Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

nothing in it inconsistent with his orders, he doubtless was willing that they should do as they pleased. As the examination of Professor Wigglesworth was a public matter, the results of which, after long debates, were entered on the records of the overseers; and as Hollis was certainly knowing to these debates, and found fault with the spirit manifested in them; it is morally certain that he knew of the examination. I see not how it could have been kept from him; or why any one, at that day, should have desired to keep it from him. And as he never uttered a word of complaint in regard to it, the conclusion is, that it met his approbation.

6

This effort of President Quincy is but one of the many, which have been put forth within the last forty years, to get rid of the eleventh article in the "rules and orders" of Hollis. Formerly it was said, that Hollis was not a Calvinist, and that he used the phrase "sound and orthodox," not in the usual Calvinistic sense. "A man might be sound and orthodox,' and yet be an Arminian, or a Unitarian." But it has been often proved, and is now admitted by Unitarians themselves, that Hollis was a Calvinist. "He was educated in a belief of Calvinism," says the Christian Examiner. "He used the language of a Calvinist, and thought himself one."*

The Christian Register, in 1829, said: Mr. Hollis was " in speculation, in form, if not in fact, a Calvinist of the old fashioned stamp, retaining the original features of the Genevan image." And President Quincy says, the letters of Hollis " bear traces of his belief in those general doctrines, in which all the prevailing sects of Christians, throughout Christendom, at that day concurred." p. 241. In other words, he was, in belief, a Calvinist.

It has been said again, that though Hollis was a Calvinist, he was not a bigot. He was a catholic, liberal-minded man, and entertained the most charitable feelings towards Christians of other denominations.†-Now we admit that Hollis was a lib

* Vol. VII. p. 97.

+ President Quincy has much to say in praise of the catholic spirit of Hollis; and remarks that, "in the spring of 1719, having watched the course of the college for many years, and satisfied himself that the views of the corporation were catholic and liberal, he resolved to be the executor of his own will, and to have the pleasure of witnessing the results of his own benevolence." p. 232. 232. Yet with strange inconsistency, he says,

eral-minded man, embracing in his charity all who seemed to him to be true friends to Christ. The fact that, though himself a decided Baptist, he was a member and an officer of a Presbyterian church, during the greater part of his life; as also the giving of his money for the support of college professors and students, who were not of his own denomination, are sufficient evidence of this. But what does his liberality prove? That he did not mean any thing, by the eleventh article of his " rules and orders?" Or that he used the words "sound and orthodox," without reference to any particular class of religious opinions or doctrines? Not at all. He certainly could not have so used these words, at least if he expected to be understood. For it may be shown conclusively, from the current language of the English Dissenters in those times, and even from the correspondence of Hollis himself, that these words then had a definite meaning-as definite as any that could well be selected-importing that those to whom they were applied received substantially the Calvinistic doctrines. Indeed, this is admitted by the conductors of the Christian Examiner. They say: "Doubtless the term in question" (orthodox)" was often used by the Dissenters in Hollis's time, and by Mr. Hollis himself, as synonymous with Calvinistic." Vol. VII. p. 102. And President Quincy virtually admits the same, when he represents the Calvinistic doctrines as those " in which all the prevailing sects of Christians throughout Christendom, at that day, concurred." p. 241.

It was learnedly argued, only a few years ago, that in requiring his professor to be "sound and orthodox," Hollis only intended that he should be a worthy man―a man of correct principles—in the judgment of the electors for the time being.* But this pretence was too shallow and futile, to be long satisfactory to any one. It supposes the good Mr. Hollis, after consultation with learned divines in Europe, to direct and bind the corporation of Harvard College never to choose one to be professor of divinity, whom they thought to be a bad man !!

on the next page: "He selected for the object of his extraor dinary bounties, an institution, in which he knew that those of his faith were regarded with dread by some, and with detestation by others, and where he had reason to think, as he averred, that the very portrait of a Baptist, though of a benefactor, would be the subject of insult !!" p. 233.

* See Chris. Examiner, Vol. VII. p. 101.

Whose principles they regarded as unsound, unscriptural, and of pernicious tendency !!

Îndeed, we infer, that all these former shifts and glosses, by which to get rid of Hollis's eleventh article, are unsatisfactory (as we should think they would be) to President Quincy: for he sets himself to the work of demolishing the obnoxious article, in a very different way. He would have us believe, that it really has no place in the orders; that Hollis never intended it should be there; that it was crowded in by the New England bigots, in opposition to his original design; and that, because he could not well exclude it, when once it had been introduced, he resolved to nullify it, by a subjoined declaration. Now this is all very plausible, and would be very agreeable, no doubt, to certain interested individuals,-if it were only true. But unfortunately, on examination, there is scarcely a word of truth in it. This eleventh article was part of a "scheme" or "draft,” which was transmitted to Mr. Hollis from this country, at his own request. He made not the slightest objection to it, of which we have any knowledge. It was submitted by him to the London divines, and they made no objection. It was sent back to New England, where it passed the ordeal of the corporation and the overseers of the college without objection, except that in the latter body it was slightly modified, so as to increase its binding force. It passes again into the hands of Hollis, and meets his approbation. He signs it, and seals it, and requires a written bond of the corporation that they will fulfil it, and tells them that, if they do so, he shall be pleased. And as to the subsequent declaration, we have seen that it is perfectly consistent with this eleventh article, as it is with every other part of the "rules and orders." It is a declaration which no 66 sound and orthodox" man can ever be unwilling to make.

The inquiry naturally arises (and it may as well be solved here as anywhere): Why this multifarious and pertinacious opposition to the eleventh article of Hollis's orders? Why not let it stand, as he left it, and interpret it fairly and consistently, as every one sees that he intended it should be? The curators of the college had no difficulty with this article, during the first eighty years after it was established, and why should they have so much difficulty now? Why is one theory after another advanced and abandoned, in hope that some one may at length be found, which shall serve to gloss over the obnoxious article, or to take it fairly out of the way? An answer to these several

inquiries will be furnished, by looking at the characters of the several individuals who have been appointed to the professor's chair, on the foundation of Mr. Hollis.

66

The first was a sound and orthodox" divine, elected under the eye of Hollis, and in strict consistency with his "rules and orders." "Preceding the choice," says President Leverett in his report to the overseers, " he was examined upon several important heads of divinity." He declared his assent to Dr. Ames's Medulla Theologiæ; to the confession of faith contained in the Assembly's Catechism; and to the doctrinal articles of the Church of England; - more particularly, 1. To the doctrine of the holy Trinity. 2. To the doctrine of the eternal Godhead of the blessed Saviour. 3. To the doctrine of predestination. 4. To the doctrine of special, efficacious grace. 5. To the divine right of infant baptism." p. 255. Here, then, we have an incontestable, practical comment on what Mr. Hollis and his advisers meant by orthodoxy, and the kind of man which he approved, to be placed on his foundation.

The second professor of divinity,-the son of the first,-was inaugurated in October, 1765. Previous to his election, he too was examined “ concerning his principles in divinity, whether they were orthodox;" and gave full satisfaction to the corporation. Vol. II. p. 131.

The Rev. Dr. Tappan, the third professor of divinity in Harvard College, was inducted into office, in 1792. He too was a "sound and orthodox" divine-well qualified to sit in the chair which the liberality of Hollis had provided. Of course, there was no occasion, up to the time of his death, which occurred in 1803, of disputing about the meaning of Mr. Hollis's orders.

After the death of Dr. Tappan, the professorship of divinity remained vacant for more than a year. The corporation was divided for a time equally-so that nothing could be done. At length, a change was known to have taken place, so that a majority could be obtained for Dr. Ware; and in November, 1804, the corporation were called on in the public papers to act, and not to wait for greater unanimity. A warm newspaper discussion now commenced, and was continued-chiefly on one side-till after the election was made and confirmed. opposition to the election of Dr. Ware, it was urged that he was understood to be a Unitarian. But his friends replied, that he had never professed the sentiment imputed to him, and that to mention such a thing was a calumny. It was further insisted,

In

that the overseers had no evidence, and could obtain none, of his possessing the qualifications required by the founder of the professorship. "The right to examine him was denied" them. His "particular religious principles, though often asked for, were not disclosed." "It was particularly asked, whether he was a believer in that important doctrine, the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ;" but " the reply conveyed no precise or satisfactory answer on that point." So far were the opposers of Dr. Ware's election from being convinced that he was of "sound and orthodox principles," according to the intent of Mr. Hollis, that they had the utmost reason to believe, from his silence, and from a variety of collateral evidence, that this was not the case. It was insisted, therefore, that whatever they might think of him as a man, and whatever judgment they might, as individuals, form, in regard to his principles, they were bound by the orders of Mr. Hollis, and by the solemn pledges which had been given him, and could not vote to confirm the election.

Those who opposed the election of Dr. Ware were at that time the subjects of much severe reproach. They were attacked, in some of the publications of the day, and without decency or mercy; and the most of them have gone down unforgiven to the grave. But posterity will certainly do them justice. Future generations will appreciate their motives and honor their correctness of principle, their decision and firmness.

Of Dr. Ware himself, I certainly have no disposition to speak reproachfully. His situation is, of all men's, least to be envied. He has arrived to that period, when the countenance and caresses of interested and partial friends can avail him little. That he possesses talents, and learning, and a great many estimable qualities, I do not doubt; but on the question of his accepting and holding the Hollis professorship of divinity in Harvard College, the impartial of all denominations have formed their judgment, and it will not be reversed. He knew the conditions of this professorship; he knew the solemn pledges which had been given in respect to it; he knew, also, his own religious sentiments, though he took care that others should not know them; yet, he accepted the appointment, promised that he would "religiously observe the statutes of his founder," and for nearly forty years, received his bread, or a portion of it, from

* Morse's True Reasons, etc., p. 19.

« PoprzedniaDalej »