1

We proceed to show in what manner he has come to a decided conviction that a permanent injury to the cause of the Church will be the result of the admission of Dissenters to academical degrees. Declamation he has avoided; appeals to the passions of the party with whom the Regius Professor of Divinity might be supposed to be attached he has neglected; speculative theories on the future he has laid aside; but has argued as we should have expected his philosophic mind would have argued, from direct experiment only.

2

After having declared his habitual distrust of theories, and being the more confirmed in his distrust by the knowledge that a theory must be bad indeed, which does not Become plausible when recommended by ingenious and eloquent men, he proceeds to say, that when he found that a bill had been brought into the House of Commons, which, if passed into an act of parliament, would make it "lawful for all his Majesty's subjects to enter and matriculate in the universities of England, and to receive and enjoy all degrees in learning conferred there (degrees in divinity alone excepted,) without being required to subscribe any articles of religion, or to make any declaration of religious opinions respecting particular modes of faith and worship," he then sought whether in our country any similar plan of proceeding had been adopted, and if so, what was the result. Dr. Turton found that such a plan had been tried for a time long enough, and on a scale large enough, to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, to the unbiassed mind, the principle for which he contends. The nature of the proof may be seen in the following abstract from the narrative contained in Dr. Turton's pamphlet.

Dr. Doddridge, to whom the Christian world is greatly indebted, was for more than twenty years at the head of an academical establishment for the instruction of young men; the constitution of the academy was "perfectly Catholic," by which is meant, that students of any sect of religion were admissible. The principle object of this academy was the education of students for the ministry; but young men of fortune having other views were also admitted.

Although he was himself a believer in the Trinity and the atonement, Doddridge admitted to his house and his academy young men holding Arian and Socinian sentiments.

Let us now see the consequence of this admission. The increased number of Doddridge's pupils rendered it necessary for him to appoint an assistant; the names of four of these assistants are mentioned, and of them three were Arians at the least.

And now we ask why did Dr. Doddridge appoint assistants who differed from him so widely and so materially; who difNO. XXXI.-JULY, 1834.

fered, too, not on a point of church government, not upon a point of abstruse doctrine, but upon a point of faith, on which we as Trinitarians firmly believe that the salvation of man's immortal soul depends? While we cannot help regarding this conduct of Dr. Doddridge as weak and unworthy of him, we can readily ascertain that the cause of his so acting arose from the admixture of persons of various religious creeds. And we ask whether there be no fear of a similar result occurring at our own universities, should this obnoxious bill become the law of the land?

The mode of lecturing may be very naturally expected to participate of the spirit which actuated the appointments. In his lectures, Doddridge laid down an

"Ample statement of the evidences of Christianity, and then entered into a copious detail of what were, or, at least, what appeared to him to be the doctrines of Scripture. In so doing, he stated and maintained his own opinions, but never assumed the character of a dogmatist. He represented the arguments and referred to the authorities on both sides. The students were left to judge for themselves; and they did judge for themselves with his perfect concurrence and approbation."

Such is the account given by Dr. Kippis, in his life of Doddridge, of his preceptor's mode of lecturing.* Can we doubt for an instant what must be the necessary effect of such a method on the sanguine and ardent imagination of youth? Can we expect that they were likely to gain from it those fixed principles of religion so absolutely necessary for the ministry.

Let us hear from Dr. Turton the results of this system of religious education.

"As to the effects of the system of education upon the divinity students, it is well known to have been a subject of lamentation to all, whether Churchmen, or those Dissenters who have held with Dr. Doddridge the doctrines of the Trinity and the atonement, that the results of the plan of instruction pursued at Northampton should have been so disasterous. There was a vagueness and indecision of language in the discourses of the young ministers who had been trained in that seminary, which made it a matter of uncertainty whether they really had any positive opinions at all on some of the most momentous points that can occupy the attention of mankind; while the faith of many others being shaken by the debatable form in which every doctrine was presented to them, they exposed to danger the faith of entire congregations committed to their charge."

At the death of Dr. Doddridge, Dr. Ashworth, a Trinitarian, was appointed to succeed to the vacant tutorship, and Mr. Clark, an Arian, was continued as sub-tutor. During their regime, the well known Dr. Priestley was admitted a student of the Northampton academy, at a time when to use his own words, the academy

* Dr. Kippis was an Unitarian.

66

was in a state peculiarly favourable to the serious pursuit of truth, the students being equally divided upon every question of much importance." Some of these questions are mentioned, and he then states that all their topics were the subject of continual discussion. "Our tutors were also of different opinions; Dr. Ashworth taking the orthodox side of every question, and Mr. Clark, the sub-tutor, that of heresy, though always with great modesty."

Were not the question of such vast and eternal importance, we could almost smile at the naïveté of the writer, who can instance such a system of things as being "peculiarly favourable to the serious pursuit of truth."

Dr. Turton does not, however, think it right to use his own language in condemnation of this system; and we shall here follow his example, and quote part of the extract which he has made from a Memoir written by the late Mr. Robert Hall.

"The celebrated Priestley speaks of the state of the academy while he resided there, with great complacency; nothing he assures us could be more favourable to the progress of free inquiry, since both the tutors and the students were about equally divided between the Orthodox and the Arian systems. The arguments by which every possible modification of error is attempted to be supported were carefully marshalled in hostile array against the principles generally embraced; while the Theological Professor prided himself on the steady impartiality with which he held the balance betwixt the contending systems, seldom or never interposing his own opinion, and still less betraying the slightest emotion of antipathy to error or predilection to truth. Thus a spirit of indifference to all religious principles was generated in the first instance, which naturally paved the way for the prompt reception of doctrines indulgent to the corruption and flattering to the pride of a depraved and fallen nature."

It ought to have been mentioned, that in 1751 this establishment was removed from Northampton to Daventry, and that the appointment of the head tutor was placed at the disposal of the trustees of Mr. Coward, Mr. Coward having bequeathed a considerable estate for the education of dissenting ministers and for other religious purposes. And by the will it was directed that the said students be well instructed in the true Gospel doctrines, according as the same are explained in the Assembly's Catechism.

In 1781, Mr. Coward's trustees, " still," says Dr. Turton, “ I suppose, with a view of taking care that the students should be well instructed in the true Gospel doctrines," placed Mr. Belsham at the head of the institution.

Let us see what was the mode of lecturing adopted by Mr. Belsham, who," at that period," says Dr. Turton, " does not appear to have abandoned the doctrine of our Lord's pre-existence." Mr. Belsham thus writes:

"Now the plan which to the author appeared most eligible for conducting the minds of his pupils on this inquiry, was to form a collection of all the texts in the New Testament which in any way related to the person of Christ, and to arrange them under different heads, beginning with simple pre-existence and advancing through the various intermediate steps to the doctrine of the proper Deity of Christ. Under each text was introduced the comment of one or more learned and approved Trinitarian, Arian, or Unitarian Expositors, in the commentator's own words, and in general without any additional, or at least doctrinal, comment of the compiler's own, as it was his wish to leave the texts thus expounded to make their proper impression upon the minds of his pupils.

"The first consequence of this mode of conducting the lectures was to himself very unexpected and mortifying. Many of his pupils, and of those some of the best talents, the closest application, and the most serious dispositions, who had also been educated in all the habits and prepossessions of Trinitarian doctrine, to his great surprise became Unitarians."

Can we require a better proof of the fatal result of a scheme of religious instruction, in which "the balance is to be held with steady impartiality?" but its condemnation shall be read not in our words, but in those of the theological tutor of Homerton, Dr. T. P. Smith, who, on Mr. Belsham's mode of lecturing, thus writes:

"To throw down before a company of inexperienced youths a regular set of rival and discordant expositions, appears to me to have been a method not well calculated to lead into the path of convincing evidence and well-ascertained truth. It might excite party feeling, wordy dispu tation, unholy levity, and rash decision; but so far as, either from the theory of the case or from experience, I am able to form a judgment, I could not expect a better result except in rare cases indeed."

And now we would ask any parent or guardian, to whom religion is of consequence, whether he would choose to place his son or ward within the influence of a system of education so pernicious in its results as that to which we have now been referring? A system not existing for a brief period, but extending itself and its baleful consequences over a time not less than sixty years, and which thus has been fairly tried. A system which has been condemned not by Churchmen only, but by Dissenters also, by those Dissenters too who are the just pride of their body, and who can be mentioned only to be honoured. Can Churchmen and Dissenters be really in union to introduce into our own Universities the latitudinarian principles which rendered ineffective the religious education of the Daventry academy? Will not the former agree with, and the latter admit the force of, the following declaration of the Dean of Peterborough?

"The non-conformist tutor of the Daventry academy was

required by

the will of the non-conformist Mr. Coward, to instruct the students committed to his care in the principles of religion as laid down in the Assembly's Catechism. I therefore conclude that, even the non-conformists themselves being judges, there is nothing wrong in Christians, by whatever name they may be designated, teaching, in their own seminaries of education, the principles of religion as laid down in such formularies as, after due inquiry, they conscientiously believe to contain the truth, This is what I claim for the members of the Church of England.

Again, many non-conformists have described the effects which have arisen and cannot but arise from a continued residence, in the same place of instruction, of young men widely differing from each other in theological sentiments-as highly injurious to the cause of religion. An entire agreement with these non-conformists, in this matter, I take the liberty of avowing on the part of the members of the Church of England.

66

Lastly, to avoid the evils consequent upon the plan of education last-mentioned, non-conformists of different denominations have founded academies, in each of which, to youths of their own communion, those principles of religion alone are taught which are in agreement with their own peculiar views. For the members of the Church of England I claim the same privilege."

And here we cease to make extracts from Dr. Turton's admirable pamphlet, and here we would wish to conclude our remarks upon it; but the main argument used, we must still notice, since it has provoked the attack of more than one powerful opponent. The Hebrew Professor, Dr. Lee, and Mr. Thirlwall of Trinity College, have each assailed the lofty position of the Dean of Peterborough; but the former seems never to have apprehended at all the aim of the pamphlet of the dean; while the subtle irony of the latter has been chiefly employed in deriding the discipline and depreciating the value of the religious education of the University. The "startling novelties" put forth by Mr. Thirlwall on these subjects have placed him, with regard to his superior, in a situation of great perplexity; and should he finally resign his tutorship, another reason will be afforded us for condemning the agitation of a question which has rendered useless to the students of his college the acquirements of this able, perhaps unequalled, scholar.

With gentleness of language, but with merciless argument, Mr. Whewell has shown the futility of the reasoning brought forward by Mr. Thirlwall; but we can only refer our readers to the pamphlets themselves to be convinced as we have been. Mr. Thirlwall has asserted, that upon looking through the Cambridge collection of Examination Papers, the occurrence of even a single question on any point of doctrine is a most rare exception to the general practice; thence inferring, that, as the lectures must correspond in some degree with the examinations, no opposition to the presence of Dissenters at those lectures could reasonably be made.