1
10
3
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a4314eadc181476d82780166c1796a0a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nB1C13ey%7Erem8G3C8x9HvUUxIbV-ILaauNWawX0XZwSuXXLrYfLneblu7FDOYC2m7WZ8UIR%7EvB3uwt2beVB8fMIENw84dMK836H495hql-5IJVradXGzx6RVRH1AbK8qbnRm3xKpt%7EGQm-l7ycvsTO0OUcdZbAYTnUukZGZxeJST2DvVCbkXAX6AQRGDBfMsa61Dxlz8zrcVOuun81VzgRh2-ZyMxS22DsElR-NStkLsjKx2TJ1JLmWKvbvjPf9%7ETM9UnlN6cCD2iTz8jZc0X0Sv3-%7EHbQVWrW4stV6096D0TZ9m%7Eqn59BSERuBSiiQ6K81rmhnI0JSzpmu-qWLHEQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9dff332f2021db82e91eed15b0013478
PDF Text
Text
MR. MATTHEW ARNOLD AND THE NONCON
FORMISTS.
R. ARNOLD has recently shown so much solicitude for the
moral and spiritual welfare of the Nonconformists, that I trust
he will not think it’a sign of sectarian presumption and conceit, if I
express the regret that he has not written a book for our exclusive
benefit. As he told us several months ago, he is no enemy of ours,
though at times he rebukes us sharply; what he aims at is our “ per
fection.” But if his estimate of us is just, the errors into which we
have fallen are so fatal, our faults are so grave, and our separation
from the National Church is so serious an obstacle to the free
development of our Christian thought and life, that he can hardly
render us the service on which he has set his heart, unless he devotes
himself to his kindly task a little more seriously. In his essay on
“ St. Paul and Protestantism,” though he intended to address himself
specially to the Puritans, he has raised innumerable questions in which
Puritans have no separate interest. Any one of them would have
been large enough for a volume—for half-a-dozen volumes. He
reconstructs the theology of St. Paul; presents us with a perfectly
original and very surprising account of the ultimate principle which
constitutes the foundation of the English Church ; speculates on the
science of theological method, and on the relations between theology
and philosophy; and, in the course of a very few paragraphs, lands us
M
�MR. ARNOLD AND THE NONCONFORMISTS. 541
in the very melancholy conclusion that the creeds and formularies
of all Churches—the Nicene Creed and the Westminster Confession,
the decrees of the Council of Trent, and the Thirty-nine Articles—are
all equally worthless, as being the results of premature attempts to
solve problems which are likely to remain insoluble for several
centuries to come. It is disheartening to a Nonconformist to find his
own small affairs overshadowed and suppressed by such vast discus
sions as these.
Nor is it easy to separate what Mr. Arnold has said about English
Dissent from those bold speculations of his, which affect the dogmatic
creed of all Christendom. This, he will probably reply, is not his
fault. It is, no doubt, impossible to touch any question relating to
the spiritual life of a Church or even of an individual man, without
assuming or appealing to principles which determine our whole con
ception of the history and destiny of our race, and of its relations to
truth and to God. So far as I can, however, I intend to limit myself
in this paper to what Mr. Arnold has said about Puritanism and
Nonconformity.
Mr. Arnold tells us that his one qualification for his attempt to re
construct the theology of St. Paul, and so to rescue the great Apostle
from the hands of the Puritans, is that belief of his “ so much
contested by our countrymen, of the primary needfulness of seeing
things as they really are, and of the greater importance of ideas than
of the machinery which exists for them.” He would probably say
that this is his chief qualification for criticising the history, traditions,
policy, creed, and institutions of the Nonconformists. Like most
other Englishmen, we are in danger, ho thinks, of following staunchly,
but mechanically, certain stock notions and habits, “ vainly imagining
that there is a virtue in following them staunchly, which makes up
for the mischief of following them mechanically.” lie wishes to
assist us to turn “ a stream of fresh and free thought ” upon our
theory of religious establishments, which appears to him to have
become a mere fetish, and upon our theological dogmas to which we
seem to be holding with a blind and superstitious fidelity. For him
self he is resolved to look at the Nonconformist Churches—their life,
their practices, their creed—with his own eyes, to see them “ as they
really are; ” and he has frankly told the world what he has dis
covered.
To Mr. Arnold the Evangelical Nonconformists arc the true heirs
and representatives of the Puritans. The Nonconformist Churches
are the Puritan Churches. He discusses the grounds on which our
theological and ecclesiastical ancestors separated from the National
Church, and the grounds on which the separation is perpetuated.
The theory which he has formed of us and of our history is definite
�542
THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.
and intelligible. I will give it as far as I can in his own felicitous
language. He believes that the main title on which Puritan
Churches rest their right of existing is the aim at setting forth
purely and integrally the “ three notable tenets of predestination,
original sin, and justification.” “ With historic churches like those
of England and Rome it is otherwise ; these doctrines may be in
them, may be part of their traditions, their theological stock ; but
certainly no one will say that either of these Churches was made
for the express purpose of upholding these three theological doctrines
jointly or severally.” But it was precisely for the sake of these
dogmas that the Puritan Churches were founded ; and now that the
dogmas—at least in the form in which the Puritan theologians
stated them—are no longer credible, “ Protestant Dissent has to
execute an entire change of front and to present us with a new
reason for existing.” It is admitted that the Evangelical party in
the Church of England holds the same scheme of doctrine as the
Puritans ; “ but the Evangelicals have not added to the first error
of holding this unsound body of opinions, the second error of
separating for them.” Nonconformist Churches are built on dogma ;
and to build on dogma is to build on sand. The Church exists for
the culture of perfection, and rests on “ the foundation of God, which
standeth sure, having this seal—Let every one that nameth the name
of Christ depart from iniquity.”
This is Mr. Arnold’s account of the Nonconformists. That to most
Nonconformists it has all the novelty of a discovery, that we never
had the slightest suspicion that we and our Churches exist simply
for the purpose of upholding the doctrines of predestination, original
sin, and justification by faith, will be to him no proof that his theory
is unsound. He thinks that he understands us better than we
understand ourselves, and will ask us for some account of ourselves
and of our ecclesiastical position which shall be truer than his own
to history and to fact. Claiming no authority to speak for any one
but myself, I will attempt to satisfy him. I think it can be shown
that he has altogether missed the true “ idea ” of Puritanism; that
he has misread our history ; and that his capital charge against us—
that of separating for opinions—rests either upon a misapprehension
of facts, or upon a principle destructive of all morality.
I shall have something to say further on about Mr. Arnold’s new
explanation of the controversy between Puritanism and the Church
of England—Mr. Arnold’s history is, if anything, more original
than his philosophy—but it may be well to consider at starting the
“ error ” by which we are discriminated from the Evangelicals of the
English Church. They remain in the Establishment; this is their
virtue. We have left it; this is our offence. But our only reason
�MR. ARNOLD AND' THE NONCONFORMISTS. 543
for leaving it was that we could not remain in it honestly. Are we
to be blamed for this ? There were Nonconformists before the Act
of Uniformity, but modern Nonconformity dates from St. Bartho
lomew’s Day, 1662. It is notorious that the “ Two Thousand ” did
not secede from the National Establishment; they were “ejected”
from it. Their Calvinism was not more rigid than that of the men
who drew up the Articles. Nor were they very zealous for any par
ticular form of ecclesiastical polity. The majority of them had been
Presbyterians ; they were willing to accept Episcopalianism; most
of them soon became, in practice if not in theory, Independents.
They had no desire, as Mr. Arnold suggests, to invent new organiza
tions for enforcing more purely and thoroughly any schemes of
theological doctrine. What they wanted was to remain where they
were, and to continue to minister to the congregations they loved ;
but they were resolved not to lie either to man or God, and it was
this resolution which forced them to a separation. They did not
believe that every baptized child is regenerated of the Holy Ghost,
and therefore they refused to say over every child they baptized,
“We yield Thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath
pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with Thy Holy Spirit, to
receive him for Thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate
him into Thy holy Church.” They interpreted the service for the
Visitation of the Sick as compelling them to address to the impeni
tent as well as the penitent the words, “ I absolve thee from all thy
sins ; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost; ” they refused to say such words as these to men whose sins,
as they feared, God had not pardoned; and they doubted whether
such authority as these words imply had been entrusted by Christ
to His ministers. They believed that there are some men who at
death pass into outer darkness, and suffer eternal destruction ; and
when they were asked to say at the mouth of every grave, “ For
asmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of His great mercy to
take unto Himself the soul of our dear brother here departed,” they
answered that it was impossible for them to say this honestly. Nor
could they truthfully declare “ their unfeigned assent and consent to
all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the book
intituled the Book of Common Prayer.”
The modern Evangelicals, who are favourably contrasted by Mr.
Arnold with the Nonconformists, hold that same body of opinions—
sound or unsound—which seemed to the ejected, and which seems to
us, inconsistent with the services of the Prayer-Book. In this, the
“ first error,” of which we are guilty, they have their full share; in
the “ second error,” of refusing to use the services, we standalone. I
do not mean to censure Evangelicals for using the formularies which
vol. xiv.
o o
�544
THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.
appear to us inconsistent with the creed which they and we hold in
common. I am quite sure that vast numbers of them have discovered
some subtle method, satisfactory to themselves, of reconciling their
formularies and their faith. But arc our fathers to be very severely
blamed for not being equally subtle—for not seeing how they could
honestly thank God for the spiritual regeneration of all baptized
infants, though they believed that all baptized infants were not
spiritually regenerate ? Was it a crime to suffer the loss of home
and income, and honourable place and great opportunities for doing
the work for which they most cared, rather than thank God for the
eternal salvation of people who, as they feared, might be eternally
lost ? It seems to me that the principle which, Mr. Arnold tells us,
lies at the foundation of the National Church, Let every one that
nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity, lies at the foundation
of Nonconformity.
Mr. Arnold admits that separation from a Church “ on plain points
of morals ” is right and reasonable, “ for these involve the very
essence of the Christian Gospel; ” but he does not appear to think
that it would be immoral for Dr. Cumming to celebrate the service of
the mass, or for Mr. Spurgeon to baptize infants, or for Mr. Martineau
to profess his unfeigned assent and consent to the Athanasiau Creed.
For the true elucidation and final solution of questions about the
Beal Presence, about Baptism, about the Trinity, he argues that
“ time and favourable conditions are necessary,” and no such condi
tions have as yet been fulfilled since the apostolic age. The con
troversy between the Nominalists and the Bcalists has not yet been
determined; and since that controversy has very much to do with
the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Pope is precipitate in insist
ing on the adoration of the Host. But if Dr. Cumming, with all his
present convictions, had happened to have been born in the Church
of Borne, he would be just as precipitate in refusing to adore ; it
would be his duty to remain in the Church, and so to leave “the
way least closed to the admission of true developments of speculative
thought when the time is come for them; ” for the Church does not
rest on opinions, and “ the foundation of God standeth sure, having
this seal—Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from
iniquity.”
Mr. Spurgeon may believe that it is a lie to say that every
baptized infant is regenerate. lie may believe that to baptize
infants at all is contrary to the will of Christ, and to the practice of
the apostles ; but “ the happy moment ” for solving these questions
has not yet arrived ; the science of historical criticism is as yet
hardly constituted, and none of us can be quite sure what the will
of Christ was on such a matter as this, or about any of the
�MR. ARNOLD AND THE NONCONFORMISTS. 545
practices of the apostolic Church. Mr. Spurgeon’s opinions, there
fore, are no “ valid reason for breaking unity; ” he ought to use
the baptismal service as it stands, and to remember that “ the founda
tion of God standeth sure, having this seal—'Let every one that
nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”
The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere expressly taught
in Holy Scripture ; it is a development of what is revealed concern
ing God in our sacred books; it is, moreover, a philosophical de
velopment, and therefore “ of a kind which the Church has never
yet had the conditions for making adequately.” This may seem to
Mr. Martineau a very valid reason for not accepting Athanasianism ;
but to Mr. Arnold it seems a reason for not rejecting Athanasianism,
and he would, therefore, if I understand him aright, recommend Mr.
Martineau not to remain “ shut up in sectarian ideas ” of his own,
but to return to the National Church, join in the worship of Christ
as God—because practice, not doctrine, is of the essence of the Gospel,
and “ the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal—
every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”
It is only just to Mr. Arnold to say that he has expressly told us
that “ the object of this essay is not religious edification.”
Perhaps Mr. Arnold might reply that all that he means by his
theory of development is, that as yet no man can be quite sure that
he has discovered the very truth of God, and that therefore Churches
should be very careful of imposing creeds and enforcing the use of
doctrinal formularies. But if this is his meaning, his homily should
be addressed to the Church of England, not to the Nonconformists.
Its “ first error ” was in holding with presumptuous confidence the
absolute truth of the dogmas contained in its services ; its “ second
error ” was in resolving that the Puritans should either use the
services or leave the Church.
But may not Mr. Arnold be right after all in his main thesis ?
Though the Nonconformists came out of the Church in 1662 simply
because they could not remain there and yet remain on “ the
foundation of God, which standeth sure, having this seal—Let
every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity,” the
“ejectment” may have only liberated an impulse which the whole
some influence and discipline of the Establishment had repressed.
From the first, the true instinct of Puritanism may have been
to separate for the sake of the “ three notable tenets.” Its cha
racteristic spirit—so it may be argued—could find adequate
expression only in Churches resting on a basis of dogma, instead of
a basis of Christian morals. That the Puritans were forced into
Nonconformity by the rigid imposition of formularies which they
could not use honestly, was an accident; for the free development of
o02
�546
THE CONTEMPORARY RE VIE IV.
Puritanism, separate Churches, founded not for the culture of Chris
tian perfection, but for the maintenance of the doctrines of election,
original sin, and justification by faith, were a necessity. To Mr.
Arnold, at least, it appears that modern Nonconformity can give no
better or more rational explanation of its existence.
There is some excuse for his error ; though the excuse should avail
him less than any other man. Nonconformists themselves have often
declared that it is their special function to maintain the true theology
of the Reformation. Such statements have been sufficiently common
both in popular meetings and in ecclesiastical assemblies. But if the
speakers had been pressed for an explanation, very few of them
would have admitted that their Churches had no surer, deeper
foundation than the Westminster Confession. They never meant
that their Churches were mere theological schools. Or even if some
Nonconformists have honestly believed that Calvinistic dogma con
stitutes part, at least, of the very foundation of a Nonconformist
Church, Mr. Arnold had no right to believe it on their bare autho
rity. He is no Philistine, and he ought to maintain “ a watchful
jealousy ” against the mistakes into which it is so natural for Philis
tines to be betrayed. Is it not our great peril—the very peril to
deliver us from which he has been raised up—that we are always
forgetting the difference between the mere machinery of religious
life and its inner spirit and power ? Should he not, therefore-, have
received with great suspicion any account that we may have given of
ourselves ? It was more likely to be wrong than right. When
orators and controversialists exulted in the unswerving loyalty of the
Independents and Baptists to the Calvinistic creed, ought he not to
have said to himself, “ Perhaps these men are wrong after all, and
the true ‘idea’ of Nonconformity, and of the Puritanism from
which it sprung, may be something very different from what they
suppose ? ” Neither individual men, nor nations, nor Churches, are
always distinctly conscious of the true significance and value of their
position and history. “ We know not ” what we are, any better than
“ what we shall be.” It is only as the characteristic life and princi
ples of any spiritual movement are manifested under a great variety
of conditions, and in a long succession of prosperous and disastrous
circumstances, that any trustworthy theory of it becomes possible.
Looking back, then, upon the last three centuries of English eccle
siastical history, what is it that constitutes the unity, originality, and
powei’ of that great movement which Mr. Arnold has tried to
interpret ?
It is an historical blunder to suppose that the characteristic element
of Puritanism has been any exceptional zeal for Calvinistic doctrine.
Goodwin, the illustrious Arminian of the Commonwealth, was as
�MR. ARNOLD AND THE NONCONFORMISTS. 547
good a Puritan every whit as John Owen. In Elizabeth’s reign
Calvinistic doctrine was dominant in the English Church, but the
Puritans were subjected to pains and penalties. Whitgift, their
chief enemy, approved the Lambeth Articles, in which the Calvinistic
theology is expressed in its most offensive form. With a fine and
true instinct, Mr. Arnold recognises the old Puritan spirit in the
various communities of Methodists, who have always denounced the
Calvinistic dogmas as a blasphemous libel on the character of God.
The Methodists are Puritans, he says, because of their excessive zeal
for the doctrine of justification by faith. But this is the explana
tion of a mere Philistine, who mistakes “machinery” for “ideas;”
and it is an explanation with which a moderately enlightened Philis
tine would not be quite satisfied. For surely the antagonism between
Methodism and Calvinism on such capital doctrines as predestination,
a limited atonement, and the perseverance of the saints, more than
annuls what at first sight appears to be a merely accidental agree
ment on the doctrine of justification by faith.
Puritanism can hardly have its roots in any theological creed, for
there have been Arminian Puritans and Calvinistic Puritans; the
Puritans have been persecuted by Arminian Conformists, and they
have been persecuted by Calvinistic Conformists; and on the con
troversy between Arminians and Calvinists, the living representatives
of Puritanism arc widely divided. The only doctrine not included
in the confessions of all the great churches of Christendom in which
the Puritans seem to have agreed—and they have not been perfectly
agreed in that—is the doctrine of justification by faith.
I believe that the ultimate secret of Puritanism is to be found in the
intensity and vividness with which it has apprehended the immediate
relationship of the regenerate soul to God. To the ideal Puritan,
God is “nigh at hand.” He has seen God, and is wholly possessed
with a sense of the divine greatness, holiness, and love. For him old
things have already passed away, and all things have become new.
His salvation is not remote ; he is already reconciled to God, and his
citizenship is in heaven. He is akin to God through a supernatural
birth, and is a partaker of the divine nature. All interference between
himself and God he resents. He can speak to God face to face.
This consciousness of the intimacy of the soul’s present relationship
to God underlies the Calvinistic Puritanism which destroyed the
Church of England in the seventeenth century, and the Arminian
Puritanism which was expelled from it in the eighteenth. It is
this which explains that zeal for the Calvinistic discipline which
divided so sharply the Elizabethan Puritans from the Conformists,
though both were equally zealous for Calvinistic doctrine; and it is
this which is the spiritual root of Independency. The true function
�548
THE CONTEMPORARY RE VIE W.
of Puritanism in the religious life of this country has not been to set
forth “certain Protestant doctrines
but to assert and vindicate the
reality, the greatness, the completeness of the redemption that is in
Christ, and the nearness of God to the soul of man.
It is not surprising that Mr. Arnold should have misinterpreted
English Puritanism, for he has failed to apprehend the true spirit
and scope of a still greater movement. He appears to suppose that
the only ground and justification of what it is becoming fashionable
to describe as the Protestant schism of the sixteenth century, lay
in the moral corruptions of the Church of Pome. Separation for
opinions on points of discipline and dogma would in his judgment
have been neither right nor reasonable. “ The sale of indulgences,
if deliberately instituted and persisted in by the main body of the
Church, afforded a valid reason for breaking unity; the doctrine of
purgatory, or of the real presence, did not.” But though Luther’s
moral indignation at the sale of indulgences was the accidental cause
of his ultimate breach with Pome, the supreme force of Protestantism
was spiritual, not ethical. Eor centuries the religious life of Christen
dom had been stifled and crushed. A vast mechanical system of
“ means of grace ” came between the soul and the Fountain of mercy,
life, and blessedness. Of immediate access to God men were taught
to despair. Between Him and them there were sacraments, priests,
and a constantly increasing crowd of interceding saints. The free
grace of God had been so obscured by the portentous dogmas which
the Church had developed from the simpler faith of earlier times,
that salvation could never be anything more than a probability. The
penitent could never be sure that he had finally done with his sin.
Penances in this world were to be followed by purgatory in the next.
Nor was it possible to learn the thought and will of God at first
hand. It was not to the individual soul that God spoke; no man
could hear the divine voice for himself. The teaching of Christ and
the supernatural illumination of the Holy Ghost, belonged to “ the
Church,” and men were told to listen not to God, but to councils and
popes.
Luther broke through all this. He declared that God was near
enough to man to be spoken to without the intervention of saint or
priest. Sacraments had their significance and worth ; but the grace
of God came directly into the soul of man. Men were not to depend
on external rites for the pardon of sins and for the nourishment
and strength of the supernatural life. From God’s own lips every
man who desired absolution might have it, and have it at once.
Between the penitent child and his Father no elder brother, be
he saint or angel, can be permitted to come. No intercession is
needed to move the Father’s heart to mercy—no good work to
placate His anger. Let the prodigal who has wasted his substance
�MR. ARNOLD AND TILE NONCONFORMISTS. 549
in riotous living come home, and while he is yet afar off the Father
will see him, and go out to meet him, and at once the best robe shall
be put upon him, and there shall be a ring for his finger and shoes
for his feet, and the house shall be filled with music and dancing.
Do you want salvation ?—this was the gospel which Luther preached
to Europe,—you may learn from God Himself how you are to be
saved. The parables of Christ, and the Epistles of St. Paul, and the
supernatural teaching of the Holy Ghost are within every man’s
reach. God is nigh at hand, and not afar off. Every man may speak
to God for himself. God’s mercy is so large and free, that all He
asks for from those who desire to be saved is that they should have
the courage and the faith to leave themselves in His hands.
The doctrine of justification by faith, as Luther preached it, was
no mere dogma. It was the assertion of a most vital spiritual fact.
To receive it was to pass out of bondage into freedom, and out of
darkness into light. * Its power lay in this, that it represented God
as appealing directly to every human heart, and appealing to it for
absolute trust. At a stroke it swept away priests, and popes, and
councils, and saints, and penances, and purgatory, and left the soul
alone with God. The terms in which the doctrine was defined may
be very open to criticism. The human analogies by which it was
illustrated may be very imperfect. The theological method of those
days, common to the lieformers and to the Romanists, may have led
theologians to draw out from the doctrine technical inferences which
the moral sense vehemently rejects, and which the spirit pronounces
absolutely unreal. But the world knew what Luther and the
Reformers meant; Rome knew what they meant; and the real con
troversy was not about the form in which the fact was to be stated,
but about the fact itself. I am very willing to leave Luther’s
“ machinery ” to Mr. Arnold’s criticism, if he thinks it worth his
while to criticise it; but Luther’s “ idea ” seems to me to have been
even a more valid ground of separation from Rome, when Rome
rejected it, than Luther’s moral wrath at the sale of indulgences. To
make it possible once more for the human soul to stand face to face
with God was a work worth doing at any cost. It is the very
greatest work that any religious reformer can attempt. To accom
plish it, is indeed the true aim of every religious reformation.
When the Reformers began to construct a scientific expression of
the vital spiritual truths which had been committed to their trust, it
was almost inevitable that they should revert to the doctrines of
Augustine.
The dogmatic system, which appeared to them to
obscure the vision of God, was but another form of Pelagianism.
The spirit of Pelagianism, as well as its creed, had taken possession
of the Church. The work of the great African doctor had to be done
over again. Between themselves and him, the Reformers felt that
�550
THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.
there was the most perfect spiritual sympathy. His inspiration was
essentially the same as their own. The mystical theology might
have afforded a still more perfect expression than Augustinianism of
the transcendent facts which they desired to vindicate ; and a few of
the less conspicuous Reformers became Mystics; but mysticism does
not take kindly to the rigid definitions and the severe logical method
which the scholastic training and habits of the Reformers compelled
them to introduce into their theological system. The Augustinian
theory was their only choice; and it was no slight controversial
al vantage for them to be able to appeal to the authority of one of the
most illustrious of the fathers.
The Puritans strove hard, according1 to the light which was in
them, to complete the work of the Reformation. They accepted
the Calvinistic theology, and appear to have found in it a com
plete and satisfactory interpretation of the most appalling and the
most glorious experiences and discoveries of the spiritual life. To
many of us, in these days, Calvinism may be incredible. It
seems very easy to demnstrate that its theory of moral inability
annihilates moral obligation ; that its dogma of imputed righteous
ness renders the solemnities of the final judgment an unmeaning
pageant; that its confident assertion of the perseverance of the
saints must take off the edge of the most urgent exhortations
contained in the New Testament to spiritual vigilance and the
repression of the lusts of the flesh; that its eternal decrees of
election and reprobation must paralyze all human energy by re
ducing human effort to absolute insignificance ; and that its unquali
fied and daring representations of the divine sovereignty, and its
reference of all good and evil to the determination of the divine will,
are destructive of the moral character of God, and render it irrational
and impossible to claim for Him the love, and trust, and reverence
of the human heart on the ground of His moral perfections. Cal
vinism—so most of us are accustomed to think—cuts away the roots
both of morality and religion. And yet the Calvinistic Puritans,
with their dogma of moral inability, were stern and vehement in
their denunciation of sin ; with their doctrine of imputed righteous
ness and the perseverance of the saints, they wrought out their own
salvation with fear and trembling; with a theory of the universe
which represents the whole course of events as predetermined by the
eternal counsels of God, they were men of an iron will and of
inexhaustible energy; and with a conception of God which sur
rounds His moral character with impenetrable mystery and a
darkness that might be felt, they were not only filled with awe when
they confessed His majesty and greatness, but they loved Him with a
passionate affection.
The paradox is not inexplicable. Calvinism may be approached
�MR. ARNOLD AND THE NONCONFORMISTS. 551
from two precisely opposite points. It is the theological form of
the philosophy of necessity. Let a man come to the conclusion that
the will is determined by the forces which act upon it, and that
every volition is the result of the sum of the motives which preceded
it, and the logical result of his theory will be the denial of the
reality of moral distinctions and a blind surrender of human destiny
to the irresistible laws by which its development is controlled. If
he adopts any form of Christian theology, he will call these laws
the divine decrees, and will imagine that he is a Calvinist.
But the Puritans did not arrive at the Calvinistic theology
through the philosophy of necessity. They began, not with .Man
but with God. Their philosophy was an accident; they learnt it
from others ; but their theology was their own. With their clear
and immediate vision of God, their own nature and the nature of
every man appeared to them altogether corrupt, a thing to be
despised, and loathed, and cursed. Remembering their own un
regenerate days, when their “ carnal mind ” was “ enmity against
God,” the very virtues and good "works of the unregenerate seemed
to them deserving of no praise; “ yea, rather,” they said, “ for
that they are not done as God hath commanded them to be done,
we doubt not but that they have the nature of sin.” That a nature
so infected with evil could have come in its present condition imme
diately from the hands of God they did not believe, and they ex
plained “the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that
naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam ” by ascribing it to
Adam’s sin. Through that offence “ man is very far gone from
original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so
that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit, and therefore in
every person born into this world it [the infection of our nature—Original Sin] deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.”
To the
philosophy of necessity the utter inability of man to escape from the
law of his nature is a reason for denying human responsibility; but
to Calvinism, filled with the vision of God, man’s inability to keep
God’s commandments is the supreme crime. The moral instincts
quickened into intense activity by the immediate presence of the
personal God, refuse to be suppressed for the sake of preserving the
coherence of a theological system. They insist on asserting human
responsibility and guilt. The logical faculty, working under the
control of a method in which moral ideas can find no legitimate
place, is forced to yield, and the result is hideous confusion.
It is a common saying that all men are Calvinists when they pray.
In the presence of God the regenerate soul claims nothing for itself.
His infinite mercy pardoned its sin. Its perverse reluctance to
receive salvation was overborne by his grace. The supernatural
life is his free gift. It confidently relies on Ills compassions which
�552
THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.
fail not and Idis mercy which endureth for ever, to preserve it from
apostasy. Calvinism, with its noble incapacity to escape from the
glory of the Divine presence, endeavoured to translate these intuitions
of the soul into the language and forms of a mechanical philosophy.
The doctrines of election, of irresistible grace, and of the perse
verance of the saints, are but the best logical expressions it could
find for the deepest truth of all philosophy and of all religion. Our
highest life is a life in God. It is not we who live, but God that •
“liveth in us.” Some day we may reach that “ happy moment” in
the intellectual history of the human race in which all the conditions
will be fulfilled for the adequate scientific expression of this truth. But
it is the great merit of Calvinism that however ignominiously it may
have failed in a scientific task reserved for other centuries, it strove
with sublime faith and magnificent courage and energy to assert the
truth itself; and in asserting it Calvinism gave a fresh inspiration to
the religious life of Europe.
Mr. Arnold says that “ what essentially characterizes a religious
teacher, and gives him his permanent worth and vitality, is, after
all, just the scientific value of his teaching, its correspondence with
important facts, and the light it throws upon them.” Whether this
proposition is true or false depends upon what he means by it. Does
“ the scientific value ” of any religious teaching depend upon its
11 machinery ” or upon its “ ideas,” upon its intuitions of divine and
spiritual truths, or upon its expression of them ? The Calvinism of
the Westminster Assembly, with its “ machinery of covenants, con
ditions, bargains, and parties—contractors,” was trying to make
men feel and believe that God is “ nigh at hand ;” it succeeded in
making men feel and believe it. Notwithstanding its clumsy formu
laries, with which alone a shallow scientific and philosophical criticism
occupies itself, Calvinism brought men face to face with God Himself,
taught them to find their life in Him, to trust with immovable con
fidence in his mercy, and to suffer gladly the loss of all things rather
than wilfully break any of his commandments. The formularies
were powerless to destroy the supernatural virtue of the Truth
which lay behind them. It was for the Truth that the Puritans
cared; the formularies were dear only for its sake.
I have already said that Mr. Arnold has the penetration to recog
nise the essential unity of Methodism and Calvinistic Puritanism,
notwithstanding striking divergencies of theological opinion. In
his vindication of that unity, he touches for a moment the ultimate
principle of the whole Puritan movement. He says that:—
“ The foremost place, which in the Calvinistic scheme belongs to the
doctrine of predestination, belongs in the Methodist scheme to the doctrine
of justification by faith. . . . This doctrine, like the Calvinist doctrine of
predestination, involves a whole history of God’s proceedings, and gives also,
�MR. ARNOLD AND THE NONCONFORMISTS.
553
first, and almost sole place to what God does with disregard to what man does.
It has thus an essential affinity with Calvinism. . . . The word’ solifidian
points precisely to that which is common to both Calvinism and Methodism,
and which has made both these halves of Puritanism so popular—their sen
sational side, as it may be called, their laying all stress on what God wondrously gives and works for its, not on what we bring or do for ourselves.”
It is hardly accurate, I think, to say that justification by faith
occupies a position in Methodist theology quite analogous to that
which is occupied by predestination in the theology of Calvinism.
The theological characteristic of Methodism is, perhaps, the emphasis
with which it has insisted on the necessity and the instantaneousness
of the new birth. But in the present discussion this question is
unimportant. Mr. Arnold might, however, have given us a very diffe
rent account of Puritanism had he followed the clue on which he laid
his hand when he tried to discover the hidden spirit which makes the
A rm ini an Methodist one with the Calvinistic Puritan. His essay
would have taken altogether a different form had he seen clearly
that the great and constant endeavour of Puritanism, has been to
proclaim and exalt “ what God wondrously gives and works for us,”
disregarding “ what we bring or do for ourselves.” This would have
been a spiritual, not a mechanical interpretation of the movement,
and it might have led him to the conclusion that the essential and
permanent element of Puritanism is not zeal for the “ three notable
tenets,” nor a blind attachment to any system of church order, but
a vivid and intense sense of God’s nearness to the regenerate soul.
The theology of Methodism, like the theology of the Calvinistic
Puritans, begins not with Man, not with the Church, but with God.
Like Calvinism, its basis is theological, not philosophical. It affirms
the freedom of the will; but this is an accident, or holds at most a
merely secondary position. Had Methodism commenced with the
freedom of the will, it is doubtful whether it would have reached its
great doctrines of the new birth, assurance, and sinless perfection.
It began with God; but Wesley was happily free to accept some
other conception of God’s ways to man than that which had been
forced upon Augustine and Calvin. Wesley’s religious life had
received a powerful stimulus from the mysticism of William Law
and of the Moravians. The triumph of Calvinism at the Synod of
Dort, early in the seventeenth century, had proved fatal to its power
over Continental Protestantism, and his intercourse with Continental
Protestants had very much to do with the development of his
theological system. In England itself, Calvinism was sinking
rapidly into decay even among the spiritual descendants of the
Puritans.
It was not the Anglican divines alone who had
contributed to its fall. John Goodwin’s “ Redemption Redeemed ”
had not been written in vain. It had become possible for a
man whose vision of God was as clear and as immediate as that
�554
THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.
of any of the Puritans, to adopt an Arminian theology. But
Wesley’s Arminianism was penetrated and transfigured by the
Puritan spirit. He can never claim enough for God. With him,
as with the Puritans, God is all. He concedes that man has power
to resist Divine grace, but only because the concession is necessary
to explain why it is that the infinite love, of which he has so bright
and rapturous a vision, does not rescue all men from sin and destruc
tion. But when grace has once subdued the stubborn soul to peni
tence and inspired trust—for with Wesley, as with Calvin, it is God
who seeks man, not man who seeks God—its triumphs are illimitable.
Between the soul and God there is at once the most intimate union.
It is made partaker of the Divine nature, and it is not wonderful if
the sudden influx of a supernatural life floods the soul with unutter
able joy. The change is so great, that for its reality to remain doubtful
appeared to Wesley almost impossible. Immediate inspiration is
among the prerogatives of the regenerate, and they receive the
witness of the Spirit that they are the sons of God. All sin may
not be expelled from the soul in the moment of regeneration, but
to deny the possibility of perfect sanctification would be to dis
honour the Holy Ghost. The regenerate man may, even in this
world, be filled with God, and be perfectly restored to the image of
God’s holiness. Methodism takes little account of what man does
for his own redemption. Like Calvinistic Puritanism it has seen
God, and all its hope is in Him.
That the passion of the Puritans for plainness and severe simplicity
in the external forms of worship, and for “ the Geneva discipline,”
had its deepest root in the same spiritual experiences as their
theology, appears to me incontestable. No doubt they were in
tolerant of everything that seemed to them to belong to Romanism.
They dreaded altars because they dreaded the mass. They feared
that priestly vestments might perpetuate the infection of the priestly
spirit. Diocesan bishops might grow into patriarchs and popes.
They fought against what roused their suspicion and their hostility
in the English Church, with the same weapons with which Luther
and Calvin, and the English Reformers, had fought against Rome.
They appealed to the Scriptures. Texts were quoted with uncritical
recklessness ; but on neither side was there any intelligent apprecia
tion of the value and limits of Scriptural precedents or precepts in
a controversy like this. Passages from Leviticus and from the books
of Kings, and the boldest images of the Apocalypse, were tossed
about in astonishing profusion, and with inexhaustible energy.
Whatever came to hand was good enough to fling at an opponent.
Hooker appears to stand almost alone in his manner of conducting
the argument.
But the struggle had a moral and spiritual meaning. It was not
�MR. ARNOLD AND THE NONCONFORMISTS. 555
to be decided by texts. The policy of the Conformists was controlled
by the exigences of their position, by their solicitude to make sure
of the ground which the Reformation had already won, by their
sao-acious estimate of the strong hold which the ancient forms still
retained on the imagination and the sentiment of the great masses
of the people. The spell of the ancient worship and stately organiza
tion of the Church was still unbroken. Their own hearts confessed
its power. The practical task which they had in hand—the task of
maintaining and defending Protestant doctrine, and of subduing
to something like order the religious confusion and irregularities
caused by the violent separation from Rome—was enough for their
strength. They did not wish to provoke unnecessary difficulties,
and they therefore endeavoured to avoid all unnecessary changes in
the ceremonial of the Church and its government. They determined
to accept and retain whatever was not flagrantly inconsistent with
the Protestant faith. The Puritans were men of a different tem
perament. They were disposed to treat very lightly the suggestions
of expediency and the common infirmities of human nature. For
them, what they believed to be the divine voice had absolute
authority, and in the organization of the Church, it was their great
endeavour “ to make reason and the will of God prevail.” Conces
sions to unreasoning superstition they could not tolerate ; and they
believed that mere human inventions had no place in a divine
kingdom. The Church was the very palace and temple of God ; He
had founded it; He dwelt in it; it was treason to Him to allow any
authority but His to determine the most insignificant details of its
polity or worship. In the Church, the Puritan wanted to stand face
to face with God. The instinct which impelled him to acknowledge
God always and everywhere, his abiding conviction that between
the regenerate soul and God nothing should be permitted to inter
fere, made him impatient of rites which appeared to him to corrupt
the simplicity of spiritual worship, and of ecclesiastical authorities
which could claim no direct divine sanction. No doubt he was
blindly prejudiced against the most innocent ceremonies and symbols
which perpetuated the remembrance of the days of darkness. No
doubt he was the victim of the Protestant habit of appealing to the
letter of Scripture for the decision of all controversies. But the
instinct which governed the Puritan movement for a reformation of
discipline and worship, and which revealed itself, after the manner
of the age, in vehement and violent hostility against diocesan
episcopacy, altars, vestments, the use of the ring in marriage, and
the sign of the cross in baptism, painted windows, and other legacies
from the old Romish days, was a real spiritual force; and was
striving, often perhaps very blindly, to translate into a visible
and organic form, a great spiritual “ idea.”
�556
THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.
What this “ idea ” was may be best understood by considering the
Church government and the modes of religious worship of the
Independents, among whom Mr. Arnold would probably admit that
the characteristic spirit of Puritanism has received its most complete
expression.
The Independents believe that a man’s conscious surrender of
himself to Christ is an act of transcendent significance. It is
the critical moment in the history of the soul. It secures the gift of
that supernatural life which the Lord Jesus Christ came to confer
upon the human race, and as soon as this life is received a man
passes into the kingdom of God. His moral habits may be faulty.
His knowledge of spiritual truth may be very elementary. There
may be little fervour or intensity in his spiritual affections. But the
difference between himself and other men is infinite. He has received
the Holy Ghost, and has become partaker of the divine nature.
For the development and perfect realization of this life it is neces
sary, or if not unconditionally necessary, it is something more than
expedient—that there should be free fellowship between himself and
those who have received the same supernatural gift. He and they
have a common life. He is one not only with God but with them.
In the absence of any mechanical bonds of union, and of all external
signs of mutual recognition, and of all acts of common worship, the
union is real and indestructible. But it requires expression, if the
spiritual life is to attain all its possibilities of vigour and joy. God
is hardly less solicitous to restore us to each other than to restore us
to Himself, and He has made the nobler and more gracious forms of
spiritual experience and perfection almost as dependent upon the
influences and gifts which reach us through our brethren as upon
those which come directly from his own hand. Churches exist
by virtue of this law.
The idea of a Church requires that it should be constituted of re
generate men, for the purpose of united worship and free spiritual com
munion. The true condition of membership is not profession of any
human creed, or of any rule of moral discipline, but possession of
supernatural life. When an Independent Church receives a man into
membership it acknowledges, therefore, his regeneration of God. It
has a right to ask him for nothing beyond the evidence which
ascertains the reality of this inward fact; it will imperil the realiza
tion of its “ idea ” if it is content with less. The right of excluding
from the society is inseparable from the right of admitting
into it.
A Church so constituted fulfils, according to the faith of the Inde
pendents, Christ’s conception of an assembly of His disciples gathered
in His name, and may therefore confidently rely on the promise that
�MR. ARNOLD AND THE NONCONFORMISTS.
557
He will be “ in the midst of them.” No recognition or assistance
from without is necessary for the validity of its ecclesiastical acts,
the efficacy of its sacraments, or the acceptableness of its worship. It
is enough that He, the Lord of the Church, is with His disciples, and
that they have received the Holy Ghost. As no society can exist
without officers, and as the supernatural gifts of the Spirit for the
instruction and edification of the Church are conferred on men
according to the divine will, the Church appoints to office those
who appear to be divinely qualified to fulfil the various functions and
ministries necessary to the development of its life. It finds such men
either among its own members or among the members of kindred
societies. That the right qf appointing a man to be its spiritual
teacher should vest in a patron, and be a marketable commodity, that
it should be the privilege of any Minister of State, appears too
monstrous to require discussion. The Church has the special presence
of Christ and the immediate inspiration of the Spirit; the interference
of any external and merely secular power is a violation of its prero
gatives, to be resisted at any peril.
On the same grounds Independency refuses to acknowledge the
authority of diocesan bishops and of Presbyterian synods and general
assemblies. The supernatural qualifications of ministers come direct
from the Holy Ghost, and may be recognised by those in whom the
Holy Ghost dwells. The intervention of Episcopal ordination, or of
synodical authority, as though it were necessary either to confer
ministerial gifts or to secure the Church from mistakes in ministerial
appointments, is rejected as being a direct or implicit denial of the
immediate intercourse between the Church and Christ, and of the
direct action of the Spirit. Independents arc in the habit of inviting
the ministers and members of neighbouring churches to be present at
the ordination of a minister, but their presence is not necessary to
make the ordination valid.
Churches in the same county associate for mutual counsel, and for
co-operation in various good works, but the “Association” has no
ecclesiastical authority. It cannot appoint or remove a minister, or
interfere in the internal discipline of any of the associated Churches.
The Congregational Union of England and Wales is equally power
less. It is an Assembly for the discussion of questions in which
Congregational Churches are interested ; but the utmost care has
been taken to prevent it from becoming a Court of Appeal. The
principle of the Independent polity is the characteristic principle of
Puritanism. Independency is an attempt to give form and expres
sion to a vivid sense of God’s nearness to every regenerate soul.
It is an obvious consequence of this principle that Independents
should repudiate the fancy that buildings erected for Public
�558
THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.
Worship have any peculiar sanctity. The revival during the last
thirty years of a taste for ecclesiastical architecture has affected the
style of their chapels; the old square “meeting-houses” are every
where disappearing; their new “ churches ’’—many of them, at
least — have spires and transepts and chancels and apses and
windows bright with angelsand gorgeous with saints; but it is a mis
take to suppose that there is any meaning in it all. There are some
Independents who find a sentimental gratification in trying to make
the buildings in which they worship as nearly like, as they can, the
venerable churches around which cluster the solemn and pathetic
associations of centuries ; there are some who have an honest love
and admiration for the beauty and grandeur of which Gothic is
capable; there are others who think they show their freedom
from prejudice against the Establishment, and their brotherly kind
ness for Episcopalians, by copying their architecture; there are
others, again, and these, perhaps, are the most numerous, who accept
Gothic because, as yet, architects seem to want either the courage or
the genius to erect a building that would be really suitable for Inde
pendent preaching and worship ; there are none, so far as I know,
who have renounced the old Puritan contempt for the consecration of
stone and mortar.
The hymns which are found in all Nonconformist Hymn Books, and
which are sung at the opening of all Nonconformist Chapels, hymns
in which chapels arc called “ Temples,” and are dedicated to God,
Ilis presence being solemnly invoked, and the building presented as
an offering to Himself, are never meant to be rigidly interpreted.
It is quite understood that the “machinery” of Judaism, of which
the hymn writers are thankful to avail themselves, is obsolete.
The true Independent conviction is as strong as ever, that God’s
presence is promised, not to consecrated places, but to consecrated
persons.
It is often alleged by Independents themselves that there is
nothing in their ecclesiastical principles to prevent them from using
a liturgy, the liturgy of the Church of England, or a liturgy com
posed by themselves, or compiled from the prayers of the saints of
all churches and all ages. This is true in a certain sense. But it
would be a departure from our traditions, and from the spirit of the
movement from which we have sprung. It belongs to the “idea”
of Independency that we arc as near to God to-day as were any of
the saints of former centuries. The Holy Ghost rests upon us
and “ helpeth our infirmities; for we know not what we should
pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession
for us, with groans which cannot be uttered.”
And if it is suggested that there may be a true and deep and
�MR. ARNOLD AND TILE NONCONFORMISTS. 559
inspired yearning for fellowship with God, and for all spiritual
blessings, where the “ gift,” which is necessary for expressing the
devotional life of others, is not conferred, the reply is obvious; the
“ gift ” may not be possessed by the head of every Christian house
hold, and this may be a reason for tolerating the use of a prayer
book in the family. But to admit the possibility of its not being
present in a Church—to despair of its recovery if it has been lost
—is a surrender of the Independent idea of the Church. “ Gifts ”
of teaching and “ gifts ” of prayer and intercession appear to be
necessary to a Church which claims to stand in the immediate
presence of God, and to be filled with the inspiration of the Holy
Ghost. That, as a rule, there will be more to appeal to refined
religious sentiment in a liturgy than in free prayer—that a liturgy is
likely to be more stately and impressive, is no argument to a true
Independent for a change in his mode of worship. When he prays
he- is thinking of God and speaking to God. His desire is to be
absorbed in that high intercourse. He regards with jealousy and
distrust whatever would invest worship with any charm for those
elements of our nature which are not purely spiritual. To care for
what men may think of the form in ■which the soul is expressing
its reverence for the majesty and holiness of God, and imploring
His mercy, appears an indignity to God himself. To try to give
delight to a cultivated taste while he ought to be struggling
for deliverance from sin and eternal destruction, would destroy
the simplicity and energy of the supreme act of the soul. It is no
concern of his whether men who are not as intent as himself upon
glory, honour, and immortality, are charmed or repelled.
I am not vindicating the traditional severity and plainness of the
religious services of the Independents—severity and plainness
which are rapidly disappearing—but trying to explain how it was
that they rejected the noble liturgy which had been enriched by
the penitence, the trust, the sorrow, and the gladness of the saints of
many ages and many lands. They were sure that the Spirit, who
had dwelt in the great doctors and martyrs of the Church, dwelt in
themselves. And if they were unable to confess their sin, invoke the
divine grace, and give thanks for the divine goodness in forms of
devotion which even the unregenerate might admire for their
solemnity and beauty, this was a matter which Puritans and Inde
pendents regarded with perfect indifference.
Those who charge Puritanism with caring more for the “machinery ”
of the religious life than for “ ideas,” misunderstand and misrepre
sent it. It rejected the theology of Home for Calvinism because in
Calvinism it found a truer and fuller expression of its great discovery,
vol. xiv.
p p
�560
THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.
that the strength and glory of man come from the immediate inspira
tion of God. It accepted the Arminianism of John Wesley because
Wesleyan Arminianism is a vindication, under other forms, of the
same vital spiritual truth. It was restless under the restraints of
Episcopacy, and the rites and ceremonies which Episcopacy had
inherited from the Mediaeval Church, because they seemed to inter
fere with the direct access of God to the soul. If it has found its
highest ecclesiastical expression in the polity of the Independents,
and if, disregarding all the suggestions of aestheticism and religious
“ sentiment,” it has created among us what maybe an unreasonable
preference for extreme simplicity and bareness in the circumstances
of public worship, its justification is to be found in this,—that in the
Independent polity there is less of mere “ machinery ” than in any
other form of church government—the Church stands almost un
clothed in the presence of God,—and in its services the soul is left to
the solitary aid of the Spirit, and is unsustained in its acts of prayer,
of thanksgiving, and of adoration by the resources of Art, or by the
more legitimate stimulus which it might derive from the devotion
and genius of the saints of other generations.
To investigate the validity of Mr. Arnold’s statement, that the
Puritans were guilty of attempting to narrow the doctrinal freedom
of the English Church, an attempt which the Church in the spirit of
charity resisted, would require more space than I can command in
this paper. “ Everybody knows,” he says, “how far Nonconformity
is due to the Church of England’s rigour in imposing an explicit de
claration of adherence to hei’ formularies. But only a few who have
searched out the matter know how far Nonconformity is due also to
the Church of England’s invincible reluctance to narrow her large
and loose formularies to the strict Calvinistic sense dear to Puritanism.”
That the Puritans were very zealous for Calvinistic doctrine is
admitted. That they were very likely to desire that these doctrines
should be maintained and defended by all those instruments of secular
and ecclesiastical authority in which the members of an Episcopal
and Established Church were, once at least, in danger of placing a
blind reliance, may be admitted too. But some stronger proof of
Mr. Arnold’s charge is necessary than that which is contained in his
essay.
“From the very commencement the Church, as regards doctrine,
was for opening; Puritanism was for narrowing.” This is the
charge. How is it sustained ?
We are reminded that though the Lambeth Articles of 1595
exhibit Calvinism as potent in the Church of England itself, and
among the bishops of the Church, Calvinism could not establish
itself there. The Lambeth Articles were recalled and suppressed,
�AIR. ARNOLD AND THE NONCONFORMISTS. 561
and Archbishop Whitgift was threatened with the penalties of a
prwmunire for having published them. These Articles consisted of
nine propositions :—
(1) . God hath from eternity predestinated certain persons to life, and
hath reprobated certain persons unto death.
(2) . The moving or efficient cause of predestination unto life is not the
foresight of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of anything that
is in the persons predestinated, but the alone will of God’s good pleasure.
(3) . The predestinate are a pre-determined and certain number, which
can neither be lessened nor increased.
(4) . Such as are not predestinated to salvation shall inevitably be con
demned on account of their sins.
(5) . The true, lively, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying,
is not extinguished, doth not utterly fail, doth not vanish away in the elect,
either finally or totally.
(6) . A true believer, that is, one endued with justifying faith, is certified,
by the full assurance of faith, that his sins are forgiven, and that he shall be
everlastingly saved by Christ.
(7) . Saving grace is not allowed, is not imparted, is not granted to all
men, by which they may be saved if they will.
(8) . No man is able to come to Christ unless it be given him, and unless
the Father draw him, and all men are not drawn by the Father that they
may come to His Son.
(9) . It is not in the will and power of every man to be saved.
But are the Puritans to be held responsible for this terrible
Calvinistic manifesto ? Was it the production of a knot of sour
and rigid fanatics, who, although they may accidentally have
found a refuge in the Church—for which, from the commencement of
its history, Mr. Arnold has claimed the credit of generous doctrinal
toleration—had no sympathy with her large and catholic spirit ?
The Lambeth Articles were drawn up by a Conference at Lambeth,
assembled by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and consisting of the
Bishop of London, the Bishop of Bangor, Tindal, the Dean of Ely,
Dr. Whitaker, the Queen’s Divinity Professor, and other learned
men from Cambridge. They were framed in opposition to the
teaching of William Barrett, a Fellow of Caius College, who had
preached against predestination, and who appears to have been
forced to make a public recantation.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Whitgift, as is well known, hated
Puritanism, and did his best to extirpate it. His severity inspired
Lord Burleigh with indignation. The “ oath ex officio,” which was
tendered by the Archbishop to such of the clergy as were suspected
of Puritanical tendencies, was described by the treasurer as “ so
curiously penned, so full of branches and circumstances, as he
thought the inquisitors of Spain used not so many questions to
comprehend and to trap their preys.” And yet Mr. Arnold pro
duces a series of doctrinal Articles drawn, up by Whitgift as proof
pp2
�562
THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.
that “ from the very commencement, as regards doctrine, the
Church was for opening, Puritanism was for narrowing.”
It is true that at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, when
Armimanism was beginning to find its way into the Church of
England, the Puritans proposed that the Lambeth Articles might
be inserted in the Book of Articles, and that the bishops resisted.
But if any value is to be at'ached to the imperfect reports which we
have of that Conference, the whole pressure of the Puritan demand
was for relaxation in the stringency of regulations touching rites
and ceremonies. The suggestion that the Thirty-nine Articles
should be “ explained in places obscure, and enlarged where some
things are defective and that “ the nine assertions orthodoxal . .
concluded upon at Lambeth ” should be added to them, appears to
have been made only to be dropped. However this may have been,
the worst that can be said about the Puritan demands at the Hamp
ton Court Conference is that the Puritans were guilty of forgetting
their old grudge against Whitgift, and of accepting the scheme of
their inveterate enemy for narrowing the doctrine of the Church.
The complaints of the Committee appointed by the House of Lords
in 1G41 amount to little more than this, that the Calvinistic doctrines
which the Articles of the Church were plainly intended to maintain
were being preached against by many of the clergy. Opinions were
held by Laud and his party which Whitgift would have punished
with the utmost severity. In condemning them the Puritan Com
mittee showed no greater zeal for “ the two cardinal doctrines of
predestination and justification by faith” than their enemies had
shown before them. The alterations in the Prayer-Book which the
Committee suggested would not have made the formularies more
Calvinistic, but only less Romish.*
* Cardwell gives the following summary of the changes which the Committee pro
posed, p. 240: —
“They advised that the Psalms, sentences, epistles, and Gospels should be printed
according to the new translation ; that fewer lessons should be taken from the Apocry
pha ; that the words ‘ with my body I thee worship,’ should be made more intelligible ;
that the immersion of the infant at the time of baptism should not be required in case
of extremity ; that some saints which they called legendaries should be excluded from
the calendar; that the ‘ Benedicite ’ should be omitted; that the words ‘ which only
workest great marvels,’ should be omitted; that ‘ deadly sins,’ as used in the Litany,
should be altered to ‘grievous sins;’ that the words ‘ sanctify the flood Jordan,’and
‘ in sure and certain hope of resurrection,' in the two forms of baptism and burial,
should be altered to, ‘ sanctify the element of water,’ and ‘ knowing assuredly that the
dead shall rise again.’ To these and other changes of a like nature they added the
following more difficult concessions :—‘ That the rubric with regard to vestments should
be altered; that a rubric be added to explain that the kneeling at the communion was
solely in reference to the prayer contained in the words, ‘ preserve thy body and soul: ’
that the cross in baptism should be explained or discontinued ; that the words in the form
of confirmation, declaring that infants baptized are undoubtedly saved, should be omitted ;
and that the form of absolution provided for the sick should be made declaratory instead
�MR. ARNOLD AND THE NONCONFORMISTS. 563
Mr. Arnold thinks, of course, that the Church has much to blame
herself for in the Act of Uniformity. “ Blame she deserves, and she
has had it plentifully ; but what has not been enough perceived is,
that really the conviction of her own moderation, openness, and lati
tude, as far as regards doctrine, seems to have filled her mind during
her dealings with the Puritans, and that her impatience with them
was in great measure impatience at seeing these so ill appreciated
by them.” His account of the Savoy Conference in 16G1 leaves the
impression on one’s mind that in his belief the Puritans left the
Church, not merely because other men insisted that they should use
formularies which they could not use honestly, but also because they
did not succeed in so narrowing the formularies that other men,
with an equal right to be in the Church with themselves, would be
unable to use them honestly ; that the struggle of Baxter and his
party was, therefore, not merely to obtain freedom for themselves, but
also to impose bondage on others. To sustain this original representa
tion of the transactions immediately preceding the ejectment, no better
proof is given than that the Puritans complained that “ the confes
sion is very defective, not clearly expressing original sin.” This is
surely very inadequate ground on which to rest so grave a charge.
The doctrine or the fact which the Puritans desired to recognise in
the confession may be true or false, but it was not the characteristic
tenet of a party. None of their enemies, so far as I know, denied
it; it was expressed in the Articles with all the vigour and decisive
ness which they could desire; and no man who signed the articles
could have objected on doctrinal grounds to Baxter’s proposal to
insert it in the confession. The real nature of the proposal would
have been explained had Mr. Arnold given the whole of the para
graph from the “ Exceptions against the Book of Common Prayer,”
in which it occurs, which reads thus, “ The confession is very defec
tive, not clearly expressing original sin, nor sufficiently enumerating
actual sins, with their aggravations, but consisting only of generals ;
whereas confession, being the exercise of repentance, ought to be more
particularT The same ground of exception is taken in a subsequent
paragraph against “ the whole body of the Common Prayer.” The
Puritans contended that “ it consisteth very much of mere generals,
as ‘ to have our prayers heard, to be kept from all evil, and from all
enemies, and all adversity, that we might do God’s will,’ without any
mention of the particulars in which these generals exist.”
of being authoritative.’ These concessions, surrendering by implication some of the
most solemn convictions of a great portion of the clergy, on the authority of the Church,
the nature of the two sacraments, and the sanctity of the priesthood, would meet with
the most strenuous opposition, and tend to increase the causes of discontent, instead of
abating them.”
�5^4
THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.
Towards the end of the Conference, Bishop Cosins offered a paper
drawn up by “ some considerable person,” and intended to lead to a
reconciliation. In their answer to the proposals contained in this
Eirenicon, Baxter and his friends made this statement:—“ Though
we find by your papers and conferences that in your own personal
doctrines there is something that we take to be against the Word of
God, and perceive that we understand not the doctrine of the Church
in all things alike; yet we find nothing contrary to the Word of
God in that which is indeed the doctrine of the Church, as it comprehendeth the matters of faith, distinct from matters of discipline,
ceremonies, and modes of worship.” From this it appears that to
the doctrine of the Church the Puritans made no objection. It is
remarkable that in many of the trust-deeds of early Presbyterian
chapels it is provided that the doctrine preached in them should be
in harmony with the doctrinal Articles of the Church of England ;
and in the “Heads of Agreement,” drawn up in 1691, as the basis
of a union between the Presbyterians and Independents, it is declared
to be sufficient if a Church acknowledges the divine origin of the
Scriptures, and accepts the doctrinal part of the Articles, or the
Westminster or Savoy Confessions.
It is possible that those “ who have searched out the matter ” may
be able to allege more substantial evidence of the contrast between
the catholic moderation of the Church and the narrowness of
Puritanism than Mr. Arnold has thought it worth while to adduce ;
but to persons like myself, who have not made it their special business
to study the unfamiliar aspects of the Puritan controversy, Mr. Arnold’s
discovery appears to be very inconsistent with facts. Neither Puritans
nor Conformists—this has been the general impression—could claim
much credit for their generous treatment of theological adversaries.
There may seem to be better ground for Mr. Arnold’s allegation
that the free development of religious thought is possible only in a
National Establishment, and that separatist Churches are by their
very position rigidly bound to the theological system and formularies
of their founders.
But it should never be forgotten that the Independents have from
the first protested against the imposition of creeds and articles of
faith, and that one of the very earliest and noblest of them declared,
in words which are familiar to all English Congregationalists, the
inalienable right and duty of the Church of every age to listen for
itself to the Divine teaching. John Robinson, preaching in 1620 to
the Independents who were about to leave Delft Ilavcn to found the
Puritan colonies of New England, “charged us,” writes Winslow,
“ to follow him no farther than he followed Christ; and if God
should reveal anything to us by any other instrument of His, to be
�J77?. ARNOLD AND THE NONCONFORMISTS. 565
as ready to receive it as ever we were to receive any truth by his
ministry: for he was very confident that the Lord had more truth and
tight yet to break forth out of His holy Word............. Here also he put
us in mind of our Church covenant, at least that part of it whereby
we promise and covenant with God and one with another to receive
whatsoever light or truth shall be made known to us from His written
Word; but, withal, exhorted us to take heed what we received for
truth, and well to examine and compare it and weigh it with other
scriptures of truth before we received it. For, saith he, it is not
possible the Christian world should come so lately out of such thick
anti-Christian darkness, and that full perfection of knowledge should
break forth at once.” John Robinson was not alone in his assertion
of the principle of “ development,” and his repudiation of all human
authority that might thrust itself between the soul and the Fountain
of all Truth. In 1658 the ministers and delegates of the Independent
Churches met at the Savoy, and drew up the well-known Savoy
“Declaration of the Faith and Order owned and practised in the
Congregational Churches in England.” In the preface they say,
“Such a transaction” [as a confession of faith] “is to be looked upon
but as a meet or fit medium or means whereby to express their
(common faith and salvation,’ and no way to be made use of as
an imposition upon any. Whatever is of force or constraint in
matters of this nature of confessions causeth them to degenerate from
the name and nature, and turns them, from being confessions of faith,
into exactions and impositions of faith.” Mr. Thomas S. James, in
his curious and learned “ History of the Litigation and Legislation
respecting Presbyterian Chapels and Charities,” makes the following
pertinent comment on this passage :—
“ They declare that they published and recorded in the face of Christen
dom, ‘ the faith and order which they owned and practised ’ for the infor
mation of their fellow Christians, and not for any practical use for
themselves. That such a document was necessary to defend them from
the attacks of the enemies of their religious and political opinions may be
learnt from the calumnies against them noticed by Mosheim and Rapin. If
they had followed the example of all other bodies they would have legislated
for their infant Churches under the notion of giving definiteness and per
manence to their opinions, but they trusted their Churches, and the truths
they held, to the blessing and protection of God, being satisfied that they
were according to His will, and they disregarded the devices and safeguards
which human affection and foresight could supply. It should be remem
bered that the declaration copied above is to be found in a synopsis of
Calvinistic doctrine, published in the middle of the seventeenth century, by
men on the one hand supported by the party then in power, and on the
other fully convinced that the belief of great part of what they stated
was necessary to salvation, and that no part of it could even be doubted
without peril to the soul. The non-use of creeds by such men is a very
different matter from the rejection of them by persons who hold that there
�566
THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.
are no essential and fundamental doctrines of Christianity. With the latter
it is a matter of course ; with the former it is a proof of the highest wisdom.”
It is also a singular fact that, so far as published accounts go, the
trust-deeds of the Independent chapels founded during the twenty
years following the Toleration Act—a period within which the
Independents were of course very active in chapel-building—did not
contain any provisions as to the doctrines to be preached in them.
Mr. James thinks that this shows that the Independents “trusted to
the rule of law, that the simplest form of trust for the benefit of a
particular denomination is tantamount to a detailed statement of the
principles and practices by which it is characterized.” I agree with
him that the absence of doctrinal provision from the trust-deeds does
not prove that the Independents of those times regarded definite
theological doctrine with indifference ; this is contradicted by their
whole history. But is not the true explanation to be found in their
traditional hostility to the authoritative imposition of human creeds?
I believe that they held, with John Robinson, that “ the Lord had
more truth and light yet to break forth out of Ilis holy Word.”
It was in this spirit that the men who seceded in the middle of
the last century from the Presbyterian congregation in Birmingham
on the election of an Arian minister, and founded the Independent
Church which still worships in Carr’s Lane, made no attempt to secure
the orthodoxy of their successors by inserting any doctrinal safe
guards in the trust-deed of their new “ meeting-house.” For the
maintenance of what they believed to be the truth of the Gospel,
the instincts and traditions of the Independents have led them to
rely not on parchments and courts of equity, but on the promise of
Christ that the Spirit of Truth should abide in the Church for ever.
The practice which has grown up among us, and become almost
universal within the last sixty or seventy years, of appending a doc
trinal schedule to the deeds of our chapels, is a departure from the
habits of our fathers. It should, however, be understood that this
schedule, except in cases in which the deeds have been drawn up by
solicitors absolutely ignorant of our principles and usages, never
touches the “ Church ” directly; it simply provides that the trustees
are not to permit the building to be used for the propagation’ of
doctrines contrary to those determined by the trust. The provision
is defended on the principle that people who contribute money to
create a property have a right to control to the end of time the pur
poses to which it shall be devoted. The principle is as bad as any
principle can be ; and the particular application of the principle is a
violation of the fundamental idea of Independent- No true Inde
pendent will desire to impose any pecuniary penalties on a Church
for the defence of his own conception of Christian doctrine. That
�MR. ARNOLD AND THE NONCONFORMISTS. 567
doctrinal trust-deeds should have been adopted by Independent
Churches is a proof, I think, that Independency has lost something
of the ardour of its “ first love ” for perfect religious freedom.
But doctrinal trust-deeds are not of the essence of Independency
They are hardly less contrary to its spirit than authoritative con
fessions and creeds. Our principles and traditions require us to
leave the theological development of our Churches unrestrained by
any human tests, formularies, or articles of faith ; and practically
that development is absolutely free.
Can equal freedom be claimed for the religious thought of the
English Church ? Its Articles it might dispense with. I am not
sure that their authority has not already disappeared under the
influence of what I think is described in law books as the law of
obsolescence. But every religious community must have some bond
of union, and in the Establishment this bond is the enforced use of
the services of the Book of Common Prayer—services which have
great merits, but which perpetuate the theological conceptions of
centuries which have vanished away. Every fresh movement of
thought in the English Church has to accommodate itself, as best it
can, to the formularies. The new wine must be put into the old
bottles. The new doctrine must express itself in the old techni
calities. The first task of every man who believes that God has
revealed to him any truth which has not already vindicated for itself
a secure position in the Establishment, is to show how it can be
made to agree with the Services ; or, if he finds this difficult, he
takes refuge in the Articles. Dr. Newman has to write Tract
Ninety, and Dean Goode his treatise on Baptism. The sensitive
spirit of Rowland Williams was stung to the quick, not so much
because men thought that his free criticism of Holy Scripture was
illegitimate in itself, as because they charged him with a dishonest
violation of the obligations of subscription.
What real “ development ” of theological thought has there been
in the Establishment since its separation from Rome ? There has
been a succession of theological movements, but they have never
found their highest expression in the English Church itself.
Calvinism was triumphant for two generations ; but in the Church
its growth was repressed, and it had to leave the Church to reveal
its true spiritual genius, and to obtain a visible embodiment of its
essential principle. The High Church movement in the reign of
Charles I. was brought to a premature end by the Puritan revolt
against the bishops and the throne ; but it reappeared in 1833, and
for a time seemed likely to take complete possession of the Church.
What was its fate ? It had no room for growth in the Establish
ment. It found itself “cribb’d, cabin’d, and confin’d” by the
�568
THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.
Articles, and by what it regarded as the poverty of the Services.
To breathe free air, the true chiefs of the Anglo-Catholic party,
those in whom the spirit of the movement was strongest, went over
to Rome. Methodism was born in the English Church, but it hardly
began to feel its limbs before it discovered that they were fettered ;
and for the “development” of Methodism, the Methodists had to
become Nonconformists. Will Mr. Arnold explain this paradox ?
The Church, he alleges, is eminently favourable to the free develop
ment of theological thought and religious life, and yet every fresh
growth, whether of thought or life, appears to want air and sunlight
and soil and room to expand, so long as it remains in the Church;
and just when it promises to flower, it either dies off, or has to be
transplanted.
lie may say that the very function of the Church is to regulate
the excesses of religious movements, and by its moderation to dis
cipline their strength to practical religious uses. But this is to
remove the whole question to another ground—a ground on which
a Nonconformist need not fear to continue the discussion. If, how
ever, the plea is to be maintained that in the English National
Church the principle of development has fairer play than among the
Nonconformists, it requires explanation how that principle is recog
nised in a system which refuses to grant to any new religious forces
freedom to create an organization and a ritual in which they might
reveal the fulness of their strength. For perfect development every
living “ seed ” must have “ its own body.” This condition of growth
the English Church refuses to- any new ideas or impulses which may
struggle to assert themselves within the limits of its communion.
It cannot be said that there has been in the English Church a con
tinuous unfolding of any great theological and spiritual ideas. Not
a single movement of religious thought has had time to work itself
fairly out. No sooner has any spiritual impulse begun to make itself
felt than there has been a reaction against it. The history of the
Church has not been a history of development, but of revolutions.
It has not been so with Nonconformity. Whatever life there has
been in the Churches outside the Establishment has had freedom to
grow. For good or for evil, the intellectual tendencies and spiritual
forces which have revealed themselves among us have been able to
assert themselves without restraint. Within a few years- after the
ejectment, “the irresistible breath of the Zcit-Geist” began to make
itself felt in a very large number of the Presbyterian Churches in
England, and under the disastrous guidance of the unspiritual
philosophy of Locke, they made a rapid descent, first into Arianism,
and then into Socinianism. The Independents, for the most part,
continued faithful to Calvinism; but since among them Calvinism
was not a mere system of dogmas, but the expression of a vital faith,
�MR. ARNOLD AND THE NONCONFORMISTS. 569
it gradually alleviated the severity of its doctrinal definitions, and,
without losing its characteristic life, embodied itself in new intel
lectual forms. The transformation was assisted by the writings of
theologians who are almost unknown to the divines of the Established
Church, but who exerted in their day a very powerful influence on
the thought of the Nonconformists. Pre-eminent among them are
Andrew Fuller and Dr. Edward Williams. Within the present
century it has gone on still more rapidly, and received a powerful
impulse from the controversies which thirty or forty years ago divided
the Presbyterians of the United States. Methodism developed a new
type of Arminianism, and created for itself a new ecclesiastical
organization—admirable, notwithstanding all its imperfections, for
the union of extraordinary elasticity with the solidity and strength
derived from an almost imperial centralization of authority—a system
equally effective for defence and for aggression.
The modern Nonconformist “idea”—I venture to call it so with
all deference to Mr. Arnold—touching the true relations between
the Church and the State, is not an after-thought suggested to us by
the necessity of discovering some new ground for our ecclesiastical
position, now that what he supposes to have been the old ground is
melting away under our feet. Nor docs our proposal to disestablish
the English Church originate, as he seems to think, in any feeling
of discomfort, like that of the fox who had lost his own tail, and who
proposed to put all the other; foxes in the same boat, bv a general
cutting off of tails. Our conviction that there should be a clear sepa
ration between the organization of the State and the organization of
the Church, and that the separation would make the Church less
worldly and the State more Christian, is a genuine spiritual
“ development.” It is one of the growths of our freedom. Men
must be virtuous before they create theories of virtue. Science
had already begun to work on the inductive method before Bacon
could write the “Novum Organum.”
The early Nonconformists
believed in religious establishments. Had we remained in the
Church, we might have continued to believe in them too ; and the
“ idea of ecclesiastical freedom which has now taken possession of
Nonconformity might never have been revealed to us. Many
Churchmen are beginning to receive it; but we think that this is
partly owing to the illustration it has had in our own history—an
illustration which, though necessarily incomplete, and on a very
inconsiderable scale, has contributed something to the wealth of
the common thought of Christendom. For two centuries our
Churches have been free from the control of politicians; we have
not been dependent on the will of Parliament for any modifications
we have desired in the form of our worship and in our ecclesiastical
polity ; we have had to rely for the support of our religious institu-
�5/0
THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.
tions on the unforced contributions of those who love Christ and
desire the salvation of men ; and we have come to learn that there
is a strength and blessedness in liberty of which our fathers never
dreamed.
The more entertaining passages in Mr. Arnold’s recent animad
versions on us, which I had marked for notice, must be dismissed
with a word. The two main types of Nonconformist provincialism
of which he speaks—the “ bitter type ” and the “ smug type ”—are
they quite unknown among those adherents of the English Church
who belong to the same social rank as ourselves ? I quite admit that
what Joubert says of the Romish services—“ Les cérémonies du
Catholicisme plient à la politesse,” an aphorism verified in the manners
of the common people of all Catholic countries—is true in a measure
of the ritual of the English Church ; but is not something of the
alleged difference between ourselves and Churchmen due to the fact
that Nonconformity is strongest among the rough and vigorous
people of the great towns who live together in masses, and whose
social habits are not controlled by intercourse with those who inherit
the traditions of many generations of culture ? And if in villages
and small towns there is something more of self-assertion and hard
ness in the Dissenter than in the Churchman, is not this also partly
due to the long exclusion of Dissenters from all free intercourse with
the “ gentry,” who have had the advantage of a university education,
of foreign travel, and of the refining influence of the recreations and
intellectual pursuits which are at the command of leisure and wealth?
That “ watchful jealousy ” of the Establishment with which he
reproaches us—whose fault is it ? When farmers are refused a
renewal of their leases because they are Nonconformists, when the
day-school is closed against a child on Monday because it was at the
Methodist Sunday-school the day before, when in the settlement of
great properties it is provided that no site shall be sold or let for a
Dissenting chapel, and that if a tenant permits his premises to be
used for a Dissenting service his lease shall be void, can Mr. Arnold
wonder that we are “ watchful ? ” Does he think that the uniform
conduct of the clergy has been calculated to encourage an unsuspect
ing confidence in their fairness and generosity ? Have we not had
reasons enough for maintaining a “ watchful jealousy ” against the
growth of their power ? If sometimes we speak roughly and harshly,
and bear ourselves ungraciously, does all the blame lie with us ? It
might be more creditable to ourselves and more agreeable to others
if we could always “ writhe with grace and groan with melody ; ” but
our critics should remember the infirmity of human nature.
Nor does it seem to us quite true, as Mr. Arnold seems to imply,
that all “ strife, jealousy, and self-assertion ” come from breaking
with the Church. The literature of the controversies which have
�MR. ARNOLD AND THE NONCONFORMISTS. 571
disturbed the Church itself as long as we have known it, does not
appear to us to be more distinguished for “ mildness and sweet reason
ableness ” than the pamphlets of the Liberation Society. Prosecutions
for heresy and for the introduction of unauthorized innovations into
the service of the Church, do not confirm Mr. Arnold’s theory that
if we had only remained in the Establishment, the religious peace of the
country might never have been disturbed. In the Record and in the
Church Times, Aie evangelical asserts his “ ordinary self,” and the
ritualist asserts his “ ordinary self,” with quite as much vigour as
the Dissenting Philistine displays in the Nonconformist or the English
Independent.
Mr. Arnold-thinks that it is a special failing of the mind of a
Dissenter that it is “pleased at hearing no opinion but its own,
by having all disputed opinions taken for granted in its own
favour, by being urged to no return upon itself, no develop
ment.” But surely this is a vice of nature for which the Esta
blishment has discovered no specific. The evangelical Church
man drives by the Church of the ritualist on Sunday morning and
travels four or five miles to hear a clergyman appointed by Simeon’s
trustees, and the ritualist trudges into a neighbouring parish to
delight himself in the “People’s Hymnal,” in vestments, and in
a fervent, passionate sermon on Penance, thinking with bitter con
tempt of the Protestant baldness of the service and the Protestant
coldness of the sermon in the Church which stands within a stone’s
throw from his own door.
Mr. Arnold’s representations of us are too much like the engravings
in some of the cheap illustrated papers. The blocks are kept ready for
all emergencies. A few slight touches will make them available for
a railway accident in France or a similar catastrophe in America, for
a yacht race at New York or at the Isle of Wight, for the “ Derby ”
or for the “ Grand Prix ” at Paris. lie has not given us descrip
tions of the characteristic vices of Nonconformity,—perhaps I could
assist him with a few confidential hints about these if ho wishes to
try his hand at work of this kind again,—he has only amused us
with a collection of clever but unfinished sketches of faults and follies
common to men of all churches and all creeds.
Let us part good friends. Mr. Arnold bears a name which Non
conformists regard with affection and veneration. From his own
writings we have received intellectual stimulus and delight, for which
we are grateful to him. Nor is this all. Every man wTho is striving
to know at first hand the truth which most concerns the higher life
of the soul is the friend and ally of all who, with whatever resources
and whatever success, are attempting the same great task. We can
but bid each other God-speed.
R. W. Dale.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Mr. Matthew Arnold and the nonconformists
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Dale, Robert William [1827-1895]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: [540]-571 p. ; 26 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From Contemporary Review 14, July 1870.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1870]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5403
Subject
The topic of the resource
Nonconformism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Mr. Matthew Arnold and the nonconformists), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Matthew Arnold
Nonconformism
Nonconformist Churches
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4ff0e60aa3ed06141f0b1963d6ee71ea.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=plFUYmpnkP--JMjlgm5ILoQq9BOX1nSfkgGg2fbIySTPx%7EqTgdws6NRl0brpvjUuD6TXbFbQBrvoNnYop7Py0D6xsDLOBAu2AYtZSYR1qs9JnGUPknJgBnsTOiTOPru-QDODz4KFWLf1tWllE0b6e8QKTQYoQlBePYC1fttIwjQhIegWjxlRBAnI3NTVNA3jwhv7se04CwyWNwK1KWAff7tLEk13npuVZ1AR-e3hSSc4%7EFoM6rcMx22gP9dFcJ0MmeKl%7EYiNqg-r-hPyzChC3muVAxwjmraRojN6x4efL7Zr-XXnukP%7Eo%7EvZs9ZCc60zvBn8tXHGc1UDQZse%7Et1hnA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0fdcce0891f3525bb3f522965cc95358
PDF Text
Text
cm
RECOLLECTIONS
OF
DAWSON
GEORGE
AND
HIS LECTURES IN MANCHESTER
in
1846-7.
BY
ALEXANDER IRELAND.
mgPRINTED, WITH ADDITIONS, FROM THE “ M.
��RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON
AND
HIS LECTURES IN MANCHESTER IN 1846-7.
BY ALEXANDER IRELAND.
AVING been requested by Mrs. Dawson, not long
after her husband’s death in 1876, to contribute
some recollections of him, in his earlier years, to a memoir
then about to be undertaken by his intimate friend, Mr.
Timmins, I willingly put together the following pages.
For many years I had the privilege of knowing him in
timately, and of being thrown into the closest relations with
him; so that a warm friendship resulted,—a friendship which
remained unbroken for thirty years, and was only severed
by his untimely death. The memoir has not yet appeared,
having been delayed by unforeseen circumstances ; but it is
now, I am told, in a forward state for publication. I have lately
had an opportunity of revising and considerably extending
what I wrote in 1877, and of adding a few sentences which
I would have hesitated to print while Mrs. Dawson was
living. From this reticence I am absolved by her death,
which took place about two years after that of her husband.
She left, with those who knew her, rich remembrances of a
tender and gentle, yet firm spirit; of warm sympathies, and
H
�4
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
the performance of active and never-ceasing charities. In
her a nobility of nature was joined with high intellectual
gifts, which made her conspicuous amongst women, and
attracted towards her the admiration and regard of the best
persons who came within the sphere of her influence.
In the last week of 1845, while on a Christmas visit to rela
tions in Birmingham, I went to hear George Dawson preach
in a dissenting chapel, of which he was then the minister.
I now remember little of the subject of his discourse, but
I was struck by the simple earnestness of his manner, and
the directness with which he went straight to the heart
of the subject he had in hand. But what surprised me
most was the quaint, vigorous, and singularly appropriate
language in which he conveyed his thoughts to his hearers.
It was Saxon, terse and sinewy; and there was a fluency
and ease and perfect self-possession in his delivery which
surpassed anything I had ever met with before. He
had no notes or memoranda before him, and throughout his
whole discourse there was not a word which was not in its
right place. The attention of his audience was riveted
from beginning to end, and what he said evidently produced
a powerful effect on their minds. After the service, I was
introduced to him, and invited to spend a few hours in his
company, in the house of a common friend. Having heard
that he had been delivering lectures on social, historical,
and literary topics in Birmingham and some of the neigh
bouring towns, I asked him if he would accept an invitation
to lecture to the members of the Manchester Athenaeum, if
I should be able to offer him one; and to this he assented.
I was then one of the Directors of that Institution, and at
the next meeting of the Board I proposed that he should be
engaged to deliver a course of lectures. This was agreed
to, and the selection of the subject, and the other necessary
arrangements, were left in my hands. He then came to
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
5
Manchester to confer with me on the subject to be lectured
upon. Many topics were discussed—literary, social, political,
and historical—and at last it was decided that “ The Genius
and Writings of Thomas Carlyle” would be the most fitting
topic for the proposed course.
The first lecture was delivered on Tuesday evening, 13th
January, 1846, and was mainly of an introductory character.
It was listened to throughout with rapt attention. His
thorough appreciation of the spirit, and keen insight into the
tendencies and bearings of Carlyle’s philosophy, his remark
able power of summing up its cardinal features, and of
applying it to the practical purposes of life, made him
just such an interpreter as the apostle of “ The Gospel
of Work ” himself might have desired. It abounded with
homely illustrations and frequent appeals to common
sense; and these were combined with a most effective
elocution, and a singular raciness of language. Absence
of affectation, and a directness and simplicity of manner
pervaded the discourse. It was altogether one of the
most interesting extemporaneous addresses I ever heard—
not so much for its eloquence, though replete with that
quality, of a glowing yet subdued character ; nor for
its illustrations and imagery, which were numerous, varied,
and striking ; but for its deep thought, wide and compre
hensive views, and earnest sincerity, its elevated tone and
disregard of petty conventionalities, its noble estimate of
man’s nature and worth, and solemn regard for the great
verities of life. His fearless outspokenness, even when his
auditors could not wholly assent to his propositions (often
startling enough), gave a freshness and charm to his address
not often enjoyed in a lecture-room. And this was greatly
increased by the vigorous seventeenth-century diction that
flowed with such marvellous ease from his lips. It was not a
mere lecture on Carlyle—a reading of selected passages with
�6
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
comments thereon, but an embodiment of his spirit in a
simpler form, and the application of his sentiments to the ele
ments of our daily experience. It was a comprehensive sur
vey of the spirit of the eighteenth century, and of that which
dawned on the nineteenth; and comprised a vigorous exami
nation of the faults and merits of the literature and morality
of the period ; as well as an inquiry into the circumstances
and the men that have effected a change in that spirit. He
boldly swept away much of the meaningless talk about
Carlyle’s style; and glanced at what he had done to make
us acquainted with the greatest minds of Germany. In the
course of his lecture, many prevailing fallacies, prejudices,
and weaknesses were commented on and exposed with
unsparing keenness—many popular idols dethroned. The
key-note throughout was of the highest.
His second lecture embraced an analysis of Sartor
Resartns—that inimitable “mosaic” of meditations, tender
recollections and confessions, passionate invectives, and
romantic episodes—every page stamped with genius of the
highest order, and from which has flowed all that its author
afterwards wrote on life, duty, society, growth, work, culture,
and the great and inscrutable problem of Being. The work
must be regarded as an exposition of Carlyle’s philosophy, a
grand prose-poem, a veiled autobiographical account of the
changes of thought and opinion through which he had
passed—changes through which every thoughtful man must
pass on his way to settled convictions on the great questions
of Life, Duty, and God.
The third lecture was devoted to Heroes and Hero Worship,
Chartism, and Past and Present. With regard to the first
of these productions, he said its chief object was to show
that all long-lived systems of religion and philosophy must
possess some portion of truth; that shams never live
long; and that truth-speaking and truth-acting are ever
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
1
accompanied by a certain kingly energy, as in the case
of Mahomet and Cromwell; the latter of whom, after
being gibbeted for two centuries, was now beginning to
be appreciated. The great aim of Chartism -was, to bring
prominently forward a subject which had been drowned
amid the war-voices of party—“ The condition of England
question.” It reproved the miserable policy of those Govern
ments, which treat rebellion as the disease, instead of the
symptom. Another feature of the book was its doctrine that,
in all struggles for progress, the reformer should rather seek to
create or diffuse the spirit, than busy himself with construct
ing the precise form in which it should be embodied. In
his remarks on Past and Present he adverted to the vivid
artist-power with which Carlyle had thrown light and life
into a musty old chronicle,—not by any added figments of
fancy, but by a strict induction from the recorded facts;
just as Cuvier, from the last bone or joint of a bone, would
reconstruct the type of an antediluvian species.
The fourth and last lecture was devoted to The French
Revolution and Cromwell's Life and Letters. Speaking of
the style of the former, he said that cavillers must surely
in this case be silent; for never certainly was style better
adopted to a subject than this. It was not unbefitting that
the language in which a revolution was recorded should itself
be almost revolutionary. It was of little use to read this
marvellously-vivid book, if the historical facts were not pre
viously known to the reader. He denounced as senti
mental twaddle the perpetual harping upon the darker
features of the struggle. Legitimists should remember
that in the reign of our Henry VIII. there was more
martyr-blood shed than during the whole French Revolution.
The Revolution was an inevitable national and natural pro
test against a corrupt and mechanical Church, and a sensual
and insolent aristocracy, which for centuries had oppressed
�8
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
the people. An infidel philosophy could never have stimu
lated a nation to rebellion, had there been no oppression to
rebel against. The Revolution was not to be considered a
thing of the past. It was yet progressing. The present
history of Europe was a part of its products. The reviving
faith and earnestness of France, Germany, and England
were the result of the Revolution. The book was not to be
considered a philosophical history of that kind which details
the events, and then tells us what to think of them; but a
wonderful dramatic narrative, delineating, with matchless
power of painting, particular scenes, and leaving the reader
to deduce for himself the moral contained in the story.
In his remarks upon Cromwell's Life and Letters, he praised
the author for his modesty and reticence in keeping his own
opinions comparatively in the background, and in allowing
Cromwell to speak for himself. This was but showing a
proper respect for Cromwell. He had been charged with pre
senting only the virtues of the Protector;—the reason might
be that the shadows in the picture had been made black
enough already. Never had mankind been so duped as in
allowing themselves to be taught to disparage Cromwell.
The secret was that the corrupt courtiers of the succeeding
age lived too close to the time of Cromwell to be comfort
able. They felt dwarfed and chilled in the shadow of that
great rock ; so they sought to bring it down—at least in
public opinion—to their own stature. In a strain of rich
humour and incisive sarcasm, he vindicated Cromwell from
the oft-repeated charges of lying, hypocrisy, levity, and in
difference to law ; and proved, by his treatment of Catholics,
Episcopalians, Quakers, Unitarians, and Jews, that he was
greatly in advance even of a later age in an enlightened
respect for the rights of conscience.
During these lectures the audiences increased in number
from night to night, and many persons were unable to obtain
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
9
admittance. The delivery of this course was a noteworthy
event in Manchester; not only did it stimulate earnest
thought amongst us, but it also revealed to many searching
spirits a series of writings, abounding in “ riches fineless,”
hitherto known only to a small number of students. An
impulse was given to free thought and to a spirit of free
inquiry, and many young men and women were stimulated,
by this and subsequent courses of his lectures, to higher
aims, and encouraged, by their purifying and elevating tone,
to aspire to a nobler daily life. The great success of the first
course led to other engagements, not only in Manchester and
Liverpool, but in other towns of Lancashire, and also in
Yorkshire. Among the subjects treated by him were “ The
Characteristics and Tendencies of the Present Age
“The
Influence of German Thought on English Literature; ”
“ Historical Characters Re-considered ; ” “ The Poetry of
Wordsworth ; ” “ Faustus, Faust, and Festus,” &c.
There was one memorable appearance which Mr. Dawson
made in Manchester to which I must refer before passing on
to other matters. It was an oration on Shakspeare, de
livered at the Athenaeum on the poet’s birthday, and in the
afternoon. It was only thought of on the previous day, and
notice could only be given to the public on the morning
of the day upon which the address was to be delivered.
Nevertheless, the hall was crowded to overflowing, and
hundreds were unable to gain admission. The subject
stimulated him to the exercise of his highest powers, and a
more noble and worthy tribute to the genius of Shakspeare
could hardly be imagined. It was certainly a remarkable
proof of the lecturer’s powers, that he was able in our
busy town, engrossed in commercial pursuits, to induce a
thousand men to leave their ordinary callings at an hour in
which they are generally absorbed in business, and listen with
breathless attention to what he had to say about the genius
�IO
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
of the greatest of poets, and the influence he has exercised
on humanity. Towards the conclusion of the address, he
said :—•“ We thank God for victories gained in warfare, but
none seemed to thank God for genius, and for its victories
gained over bigotry and superstition. Poets, painters,
sculptors, and musicians were all teachers of the Kingdom of
Heaven under different parables—each teaching in his own
language righteousness and peace, love to God and man, the
worship of the holy, the noble, the beautiful, and the true.”
“ How gratifying to me,” to quote his concluding words, “to
have been able, for a short time, to segregate a number of busy
men from their ordinary pursuits, and induce them to think,
during an hour of academic quietness, of one whose name
would live, when even this great commercial town might be
buried in the ruins and the decays of time, and whose genius
had offered a true holocaust of peace-offerings and sinofferings and burnt-offerings upon the altars of Humanity,
the incense from which might ascend for ever unto the
Holiest of the Holy.”
These and subsequent courses of lectures by Mr. Dawson
were admirably reported by his intimate friend, the late
Mr. John Harland, of the Manchester Guardian, who was
one of the most accomplished stenographers of his day.
The rapidity of Mr. Dawson’s utterance, and the novelty
and unexpectedness of his turns of expression were sufficient
to tax the powers of the swiftest reporter. Mr. Henry Sutton,
of Nottingham, also a shorthand writer of the highest
class, possessing rare skill and finish, became, a few
years later, the head of the reporting staff of the Manchester
Examiner, and was in the habit of frequently reporting
Mr. Dawson. In recalling his experiences of that time, Mr.
Sutton says :—
“ I do not believe he had any notes before him when I
heard him lecture ; everything seemed to come freely out of
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
ii
a richly-stored mind, which, if it happened to forget for the
moment what it had planned to say, was well able to extem
porize equally-good material to fill any vacancy. This is
how it seemed to me at the time, and was probably not
incorrect. He was always more difficult to report than most
speakers are; his matter was produced so freely and evenly,
and had in it so little of verbiage or repetition, besides being
so incalculable from its originality, that the reporter, straining
hard to keep up with him, could neither afford, as with most
speakers, to condense whilst going on, nor to omit in the
hope of supplying what was missing. Thus, if part of a
sentence was lost, the whole sentence was useless, and, in its
absence, the thought-connection of the paragraph to which
it belonged was broken, and the result was sheer disaster.”
During Mr. Dawson’s frequent visits to Manchester and
the neighbouring towns in the years that followed, I
had many opportunities of becoming intimately acquainted
with him, and of profiting by his society; and a very
close friendship sprang up between us. Of his noble
character and admirable qualities of heart and mind, I
shall ever retain a grateful recollection, and I feel richer for
having known him. I always found him one of the most
genial and companionable of men. He had a tender, gentle,
and most compassionate nature, and in him the elements of
humour and pathos were delightfully blended. In his society
the better part of my own nature was stimulated, my
sympathies widened and enlarged, the inner as well as
the outer world made brighter by contact with him. I
have reason to know that this was the experience of
other intimate friends besides myself. There was ever
conspicuous in him an inherent natural courtesy towards,
and thoughtful consideration for others, which attracted an
amount of personal regard that does not always fall to the
lot of men of intellectual power. In his friendships he was
�12
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
steadfast as the rock, and to be relied upon under all circum
stances and difficulties. With women and children he had
the most winning ways, and for honest, simple, earnest,
unpretending people—however wanting they might be in
intellectual culture or refinement of manner—he entertained
a sincere regard. He inspired immediate confidence and
trust in those with whom he came into close contact. Here,
they felt, was a straightforward, plain-speaking, sincere man,
who meant truly what he said—sometimes a little rough and
blunt, and peremptory withal—but at the core, kind, genuine,
and generous. He never disputed or argued about creeds or
dogmas of any kind, nor spoke disparagingly of those who
thought differently from himself on religious subjects. He
was naturally of a devout and reverent disposition, and the
essential spirit of practical religion pervaded all he said or
did. And yet this was the man beside whom Samuel Wil
berforce, Bishop of Oxford (himself no ordinary man, and of
whom one might have expected better things), refused to sit
on the same platform, on the occasion of a celebrated Soiree
held in the Manchester Athenaeum in 1846, for promoting
the cause of intellectual culture, and at which celebrities of
all shades in religion and politics were present;—because,
to use the Bishop’s own words: “ I understand that Mr.
Dawson is re-engaged to lecture at your institution, and I
have met with sentiments in these lectures of his, which, as
far as I understand them, seem to me to be at variance with
Christianity; and therefore I cannot give even an accidental
or apparent countenance to their further circulation.”
There are few left who can recall the pleasant hours
occasionally spent with Dawson, after his lectures, in the
homes of some of his hospitable friends. Freed from the
restraints of the platform, and surrounded by a few con
genial spirits, he would revel in the luxury of perfect freedom,
and, stretched on an inviting couch, enjoy to the full his
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
13
well-earned repose. During these hours, which were
humorously spoken of as the sacred period for further
elucidating the subject of the lecture—the “ after-math ” as
it were—all manner of topics were discussed—often the
political or social, or literary event of the day—amidst
curling wreaths of soothing tobacco smoke, which somewhat
veiled the features of the interlocutors, and gave a kind of
courage to the younger ones. At such times, his wit and
humour, free from the slightest taint of malignity or cynicism,
had full play, and sparkled forth in endless sallies, evoking
the best there was in others. He would sometimes give
humorous descriptions of persons he had met in his lecturing
tours, making vivid their peculiarities by his happy imitations.
Often, too, he would descant on his favourite authors, and his
cherished heroes and heroines in history and fiction, until the
ominous sound of the clock gave warning that the symposium
must break up, and respectable persons return home.
George Dawson constantly advocated the exercise of free
thought in its highest and noblest sense, as well as the
assiduous cultivation of a spirit of free inquiry. “ Give me,”
he used to say, using Milton’s own words, “the liberty to
know, to utter, and to argue freely, according to conscience,
above all liberties.” “ Let us forego this prelatical tradition
of crowding free consciences and Christian liberties into the
precepts and canons of men.” “To be still searching after
what we know not, by what we know, still closing up truth
to truth, as we find it (for all her body is homogeneous and
proportional), this is the golden rule for making the best
harmony, not the forced and outward union of cold, and
neutral, and inwardly-divided minds.” He had a passionate
love of fairness and fair-play. Everything mean, unworthy,
self-seeking, and underhand was abhorrent to him. He
detested cant in every form and shape; but what he exposed
with the keenest satire, and denounced with the most wither
�14
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
ing scorn, was that self-sufficient and arrogant intolerance
which disparages and would deliberately inflict injury upon
those who have the courage to think for themselves, and the
independence to hold and avow honestly-formed opinions—
however unpalatable these might be to the powerful and
fashionable—however much in opposition to interests for the
time predominant and in the world’s sunshine. I remember
his once saying to me—“ Verily, in this country, known vice
breaks fellowship less than suspected heresy, or difference
of religious creed.” He looked upon any man—no matter
what his creed or social position might be—who spoke of
liberty of opinion as a favour conceded, and who treated that
liberty with an air of condescending tolerance, as morally
pestilent and detestable—whom self-respecting men should
endeavour to get rid of by some legitimate but swift method
of social extinction.
During one of his visits to Manchester, I showed him a
collection of passages I had made from the works of our
greatest thinkers, bearing on the subjects of Free Inquiry and
Free Thought, Liberty of Discussion, Intolerance, Religious
Liberty, the Right of Private Judgment, the Unfettered
Publication of Opinion, &c. Some of these he asked me
to transcribe for him, wishing to introduce them on suit
able occasions in his lectures. To readers of the present
generation they would not perhaps appear so significant as
they did to those who were young thirty or forty years
ago—so remarkable has been the progress of opinion on
these subjects within the last quarter of a century. They
were from Lord Bacon’s Proficience and Advancement of
Learning, John Locke’s Works, the Areopagitica, and other
prose works (or rather stately prose-poems) of Milton, Jeremy
Taylor’s Liberty ofProphesying, the writings of Bishop Butler,
and Bishop Berkeley, and, among more modern writers,
Samuel Bailey of Sheffield, and others. A few of these
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
15
extracts I have gathered together, and given at the end of
this paper in the shape of an appendix. They were especial
favourites with him, and represent the essence and outcome
of his opinions on the subjects above named.
Concerning the last-named writer, whose works are scarcely
known to the present generation, I should like to say a few
words. I had the pleasure of making known Bailey’s works
to Mr. Dawson, who was previously unaware of their exis
tence, and from the perusal of some of which he derived
real pleasure and profit. No author of this century has
written with greater force and clearness, or with more power
ful reasoning, on the right and duty of free inquiry in every
department of human thought, on the imperative necessity
of candid, temperate, and free discussion, and on that much
neglected part of morality—the conscientious formation and
free publication of all opinions affecting human welfare.
We have never had a more earnest and strenuous advocate
of intellectual liberty and free discussion than Samuel
Bailey. His style is truly admirable; its characteristics
being lucidity, accuracy, and precision—not a word out of
its place, not a word that could be spared—his meaning
impossible to be misunderstood. All his works were
carefully prepared, and long thought over, and subjected to
frequent revisions, before publication. He was one of the
most perspicuous of English thinkers, and no one can study
his writings, especially his first Essays on the Formation and
Publication of Opinions, and its successor, Essays on the
Pursuit of Truth, on the Progress of Knowledge, and on the
Fundamental Principle of all Evidence and Expectation,
withQut having his intellectual horizon extended. To the
thoughtful and earnest, who care for and can appreciate
something higher than the ephemeral and vapid literature
with which the press floods our modern circulating libraries,
these two bracing volumes would be invaluable companions.
�16
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
They act upon the mind like an intellectual and moral tonic.
The most fitting monument to the memory of Bailey would
be a carefully-edited edition of his works, most of which
are scarce, and entirely out of print Colonel Perronet
Thompson, an accomplished economist and philosophic
thinker, and well known as the author of The Catechism of
the Corn Laws, thus spoke of Bailey in an article in the
Westminster Review:—
“If a man could be offered the paternity of any com
paratively modern books that he chose, he would not hazard
much by deciding that, next after Adam Smith’s Wealth
of Nations, he would request to be honoured with a relation
ship to the Essays on the Formation and Publication of
Opinions. ... It would have been a pleasant and an
honourable memory to have written a book so totus teres
atque rotundus, so finished in its parts, and so perfect in
their union as the Essays on the Formation of Opinions.
Like one of the great statues of antiquity, it might have
been broken into fragments, and each separate limb would
have pointed to the existence of some interesting whole, of
which the value might be surmised from the beauty of the
specimen.”*
One of George. Dawson’s most striking and prominent
characteristics was his robust common-sense; and to this
may be added a shrewd observation of character. He also
possessed a fine sense of humour, and the widest sympathies,
moral and intellectual. His sarcastic power was of the most
delicate and subtle kind; and when he had occasion to ex
press scorn, ridicule, or contempt, no one could launch it
forth with more effectiveness. In addition to these qualities
he had, as I have already had occasion to remark, the rare
* In Notes and Queries, 5th Series, Vol. IX., p. 182, will be found a
bibliographical list of Samuel Bailey’s writings, contributed by me to that
periodical in 1878.
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
<7
gift of being able to clothe his thoughts in the most terse
and appropriate words, and to give utterance to them with
an ease and mastery of the resources of our language that
surprised his hearers. Sentence followed sentence, faultless
in construction and symmetry. A lecture of an hour and a
half’s duration might have been printed from his ipsissima
verba, without a single alteration. While on the platform he
rarely used notes or memoranda. With such endowments, it
was not wonderful that he made the lecture-platform an edu
cational agency. To his lectures and expositions (for he was
a born expositor) numbers have been indebted.for their first
real knowledge of some of our greatest countrymen, his
torical as well as literary. The sympathetic, genial, yet
finely discriminative manner in which he discoursed con
cerning some of the great thinkers and men of action of the
past, as well as of our own day, inspired many of his hearers
with an earnest desire to become acquainted with their
works ; and thus his lectures were the means of introducing
no small number of thoughtful minds to the rich treasures
of our literature and history.
The admirers of George Dawson have never claimed for
him the merit of originating new thoughts. But he had a
wonderful faculty of seizing and appreciating the original
thoughts, however abstruse or complex, of the highest order
of minds; of perceiving at a glance their practical bearings; of
making them attractive to, and understood by the thousands
in all ranks and conditions of life, who so eagerly listened to
him; and of adapting them to every range of comprehen
sion. He agreed with Emerson in thinking that next to the
originator of a good thought is the first apt quoter of it. If
we are fired and guided by a good thought, the presenter of
it—whoever the author may be does not matter—becomes to
us a benefactor, claiming from us a gratitude almost equal
to that we render to the originator of the thought itself.
�i8
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
It may be of interest to those who have followed my
remarks on Mr. Dawson as a lecturer, to know something
of him in connection with his life and labours in Birming
ham. For upwards of thirty years he was the most pro
minent preacher in that town, and one of its most active
and energetic citizens. As a preacher he was essentially
eclectic. Well acquainted with the history of Christianity in
its successive phases, he believed that even the greatest
perversions of its purest form had some raison d'etre.
He never accepted even the cardinal doctrines in the
literal sense in which they were understood by the several
sects. It would be presumptuous in me, and out of place
here, to attempt to give any explanation of his views
regarding these doctrines. Suffice it to say that his
teaching influenced deeply both Trinitarians and Unitarians,
and appeared less dogmatic and more reasonable to the
many who stood entirely outside the pale of the sects.
Some of the extreme sectarians on both sides complained
that his teaching was unsound, because he stopped short
of their dogmas, but he looked on all such doctrinal matters
as not literally binding, but as “ views ” to be interpreted by
the light of reason, the good of humanity, and the practical
action which such beliefs could and should produce in every
day life and work. He was never tired of teaching that
real religion should unite, and not divide; that doctrinal
views necessarily differed so greatly, that they should not,
and could not be a bond of union. He held that, in the
words of the great prayer in the Church Service, “ all who
professed and called themselves Christians, should hold the
faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteous
ness of life.” He always took a reasonable view of doctrinal
difficulties, and constantly preached that “ he who does My
work shall know the doctrine, whether it be good or evil.”
Laborare est orare briefly expressed the essence and outcome
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
19
of his religious belief. The basis of all his teaching, the
spirit of all his sermons, the stimulus to all his work, was
the dominant conviction that Religion, the greatest of all
human concerns, should pervade the thoughts and actions
of men in every form, that it should rule in the State, the
Community, and the Family, and even in the smallest concerns
of ordinary life. By religion he always meant Love to
God, and obedience to His divine will, as shewn forth in the
laws of the universe, charity and love to our fellow-men, and
the embodiment of the spirit of Christ’s teachings in our
daily walk and conversation.
How successful this form of teaching proved to be, may
be found in the fact that, from his very earliest preaching, he
attracted and continued to attract and to retain among his
congregation, Trinitarians, Unitarians, Swedenborgians, Bap
tists, Churchmen, and especially many who did not accept
the Bible as inspired, who did not believe in miracles, and
many who, like Gallio, “ cared for none of those things.” All,
however, heartily united in real service and genuine work.
During the whole of his life the members of his church
united heartily and liberally in establishing schools for the
young and the adult, in kindly and generous care of the
aged and the poor, in the industrial training of young women
for service and for work, and in every kind of social influence
to equalize the lot of all, and to improve the tone and
character of rich and poor alike.
“ The Church of the Saviour,” in which he ministered for
upwards of thirty years, was opened in 1846, in the month
of August, and his sermon, “ The Demands of the Age on
the Church,” was an eloquent and powerful statement of his
position as a teacher, and of the work he had set himself to
do ; and which he accomplished with such marked success.
In his earlier days he visited constantly and kindly the poor
and needy, and I am told that no one who had not seen
�20
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
him in a sick-room, ever saw Dawson at his best. His
tender sympathy with all in trouble, his genuine humanity,
in the best sense of the word, his generous hand and lovingkindness will be remembered by many with grateful heart
and tearful eyes. Later on, his numerous engagements led
to the appointment of a Minister to the Poor ; but whenever
possible he attended all the sick and needy, and gave such
consolation as only he could give. The church would seat
about i,600 persons, and was generally full ; and, in the
evenings especially, was crowded to excess. Many orthodox
people attended their own churches and chapels in the
morning, and came to hear him at night. One of the most
conspicuous preachers in the town, for several years during
his studentship, heard Dawson once every Sunday, and con
fessed himself deeply indebted to his teachings, although
he differed from his doctrinal views. The most remarkable
and touching characteristic of Dawson’s services were his
prayers, about which all agreed. Their thorough devotion,
deep humanity, intense feeling, and passionate love and
tenderness, may be found to some extent in the printed
volume which has been issued since his death ; but only
those who heard his gentle, earnest voice can ever appre
ciate those memorable outpourings. Another of the promi
nent orthodox preachers of the same town regarded these
prayers as the very highest and best of Dawson’s true teach
ing, and beyond all praise—the very spirit of all prayer to
God. I have heard many devout men and women, of creeds
the most opposite, speak of their wonderful beauty, and
gratefully acknowledge the beneficent influence exercised
by them on their own religious feelings. He generally
preached every Sunday, morning and evening. Another of
his notable characteristics was his reading of the Scriptures.
One chapter read by him was better than most sermons.
His simple, natural, earnest, manly style made old familiar
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
21
verses seem full of meaning and new beauty and force. It is
difficult to describe the impressiveness of these readings and
prayers. In his Church services he was especially eclectic. He
was the first to introduce into Birmingham chapels the prac
tice of chanting, of anthems, and of having the best music
possible—at that time an innovation which shocked most .dis
senters, but which nearly all have adopted since. He also
introduced colour and decoration on the walls, where all had
been dingy and drab before. Sometimes, on week-day even
ings, he gave lectures in his church—one series of six on the
Greek Church being most valuable and interesting in the
Crimean War time. Another of his innovations was the
social parties of the members of his congregation. This
example, too, has been followed by all other dissenting con
gregations in Birmingham.
As a citizen, Dawson greatly shocked his brother preachers
at first by appearing in non-clerical attire. From the begin
ning, he took an active part in all public work, and especially
in political and social reforms. He was one of the first to
arouse any interest in the Hungarian struggle. He ear
nestly supported the French Republic after Louis Philippe’s
flight, and was one of the most eloquent speakers during
the Crimean War. He ably and constantly advocated the
claims of Italy, and was placed in the “ black book ” by the
Austrians, as the friend of Mazzini. In all local matters he
took a special interest; and he was really the first public
man in Birmingham who studied and understood foreign
politics, and who aroused any local interest in the affairs of
Hungary, Italy, and France. His frequent absences on his
lecturing tours prevented his taking personally any public
work, except on the Free Libraries Committee; but on
that, and on the Committee of the Subscription Library, he
did excellent work from his coming till his lamented death.
He educated the people by his lectures, and taught them
�22
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DA WSON.
to go to the libraries and use them. He and his accom
plished and devoted friend, Mr. Timmins, established a lite
rature class and delivered a series of lectures on English
o
Literature from Saxon times down to 1800. These lectures
have been continued ever since with great and growing suc
cess. They sensibly raised the tone of the town, and have set
many persons reading and thinking. While he did not take
office personally, he advocated most earnestly and per
sistently the duty of every citizen to take some share of
public work. It is beyond all question that he so educated
and influenced his personal friends and occasional hearers,
that they went forth to work; and he really gave the first
impulse to that public life, high municipal spirit, political
energy, and literary and artistic progress which have so
distinguished Birmingham during the past thirty years. His
constant pressure and personal influence infinitely improved
the quality of the Town Council, which, when he came, was
in but indifferent repute. He used to say : “ Never send a
man into the Council whom you would not like to be Mayor.”
Practically, that advice has been followed, and hence the
very marked improvement in the municipal life of Birming
ham. No one man ever had so large and so evident an
influence in a great town. He came when, after the Reform
Bill, the town was resting from its labours. He evoked a
new spirit, and aroused a new life, and became an important
power. No meeting, no movement, no cause was complete
without him,yi2r or against. This sturdy independence, his
manly courage, his inflexible principle, his passionate love
of liberty, and unflinching fairness all round, made him
respected and also feared. It was felt by all that he was
above party, a man of stern principle, a bold, honest, and
generous advocate of truth and justice.
I must now bring these remarks to a close. Yet, I cannot
do so without recording a most pleasant incident in our
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
23
intercourse, inseparably associated with the memory of my
friend and his charming wife. He was married in the
autumn of 1846 to Miss Susan Fanny Crompton, of Birming
ham, a lady possessing mental gifts of no common order,
and whose grace of form and feature will ever linger in the
memory of those who knew her in the society which she so
much adorned. To her might be applied the lines of
Wordsworth—
The reason firm, the temperate will,
Endurance, foresight, strength, and skill;
A perfect woman, nobly plann’d,
To warn, to comfort, and command.
Instead of making the usual conventional wedding tour,
they wisely preferred a better course. They arranged with
Harriet Martineau (who at that time was leaving England
to visit Palestine), to occupy her pretty cottage near Amble
side for a month. Here their honeymoon was spent amidst
the most picturesque scenery of the Lake district. It was
proposed that I should join them for a week, an invi
tation gladly accepted. Fortunately, the weather was of
the finest; and the hills, fells, lakes, and streams, and the
fading glories of the autumn woods, were seen to perfection,
bathed in the serene September sunshine. On this pleasant
occasion, all the circumstances connected with my visit were
of the most auspicious kind. Included in the invitation was
Dr. W. B. Hodgson, afterwards Professor of Political
Economy in the Edinburgh University, since deceased—a
dear and most intimate friend of us both. His social gifts
were of the rarest kind, and cannot be forgotten by those
who had the privilege of knowing him. His unfailing
memory and inexhaustible stores of wit and wisdom made
him a favourite wherever he went. We had many delightful
rambles by the margin of Rydal Water and Grasmere, and
on the Loughrigg Fells; and the cliffs and woods of Fox-
�24
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
how often rang with the laughter evoked by our brilliant
friend’s jokes and humorous stories. Alas ! that three
of those merry voices are now for ever silent! The
enjoyment of this delightful week was greatly enhanced
by an unexpected piece of good luck for us. The way
in which this came about was curious, but I need not
enter into details. Suffice it to say that we had the rare
privilege of spending part of a forenoon with the Genius
loci—the venerable poet Wordsworth, then in his seventy
sixth year—about four years before his death. He received
us with a dignified but cordial courtesy, introduced us to
Mrs. Wordsworth, and showed us many books in his library,
taking down from the shelves some precious presentation
volumes from Coleridge, Lamb, Southey, and other friends,
and pointing out to us the inscriptions with which they were
enriched. He walked with us about his grounds, conversing
freely on various topics, and occasionally telling us amusing
anecdotes of his neighbours. Not long before this had
occurred the tragical suicide of Haydon, the painter, and
the subject became matter of conversation. Wordsworth
spoke most feelingly about the sad event, and asked us if
we remembered his sonnet, addressed to Haydon in his
earlier days, long before the clouds had begun to gather
round him. Of course, all readers of Wordsworth know
this, one of his finest sonnets, beginning “High is our calling
friend,” and ending with the lines—
And oh ! when nature sinks, as oft she may,
Through long-lived pressure of obscure distress,
Still to be strenuous for the bright reward,
And in the soul admit of no decay,
Brook no continuance of weak-mindedness :
Great is the glory; for the strife is hard !
Wishing to hear the sonnet from the old man’s lips, and
knowing it would gratify him to be asked to repeat it, we
made the request with a deferential or rather reverential
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
25
hesitancy, to which, however, he at once acceded, repeating
the lines in a sonorous and rather monotonous voice, but
with evident feeling. On this occasion I was fortunate
enough to have it in my power, by the merest accident of an
accident, to give the venerable poet a trifling pleasure.
While we stood in a little breakfast-room, fronting the
eastern sky, which he called his morning study, he showed
us with pride a set of framed portraits of some of the old
English poets and worthies: Chaucer, Gower, Spenser,
Shakspeare, Sidney, Bacon, Selden, Beaumont, Fletcher, and
others the series known as Houbraken’s. On my observing
that Ben Jonson was not amongst them, although he belonged
to the same series, he said he had never been fortunate enough
to meet with a copy of that portrait Curiously enough, and
by rare good fortune, as far as I was concerned, I happened
then to possess a very fine impression of the identical portrait
wanted to complete his set It instantly flashed into my mind
that here was a supreme opportunity offered me of pleas
ing the aged poet, so I at once made my little speech: “ How
much pleasure it would give me to fill up the gap, &c.” My
offer was, after a little preliminary reluctance, accepted,
accompanied with a friendly shake of the hand, followed
some days afterwards by a cordial letter of thanks, after the
picture had been received by him, and hung in its rightful
place. This little incident was often recalled in after years,
and became a pleasant memory with us.
Inglewood,
Bowdon, Cheshire,
April nt, 7882.
�APPENDIX.
The following are the extracts (referred to at p. 15) from
the writings of Bacon, Milton, Locke, Taylor, Berkeley,
Butler, Brougham, and Samuel Bailey. The quotations
from the latter writer are given at some length, as his works
are comparatively unknown.
Lord Bacon.
1561-1629.
The commandment of knowledge is yet higher than the commandment over
the will ; for it is a commandment over the reason, belief, and understanding
of man, which is the highest part of the mind, and giveth law to the will itself:
for there is no power on earth, which setteth up a throne, orchair of state, in
the spirits and souls of men, and in their cogitations, imaginations, opinions,
and beliefs, but knowledge and learning.
John Milton.
1608-1674.
The light which we have gained was given us, not to be ever staring on, but
by it to discover onward things more remote from our present knowledge.
Well knows he, who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrive by
exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture
to a streaming fountain ; if her waters flow not in perpetual progression, they
sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a
heretic in the truth ; and if he believes things, only because his pastor says so,
or because the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though
his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.
BiSHor Jeremy Taylor.
1613-1667.
It is unnatural and unreasonable to persecute disagreeing opinions: unnatural,
for understanding being a thing wholly spiritual, cannot be restrained, and there
fore neither punished by corporal affliction. It is in aliena republica, a matter
of another world ; you may as well cure the colic by brushing a man’s clothes,
or fill a man’s belly with a syllogism. . . . For is an opinion ever the
more true or false for being persecuted ? Force in matters of opinion can do
�APPENDIX.
27
no good, but is very apt to do hurt; for no man can change his opinion when
he will, or be satisfied in his reason that his opinion is false because discoun
tenanced. . . . But if a man cannot change his opinion when he lists, nor
ever does heartily or resolutely but when he cannot do otherwise, then to
use force may make him an hypocrite, but never to be a right believer; and so,
instead of erecting a trophy to God and true religion, we build a monument for
the Devil.
John Locke.
1632-1704.
He that examines, and upon a fair examination embraces an error for a
truth, has done his duty more than he who embraces the profession of truth
(for the truths themselves he does not embrace), without having examined
whether it be true or no. And he that has done his duty, according to the best
of his ability, is certainly more praiseworthy, than he who has done nothing of
it. For if it be our duty to search after truth, he certainly that has searched
after it, though he has not found it, in some points has paid a more acceptable
obedience to the will of his Maker, than he who has not searched at all, but
professes to have found truth, when he has neither searched for it, nor found it.
Bishop Berkeley.
1684-1753.
Two sorts of learned men there are ; one, who candidly seek truth by
rational means. These are never averse to have their principles looked into,
and examined by the test of reason. Another sort there is, who learn by rote a
set of principles and a way of thinking which happen to be in vogue. These
betray themselves by their anger and surprise, whenever their principles are
freely canvassed.
Bishop Butler.
1692-1752.
We never, in the moral way, applaud or blame either ourselves or others for
what we enjoy or what we suffer, or for having impressions made upon us which
we consider as altogether out of our power; but only for what we do, or would
have done, had it been in our power; or for what we leave undone which we
might have done, or would have left undone, though we could have done it.
Lord Brougham.
1778-1868.
The great Truth has finally gone forth to all the ends of the earth that man
shall no more render account to man for his belief, over which he himself has
no control. Henceforward, nothing shall prevail upon us to praise or to blame
any one for that which he can no more change than he can the hue of his skin,
or the height of his stature. Henceforward, treating with entire respect those
who conscientiously differ from ourselves ; the only practical effect of the
difference will be, to make us enlighten the ignorance on one side or the other,
from which it springs—by instructing them, if it be theirs, ourselves, if it
be our own ; to the end, that the only kind of unanimity may be produced,
which is desirable among rational beings—the agreement proceeding from full
conviction after the freest discussion.
�28
APPENDIX.
Samuel Bailey.
1791-1870.
Whether a man has been partial or impartial, in the process by which he has
acquired his opinions, must be determined by extrinsic circumstances and not
by the character of the opinions themselves. Belief, doubt, and disbelief,
therefore, can never, even in the character of indications of antecedent voluntary
acts, be the proper objects of moral reprobation or commendation. Our appro
bation and disapprobation, if they fall anywhere, should be directed to the
conduct of men in their researches, to the use which they make of their oppor
tunities of information, and to the partiality or impartiality visible in’ their
actions. . . . The allurements and the menaces of power are alike inca
pable of establishing opinions in the mind, or eradicating those which are
already there. They may draw hypocritical professions from avarice and ambi
tion, or extort verbal renunciations from fear and feebleness; but this is
all they can accomplish. The way to alter belief is not to address motives to
the will, but arguments to the intellect. To do otherwise, to apply rewards or
punishments or disabilities to opinions, is as absurd as to raise men to the
peerage for their ruddy complexions, to whip them for the gout, and hang them
for the scrofula. . . . All pain, mental or physical, inflicted with a view to
punish a man for his opinion, is nothing less than useless and wanton cruelty,
violating the plain dictates of nature and reason. . .
Although the advanced civilization of the age rejects the palpably absurd
application of torture and death, it is not to be concealed, that, amongst a
numerous class, there is an analagous, though less barbarous persecution, of all
who depart from received doctrines—the persecution of private antipathy and
public odium. They are looked upon as a specie of criminals, and their devia
tions from established opinions; or, if any one prefer the phrase, their specula
tive errors, are regarded by many with as much horror as flagrant violations of
morality. In the ordinary ranks of men, where exploded prejudices often linger
for ages, this is scarcely to be wondered at; but it is painful, and on a first
view unaccountable, to witness the prevalence of the same spirit in the
republic of letters ; to see mistakes in speculation pursued with all the warmth
of moral indignation and reproach. He who believes an opinion on the autho
rity of others, who has taken no pains to investigate its claims to credibility,
nor weighed the objections to the evidence on which it rests, is lauded for his
acquiescence, while obloquy from every side is too often heaped on the man
who has minutely searched into the subject, and been led to an opposite conclu
sion. There are few things more disgusting to an enlightened mind than to see
a number of men, a mob, whether learned or illiterate, who have never scruti
nized the foundation of their opinions, assailing with contumely an individual,
who, after the labour of research and reflection, has adopted different sentiments
from theirs, and pluming themselves on the notion of superior virtue, because
their understandings have been tenacious of prejudice.
The true grounds, the grand principles of toleration, or (to avoid a term which
men ought never to have been under the necessity of employing) of religious
liberty and liberty of conscience, are the principles which it has been the object
�APPENDIX.
29
of my Essay to establish—that opinions are involuntary, and involve no merit
or demerit, and that the free publication of opinions is beneficial to society,
because it is the means of arriving at truth. They are both founded on the
unalterable nature of the human mind, and are sure, sooner or later, to be
universally recognized and applauded. Under the general prevalence of these
truths society would soon present a different aspect. Every species of intoler
ance would vanish ; because, how much soever it might be the interest of men
to suppress opinions contrary to their own, there would be no longer any pretext
for compulsion or oppression.
Difference of sentiment would no longer
engender the same degrees of passion and ill-will. The irritation, virulence,
and invective of controversy would be in a great measure sobered down into cool
argumentation. The intercourse of private life would cease to be embittered by
the odium of heterodoxy, and all the benevolent affections would have more
room for expansion. Men would discover that although their neighbours
differed in opinion from themselves, they might possess equal moral worth, and
equal claims to affection and esteem. A difference in civil privileges and social
estimation—that eternal source of discontent and disorder, that canker in the
happiness of society, which can be cured only by being exterminated, would be
swept away, and in a few years a wonder would arise that rational beings could
have been inveigled into its support. Another important consequence would be,
a more general union of mankind in the pursuit of truth. Since errors would no
longer be regarded as involving moral turpitude, every effort to obtain the grand
object in view, however unsuccessful, would be received with indulgence, if not
applause. There would be more exertion, because there would be more
encouragement. If moral science has already gradually advanced, shackled as
it has been by inveterate prejudices, what would be the rapidity of its march
under a system, which, far from offering obstacles, presented facilities to its
progress ?
Whoever has attentively meditated on the progress of the human race
cannot fail to discern that there is now a spirit of inquiry amongst men which
nothing can stop, or even materially control. Reproach and obloquy, threats
and persecution, social ostracism, will be vain. They may embitter opposition
and engender violence, but they cannot abate the keenness of research. There
is a silent march of thought, which no power can arrest, and which it is not
difficult to foresee will be marked by important events. Mankind were never
before in the situation in which they now stand. The press has been operating
upon them for several centuries, with an influence scarcely perceptible at its
commencement, but daily becoming more palpable, and acquiring accelerated
force. It is rousing the intellect of nations, and happy will it be for them if
there be no rash interference with the natural progress of knowledge; and if, by
a judicious and gradual adaptation of their institutions to the inevitable changes
of opinion, they are saved from those convulsions, which the pride, prejudices,
and obstinacy of a few may occasion to the whole.—Essays on the Formation
and Publication of Opinions, and on other Subjects. 1821.
�30
APPENDIX.
If, instead of encouraging candid and complete examination, I endeavour to
instil my own notions into the mind of another by dogmatical assertion and
inculcation ; if I do all in my power to prevent the evidence on both sides from
coming to his knowledge; if I forcibly or artfully exclude any arguments or
facts from his cognizance ; if I try to coop up his mind in my own views, by
keeping aloof every representation inconsistent with them, and even pervert his
moral feelings by teaching him the guilt of holding any other; if, instill greater
defiance of integrity of conduct, I attempt to work upon his will in the matter ;
if I offer him certain advantages provided he come to a conclusion agreeable to
my wishes, and threaten him with obloquy, and pains, and penalties, should he
decide against me; all these proceedings are surely so many offences, not only
against him, but against the Almighty. What are they all but trying to prevent
the full and free application of his faculties for discerning truth to a question of
the greatest moment between him and the Almighty Ruler of the Universe?
And what are the worst of them, but bribing and terrifying the poor human
creature ; in the first place, not to examine fully and freely, not therefore to
discharge the obligation he is under to his Maker ; and in the second place, to
hide his internal convictions, and to profess what he does not feel. If the prin
ciples of duty to God, which the light of nature clearly exhibits, are to be relied
upon, it is scarcely possible to conceive grosser moral turpitude, or greater mad
ness, than this. My own duty clearly is a full and impartial examination ; and
yet, by the course described, I should be endeavouring, to the utmost of my
power, to prevent in my neighbour that full and impartial examination, which
is as incumbent on him as it is on myself.
It is to be deeply lamented, that nothing is more common among mankind
than this senseless, this immoral, this truly impious proceeding, the only pallia
tion of which is unconsciousness of its real character. Look abroad into the
world, and what is the language on this subject held by man to man, in all ages
and all countries ? It is in effect this : I care nothing for your partiality or im
partiality, for the diligence or negligence of your investigations : here are certain
advantages in my gift: if you are of my opinion, or will say you are, they are
yours; if you differ from me, I will take care you suffer for it.
Figure to yourself, my friend, a young man, who, while he is desirous to
discharge every duty, and ardent in the pursuit of truth, is at the same time
ambitious of power, wealth, and distinction. A career is open to him, in which
these latter desires may be gratified on the single condition of professing and
teaching certain established tenets, and performing certain offices grounded upon
them. Is it to be supposed, that before he accepts the tempting offer, his can
dour and conscientiousness will be sufficiently strong to induce him to institute
a fair and rigid examination of tenets on which his wealth and station are to
depend ? and after he has accepted it, will the inducements to the performance
of that duty be strengthened or increased ? The result is not very doubtful; he
shuns inquiry and accepts the office, and from that moment all probability of any
fair investigation is at an end : he becomes an intellectual slave bound in golden
fetters : he is no more free to pursue truth than the chained eagle is free to soar
�APPENDIX.
3i
into the sky ; or rather he is quite as free to pursue it as the muezzin to throw
*
himself from the minaret, or as the traveller to leap from the summit of the great
pyramid ; that is to say, at the risk of consequences—of utter destruction.
And is it possible not to perceive, that besides putting an end to impartial
examination, this species of bribery is a bounty on hypocritical pretension ? Is
there one man in ten thousand, who, looking forward to the prospect of living
in the enjoyment of worldly advantages from the profession of certain opinions,
will shrink from that profession in the first instance, or subsequently abandon it,
because he finds it impossible to believe in the opinions professed ? Can there
be a more effectual method of creating insincerity, as well as indifference to
truth, and can there be a practice more destructive of moral worth and real
piety ?
You know, Hassan, as well as I can describe, how all this is exemplified
amongst the followers of the Prophet; you are aware not only of their utter
neglect of examination, but of the secret disbelief of thousands of Moslems
(priests as well as laymen) in much of what they profess for the sake of gain, the
scarcely disguised violations of precepts they pretend to revere, the rapacity for
wealth and power which puts on the semblance of holiness and laughs at the
credulity of its dupes.
I shall never, for my own part, lose the recollection of the indifference to
truth and the hypocrisy I witnessed on my pilgrimage to Mekka. Wrapt
myselfin holy thoughts and sincere devotion, I was shocked at the conduct of
those whom sordid rapacity had congregated around the sacred place.
Here, too, we have another main root of intolerance and persecution. When
ever the emolument, power, and distinction of any set of men depend on the
reception of particular doctrines, or are bound up in their maintenance, not only
is all fair examination at an end on the part of their supporters, but the liveliest
zeal is kindled in their defence, and the bitterest hostility is roused against all
who will not fall into the same blind acquiescence. There is an inseparable
connection between the lucrativeness of opinions and persecution.—Letters of
an Egyptian Kafir on a Visit to England, in Search of a Religion, Enforcing
some Neglected Views regarding the Duty of Theological Inquiry, and the
Morality of Human Interference with It. 1839.
* The muezzin is the crier who, from the minarets of the mosque, summons the faithful
to prayer.
A. IRELAND AND CO., PRINTERS, MANCHESTER.
�k
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Recollections of George Dawson and his lectures in Manchester in 1846-7
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ireland, Alexander
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 31 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: Reprinted, with additions, from the "Manchester Quarterly", No. II. April, 1882. Inscription in black ink: "M. D. Conway Esq, with A. Ireland's kind regards." From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Includes Appendix with extracts from the writings of several authors including John Milton and John Locke. Printed by A. Ireland anc Co., Manchester. George Dawson (1821- 1876) was an English nonconformist preacher, lecturer and activist. He was an influential voice in the calls for radical political and social reform in Birmingham, a philosophy that became known as the Civic Gospel.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT46
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy
Social Reform
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Recollections of George Dawson and his lectures in Manchester in 1846-7), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Clergy
Conway Tracts
George Dawson
Nonconformism
Social Reform
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ade536944d8a98cbebfc2899e3a32f44.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=jGkV0tXrjPOZsveZ2wx2Fwc073JT22rnm-xFUCVIJLfYUJvsLBPEZ6xBP-c6KmPG9WQYlphADydBaXNcTjMtKc2%7EDQu-wpSGFz79lNAp5N3fz2cJOLdVOZrwEKC1AcWWa5icj7q7tFiYNejiUMU7p42BmBxtxlS0ZNFRHoPH9q6IXXD4gtRbGfJvwCcdnNizySYF8-egObPl3yNF2oO3LNdINu8m-gLHVWmh7qiGiQAqa6dgi4PlYQfjIvRes1P8GPNlrvp4Mm%7Ew9Mxi4sHxOA%7ELrd5BeVQ2BsCuDbuwPCqFCBMevl0i1tE7DdpNijhLjnHrQVb4UDo1RcojuVDoAg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e047870a582a18b3dff365f51a1d12ab
PDF Text
Text
����������������������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The history of nonconformity in Plymouth
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Worth, Richard Nicholls
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [Plymouth]
Collation: 40 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. 'Read November 2nd, 1876. [title page]. Reprinted from the Transactions of the Plymouth Institution, v. 6, p. 44-83. Lists of ministers, Extracts from Corporation accounts, The Hebrew Committee.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1876]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT66
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Plymouth
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The history of nonconformity in Plymouth), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Nonconformism
Plymouth (Devon)
Religion