct in my conclusions as to the intentions of Lady Hewley, the funds have been misapplied, and misapplied for a long series of years, and to a very great extent. This alone might perhaps be a sufficient ground for removing the Trustees. But it has been said that the misapplication was unintentional upon their part; that it was an error of judgment; that they put a construction upon the instruments fairly and boná fide that would have justified their acts. But, looking at the evidence in this case, I am compelled to say, and I say it with reluctance, that I cannot accede to this statement. I do not wish to enter into detail upon the subject, because I am desirous, as far as possible, to abstain, on this occasion, from every thing that is personal, -but I am forced to say, using the most gentle terms, that there has been, in my judgment, a strong, undue, and partial leaning, in the administration of these funds, towards Unitarian doctrines and Unitarian objects.

I shall not go through the evidence with respect to this part of the case, but shall content myself with referring, by way of example, to two points. How has it happened that almost all the trustees are Unitarians? that the vacancies have been so filled up as to make the whole body substantially Unitarian; as to place the entire control of these estates and funds, and the management of the whole Charity, in the hands of Unitarian trustees of persons entertaining Unitarian opinions?

Another subject to which I shall also refer in illustration of what I have stated, relates to the exhibitions to Manchester College. Almost all the exhibitions of late years have been given to persons educated at that college. Upon a caretul examination of the evidence, I must consider, that so far as relates to the education for the ministry, Manchester College is substantially an Unitarian establishment. I refer to the evidence, among

others, of Mr. Manning Walker, who was himself educated as an Unitarian, and was a member of that college. It appears to me strong and decisive upon this point. If it required further confirmation, I might refer to Mr. Wellbeloved's letter, in which he calls upon the Unitarian Dissenters to "subscribe to the support of that establishment for the purpose of maintaining a succession of well-educated ministers, in their class of Dissenters," obviously meaning (indeed the fact is proved by the evidence,) those of Unitarian opinions.

These circumstances, with others, lead me therefore to the conclusion, not merely that these parties have misapplied the funds, but that in the exercise of their trust they have manifested a strong and undue leaning in favour of persons of their own persuasion. I think then, looking at these circumstances, and considering the extensive and continued misapplica

tion of the funds which has taken place, and adverting also to the consideration of the danger of future abuse, if persons of one particular class of opinions are to be entrusted with the management and entire control of funds which are to be applied for the benefit of persons maintaining other opinions,-that I am bound to decide, that the ViceChancellor was correct in removing the trustees. It follows also from what I have already stated, that he was correct in the declaration he has made. And the result, therefore, of my judgment, confirmed as to the principles of it by the learned judges near me, and founded as to the further conclusions which I have stated upon those principles, is-that the Decree of the Vice-Chancellor should be affirmed. It is not a case for costs, and I think the Decree should be simply affirmed.

MONTHLY REGISTER.

CHURCH

S. P. C. K.-Report of the Brentford, &c. District Committee, 1835.

THE time has again arrived when the Committee beg to present to their Friends a Report of their proceedings during the past year; from which they trust it will be evident that they have endeavoured to promote, not only the general designs of the Parent Society, but also one of the chief objects for which all District Committees were first established; viz. to enable the poor to purchase Bibles, Prayer Books, &c. at very reduced prices.

The account of Books, &c. issued from the General Depository, at Brentford, during the last year, is as follows:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

SOCIETIES.

And the total issue of Bibles, Testaments, Prayer Books, Tracts, &c. since the first establishment of the Committee in 1822, is 38,358.

The amount of subscriptions for the past year is 69l. 12s. 6d. from which the Committee, after discharging the expenses incurred in the District, will be enabled to forward to the Society (for the payment of the differences between the cost price to the Society and the charge to the Members,) the sum of 50%.

It cannot be expected, nor indeed can it be at all necessary, that arguments should be produced from year to year, in favour either of the usefulness of District Committees, or of the Society. There is one point, however, which appears to deserve particular notice. It has been stated by some that there is no further want of Bibles, Prayer Books, or Religious Tracts, in this immediate neighbourhood; from one quarter or another it has been abundantly supplied. In reply to such a statement, the Committee would beg

to observe, that if the supply were equal to the present demand (which they have just ground to fear is very far from being the case), still it would by no means follow that further exertions were unnecessary in a populous neighbourhood, the inhabitants of which are constantly shifting, and with fresh objects continually supplied by a very numerous rising generation.

Consistently with feelings of christian charity for the spiritual wants of their more needy brethren, the Committee cannot desire less than that every poor person in the District should be enabled to read the Bible, by having that precious treasure in their possession. They cannot think the field for their exertions closed, till all shall feel their want of such sacred instruction, and have their wants supplied. They are convinced that, in their own neighbourhood, their past labours are, aud have been, blessed with good effect; and their earnest prayers and hope are, that as this hunger and thirst after spiritual food becomes more universal, they may, by the cooperation and contributions of all zealously disposed Christians, find themselves possessed of more ample means to meet the existing exigency.

REV. JOHN STODDART, M.A. Sec.

S. P. c. K.-Salisbury Diocesan and District Committee for South Wilts.

THE Report of the Salisbury Diocesan and District Committee of the S. P. C. K. for South Wilts for the last year, is just published. It contains a very satisfactory abstract of the proceedings of the Parent Society, which we recommend to the perusal of our readers; we must content ourselves with the following extract of the Report respecting the proceedings of this District.

"In their Report for the last year the Committee gave reason to hope that a depôt would be opened in the course of the present one, for the sale of the Society's Books, as also of those of the Committee of General Literature and Education, thus giving greater VOL. XVIII. NO. V.

accommodation both to the subscribers and the public.

"They have now the happiness to state, that a depôt is opened in St. Thomas's Church-yard, in the house erected for the Sunday School of that parish; and that Mrs. Lucas, the newly-appointed librarian, gives daily attendance from ten o'clock in the morning to four in the afternoon, and is authorised to receive and dispense, orders for books, as also to settle bills due, and receive subscriptions, benefactions, &c. for the Committee.

This new arrangement naturally causes additional expense; the Committee are therefore under the necessity of rescinding the 10th Resolution, which has been acted upon for several years past, authorising a reduction in the price of books in favour of the Subscribers to the District; but hope still to be enabled to allow two-thirds of the subscription to the District, to be received in books at the Society's prices, and to supply any demand for books over and above those taken in right of subscription on the following terms: Persons, being Members of the Parent Society, and subscribing at least a guinea per annum to the district fund, i.e. double Subscribers, may purchase books at the Members' prices marked in the Society's catalogue. Those who subscribe to the Parent Society only are charged five per cent. on the Members' prices; and those subscribing to the District only, are charged ten per cent. on the Members' prices, to compensate the Committee for the expenses of carriage, the shop, &c. &c. The public, or non-subscribers, are charged five per cent. upon the cost prices' of the Society, for the same reason.

"The distribution of religious books, during the past year, in this District, amounts to 12,953, [an increase of 4,944 over the year preceding] in the following proportions:-

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« EdellinenJatka »