Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

a professorship, which was founded by a strictly orthodox man, and was consecrated and solemnly pledged for the support of such a man, in all future time.

Nor is even this, perhaps, the worst of the case. In 1747, Daniel Henchman, Esq., of Boston, left a legacy, to aid in the support of the Hollis professor of divinity in Harvard College. It was bequeathed and accepted on the express condition, that “ the person in that office shall profess and teach the principles of the Christian religion, according to the well known Confession of Faith drawn up by the synod of the churches of New England ;

which confession is strictly Calvinistic. But Dr. Ware neither professes nor teaches the principles of the Christian religion, according to this confession. He professes and teaches entirely different principles. Yet the Henchman legacy is retained, and during his whole term of office, Dr. Ware consented to receive the avails of it.

For this gross and palpable perversion, President Quincy presents no apology; and I know not that any has ever been attempted. To justify their misappropriation of Hollis's donations, Unitarians have resorted to all those shifts and pretences which have been before examined and exposed. At first, it was insisted, that Hollis was not a Calvinist ;--and then, that though he was a Calvinist, he was a liberal-minded man, and could not have used the term orthodox, in the customary sense ;-and next, that in whatever sense he used the term, he could only have intended that the candidate should be a man of correct principles, in the judgment of the electors for the time being ;and now, last of all, that the entire eleventh article, in which the obnoxious term occurs, does not properly belong to Hollis, but was forced upon him by the bigots with whom he had to do.* Between these different pretences, which have been so laboriously set up, there is little to choose. One is worth about as much as another. They are all baseless and frivolous in the extreme; and would never have been resorted to by learned and sensible men, but for the desire they felt to cover over a transaction, which never can be satisfactorily excused. The election of a Unitarian to the professorship of divinity in Harvard College, and the sustaining him there for nearly forty

en these dim by the hit properly harticle, Pening

* And yet, says Dr. Colman : “It was the free and catholic spirit of the seminary”—at the time when it was controlled by these Calvinistic bigots—" which took his generous heart."

years, can never be reconciled with the expressed will of the generous founder of the professorship, and the assurances given him that his orders should be respected.

OTHER DONATIONS.

Nor is this the only perversion of the bounty of Hollis, with which the government of Harvard College is justly chargeable. The sums which he gave, from time to time, to promote the cause of charitable education, were all intended for “poor and pious young men.” And who is a pious young man, in the sense of the Calvinistic Hollis ? What meaning must he have attached to the important distinctive epithet here employed ? He, and he only, is pious, in the sense of Hollis, who has been awakened, convinced, and hopefully regenerated, by the Spirit of God—who, under a sense of his guilty and desperate condition, has fled for refuge to the hope set before him, and put his trust in the atoning blood of Christ-and who, having submitted to Christ, endeavors to obey and follow him, and to walk in all his commandments and ordinances blameless. In short, he only is pious, in the sense of Hollis, who is truly evangelical, in spirit and feeling, in heart and life. But are young men of this character uniformly selected, as beneficiaries of the Hollis funds ? Let those who have the disbursing of these funds answer it to their own consciences, as they must one day answer it to a higher tribunal.

Nor is it the donations of Hollis alone, that have been perverted after this manner. Many others are in the same predicament. Take the following as an example. In the year 1657, the Hon. Edward Hopkins, previously governor of Connecticut, died in England ; and among other instances of his great liberality, ordered that “five hundred pounds be made over into New England, for the upholding and promoting the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, in those parts of the earth.This sum afterwards fell to the corporation of Harvard College ; and the avails of the fund created by it, or a large portion of them, have been appropriated, year after year, for the support of Unitarian students, in the Cambridge Theological School. Governor Hopkins first came to this country, in company with Mr. Davenport, in 1637. He was a strict Puritan and Calvinist, a hearer and admirer of the excellent Mr. Hooker, at Hartford. He considered Unitarianism as not only different from, but opposed to “ the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,” and would sooner have thrown away his money, than have given it for the education of Unitarian ministers.

It is a solemn thing to hold, in trust, the benefactions of the dead, and to come under obligations, expressed or implied, to dispose of these benefactions according to their wishes. It is a fearful thing to trifle with such obligations, and turn aside the bounty of the dead to purposes which they would never have patronized. There is an eye which sees such things, although the eyes of the deceased are closed. There is a voice which will one day reprove them, though the lips of the departed are sealed forever.*

In managing their theological funds, the corporation of Harvard College have a somewhat difficult task to perform. They have received the money of Mr. Hollis, and bound themselves to expend a specified portion of it, in the support of a professor of divinity, who shall be a man of “sound and orthodox principles,” in the customary, Calvinistic sense. They have also received the money of Deacon Henchman, and are under obligations to bestow the income of it upon the Hollis professor of divinity," so long as he shall profess and teach the principles of the Christian religion, according to the well known Confession of Faith, drawn up by the synod of the churches of New England.” It further appears, that the corporation are “residuary legatees, under the will of the late Henry Lienow, Esq., of Boston;" and the income of his money, when received, they will be bound to appropriate, “ in furtherance of the Unitarian faith,

* From the lists of donations in the volumes before us, it appears that not less than 20,000 pounds, in money, besides books, lands, and other donations, were given by individuals in this country and in England, to Harvard College, previous to the year 1780. The great body of these individuals were strict Calviniststhe friends and promoters of evangelical religion ; and they made their donations, on the supposition, and with the expectation, that the institution was to continue (what it ever had been) the defender and promoter of the evangelical faith. They certainly never would have given their money, more than they would have burned it in the fire, or buried it in the ocean-could they have dreamed that Harvard College, in the early part of the nineteenth century, would be publicly claimed as “the pure, uncorrupted fountain head of Unitarianism.

and the inculcation of liberal Christianity.II. p. 599. How they will manage this seemingly difficult matter, so as to satisfy the heirs at law, the public and their own consciences, we pretend not to say. One thing, however, we shall venture to say: Let not this legacy of Mr. Lienow be forgotten. And when Harvard University shall be restored“ to Christ and the church," and come again under the control of the friends of evangelical religion—and we have no more doubt of such a restoration, than we have that “the earth shall” one day“ be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea”-let this entire sum of money, be it more or less, be carefully restored to the lawful heirs of Mr. Lienow. Let not an orthodox corporation, in that day, rise up and plead, “We are all Unitarians. We all believe in the existence of one God. We, too, are liberal Christians, in the best sense of the terms; and hence are fairly entitled to the income of this legacy.' Let there be no such shuffling, such trifling as this. An orthodox corporation, when they come into place, (and God is able to bring them there much sooner than some men now imagine,) will know in what sense Mr. Lienow employed terms in his will; and they will carefully take every farthing of his money, separate it from other college funds, and go and place it in the hands of his legal representatives, to be disposed of as they shall see good.

THE PRESIDENCIES OF WADSWORTH AND HOLYOKE.

After the death of President Leverett, and the failure of two successive attempts to obtain a president for the college, the Rev. Benjamin Wadsworth, the worthy pastor of the first church in Boston, was duly elected, and accepted the appointment. He was inaugurated, July 7th, 1725, and continued in office till his death, which occurred in March, 1737. It was during his presidency, that the Episcopal ministers of Boston made a vigorous effort to obtain seats at the board of overseers, and were repulsed. It was at this period, also, that Mr. Hollis founded his second professorship, viz., that of mathematics and natural philosophy.

The successor of President Wadsworth was Mr. Edward Holyoke, one of the ministers of Marblehead. He was elected May 30th, 1737; but not until all scruples had been removed as to the question of his orthodoxy. The Rev. Mr. Barnard, of

[ocr errors]

Marblehead, relates, seriatim, a conversation which he had on the subject, at the table of Governor Belcher. The governor having inquired as to Mr. Holyoke's qualifications, in general, for the presidency, and Mr. Barnard having answered him to his satisfaction, his excellency proceeded to ask pointedly: “ But can you vouch for Mr. Holyoke's Calvinistic principles?“ To which,” says Mr. Barnard," I replied: If more than thirty years' intimacy, and more than twenty years' living in the same town with him, and after conversing with him, and scores of times hearing him preach, can lead me into the knowledge of a man's principles, I think Mr. Holyoke as orthodox a Calvinist as any man ; though I look upon him too much of a gentleman, and of too catholic a temper, to cram his principles down another man's throat.” “Then,” said his excellency, “I believe he must be the man.”* And he was the man.

The presidency of Holyoke was long and eventful. Near the commencement of it, two of the immediate officers of the college, viz., Greenwood, the first Hollis professor of mathe

* Mass. Hist. Collections, 3d series, Vol. V. p. 221. In his Convention Sermon, preached May 28, 1741, President Holyoke says: “Much more are we to guard against those who are tainted with the doctrines of Arius; who, though they call themselves Christians, are not worthy of the name; while they endeavor to rob Christ of his Divinity, and set him at an infinite distance below the Divine nature.”—“Again; there are the doctrines of the Sadducees, which you are to take heed and beware of, as the Deism of the present day.”—“And very little less so are the errors of Socinus, which may well be ranked under the head of Sadducism, in that the men of this way reject the revelations of the gospel, at the same time they pretend to believe something of them. For while they assert that Christ was a mere man ; that he had no existence, before he was born of the virgin ; that what he did was not to give satisfaction to God for sin, but only to give men a pattern of heroic virtue, and to seal his doctrines by his death; while original sin, grace, and predestination pass with them for mere chimeras, the sacraments are esteemed empty ceremonies, and they also deny the immensity of God and his omniscience, for they allow him not the knowledge of contingencies ;-I say, while these, and many more gross heresies are held by them, they undermine the very bottom and foundation of the religion of Jesus, the Son of God, and are therefore in danger of hell-fire.

SECOND SERIES, VOL. VII. NO. 11.'

« PoprzedniaDalej »