« ПредишнаНапред »
by a system of despotic controul over the another. He had painted in the most rights of conscience; but he would sooner gloomy colours the dangers to which a meet the great evil directly at once. The person taking a share in the University more deeply he felt on the subject, the as Trustee for a Society like this, where rather would he prefer to strike a blow there was £10,000 to back and indemnify at the system altogether; to call on this him, might be exposed of being torn from Society to unite their efforts to open their his family and home, and consigned to a way where they were unjustly proscrib. prison ; yet avotber highly ornamented ed, than thus mitigate and palliate the part of his speech had called upon all evil by supporting the new institution. those who had the means to enter singly He would say, with Mr. Hankey and Mr. and individually, at their own risk, into Collins, with perfect good-will to the this undertaking, so fraught with ruin London Uuiversity, that the merit of that and dangers. Eloquent as were the two institution was not the point before them. pictures, he had only to observe, that For himself, he was one of the first to they were both equally so, and therefore join in and support that University. He were an exact answer one to the other. hoped, and would earnestly recommend Mr. Wilks explained. He thought it to all in their individual characters, to was a rery different thing for individuals support so laudable a work; but as a to run hazards in a meritorious pursuit, member of this Deputation he asked, what and for a society to ask persons to exwas the advantage to those civil rights pose themselves to the risk as trustees. which they were there to support, to be Mr. R. TAYLOR left it to the meeting derived from co-operating with such an to estimate the alleged distinction at what institution ? It appeared to him, that it was worth, and would proceed to nothere were many reasons against it arising tice another objection made by the learned out of matters of detail, but it was suffi. gentleman. The object of the Univercient to shew that it was not uecessary to sity, he had contended, was foreign to press this plan forward on such a Society those civil rights and interests of Disas this. Gentlemen should recollect that senters which this Deputation was apthis was, after all, only a joint stock pointed to support for his part, siuce company, and bronght with it all the lia. both reason and scripture taught us that bilities of such undertakings. He had knowledge was the most precious of our that day seen individuals torn from their possessions, he considered the right of homes and families for the engagements obtaining knowledge, and of obtaining it of such companies, and how could they in the best and most effectual manner, then ask persons to take upon themselves by a public education, to be the most such risks as their Trustees ? The pa- valuable of all rights. Of the enjoymeut tronage never could be of any value. As of this right, as regarded existing Eninany pupils, they might be sure, would glish Uviversities, Dissenters were un. be taken as could be sent or come from justly deprived. They were deputed to any quarter. But his great ohjection was, protect the civil rights of Dissenters; the that there was no obvious unity of design right of all to public education was therebetween this Society and the proposed fore one of the most legitimate objects University. It was not a Dissenting in- of their care. How then was this right, stitution. As connected with it, he whose value was admitted, to be attaived ? should strongly deprecate such a patro- The learned geotleman himself had nage as injurious to it. It would be in- dwelt long and cloquently on the classic jured rather than advanced by the pub- shades of academic groves; but how lic assistance of Dissenting bodies. If were we to get there? He had advised they were to give money to institutions them to unite in some effort to take these of the sort, let them give it to their own retreats by storm. For his part, he was Dissenting Academies. The unity of content to take the more easy course of purpose of those institutions with this providing as good a substitute as he Society was obvious, but he could see could. But then it is said, You are Disnone in the present case.
senters; do not therefore subscribe or Mr. RICHARD TAYLOR was sensible at assist this University, for it is not iohow gieat disadvantage any one must tended for Dissenters alone. Why this, follow the eloquence of the last speaker. he contended, was the very reason that But eloquence, however splendid, was it deserved their support. He liked it sometimes a dangerous talent. It might because it was pot sectarian. Because lead its owner into gilded sophistry and it was not so, and because it did not adorn views which were only founded in adopt a system of exclusion for opinions, fallacy. Let them take two of the learn- this Deputation, whose object it was tu ed gentleman's eloquent pictures, for protest against proscriptions of this instance, and he was much mistaken sort in every form, ought abwve all if they did not completely. answer one things to countenance it. It was one of
the great misfortunes resulting to Dis. doubt the principal object of pursuit was senters from the existence of a Church always considered to be the Repeal of Establishment, and the counexion be, the Test and Corporatiou Acts; but this tween the Church and the Universities, had only been prosecuted at intervals, that they were forced to acquire a sec
and balances had from time to time retarian character. But ought they to mained in their hands, which they had cherish such a character ? Young men, disposed of as seemed best for the proinstead of associating with others, were motion of the interests of Dissenters. classed by religious systems, and became Meantime, for convenience, the balance Darrow and bigoted in their habits. - It had been invested in stock. They had, was the abolition of this mischievous re it was clear, adopted a wide discretion sult that gave the plan of the new Uni- in disposing of their money; as, for in. Fersity its value, and entitled it to sup- stance, they had embarked large sums in port in preference to the limited, exclu- suits not affecting general principles, but sive academies maintained by the several the private property of congregations, as religious dedominations,
in the Dudley cause. They had in other A DEPUTY (we believe a solicitor) instances employed the money in prosesaid he came prepared to ask several cutions of offenders. lo short, the Soquestions which the production of the ciety had always freely exercised the accounts had rendered unnecessary. But discretion freely reposed. If then there be still wished to know something as to was that unity or consonance of purpose the origin of the fund; whether auy of in the proposed University with their it came by will, or how? He was very principles avd interests as Dissenters, doubtful, especially after what had fallen which some thought, and on which it from Mr. Wilks and Mr. Collins, whe was the province of the meeting to dether they had legally or equitably any cide as a fair matter of opinion and disright so to appropriate the money. He cussion, he could have no doubt that Suggested that a case should be stated such discretion must be the law and for counsel's opinion.
rule. It was the sole question, he must Mr. Yockney did not presume to ar- think, to be decided, and those who gue with legal men on legal subjects, thought the object pot consonant with bat cousidered it perfectly competent to
their views would of course negative the the Society to rote the money entrusted motion. On that question he did not to it by voluntary contributors, for any intend to offer any opinion either way. purpose which in its discretion it copsi. A DEPUTY observed, that it did not dered consonant to the great priuciples appear to be necessary to sell any of the they had in view. He was confident stock at all. They had a balance of that they would do great credit to them. cash in hand, and could pay future calls selves in coming to such a vote.
out of their dividends. The CHAIRMAN did not intend to take Mr. THOMAS WILSON had taken no part in the debate on the propriety of part in originating this motion, but the vote, but as questions had been asked must, as he trusted he always should do, as to the objects of the Society and the take the liberal side and support it. He origin of their funds, he would give a considered it quite clear that they could short explanation on those heads. On do it if they wished. The money was in referring to the printed history of their no way appropriated to any specific purproceedings, it would be seen that the pose ; it was merely money subscribed objects of the Deputation were declared for them to apply as they saw best in to be in the most general terms, “ for the civil concerns of the Disseoters. the management of the civil affairs of They lay uuder restrictions from holding the Dissenters;" and the Deputies and certain offices, and they were going to Committee had always attended to any petition against such laws. They lay matters which they thought connected under similar restrictions as to educa. with the rights, interests, or civil situa- tion; here was a plan for obviating that tion, of the Dissenting body. With re- grievance. Could any one doubt that it gard to the fund, not one penny arose was an object for their support if they from any bequest, donation, or specific thought proper ? The Londou Univerappropriation of any sort. The object sity wanted support from every quarter, of it was therefore as general as the ob. and it deserved it. It offered education jects of their association. The Com to all, and it was of the utmost immittee had from time to time made ap- portance, particularly to Dissenters, to peals to congregations and the public for encourage such a principle. In so doing subscriptions for their general pirposes, we were remedying as far as we could and the money which was sent was dis- the worst infringement on our liberties, posed of at the will and pleasure of the and he was sure our ancestors would Deputation and their Committee. No have gloried in such an opportunity.
There might be difficulties attending the was or not for their interest; and if t investment, but he had no doubt they decide, then certainly to act. Then the might be obviated; but if not, if the mo real question was, whether this institu pey was absolutely voted away, what harm tion were a desirable one for Dissenter: was done? They had abundant resources. to support ? Every one who spoke The zeal and public spirit of the body of knowledged it was; every one exhorted Dissenters were their funds to resort to. Dissenters singły to encourage it. Why They made no scruple of embarking their then, if good in the eyes of all Dissen money in law-suits snd chapcery.suits, ters individually, did it cease to be so to in which they risked much larger sums them collectively? But then they were about mere private disputes, and why told that this was doing things by halves, pot risk something here on a great ques- that they should attack the old Univer: tion? They had of late been called sities. Really, it appeared to himn that upon to spend little in these matters, the old proverb, that half a loaf was betthey had an accumulation of cash in ter than no bread, was quite sufficient hand, and how could they spend it answer to this reasoning. No one doubt. better? But it was said, Don't attempted that this institution, and the princito found a new institution; make a vi- ple involved in it, deeply affected their gorous effort to compel admission to the interests, if they must not use the word old Universities. Could such a propo. rights; and why not spend some of this sition be seriously and fairly put? The money, intrusted to them, after all, to proposer must know that they might as spend, not to invest in the funds? well try to pull down St. Paul's. The A Deputy opposed the motion at some only way to make an approach to it was length, under such frequent interrupto support this plan. If the Dissenters tions, by cries of "Question! Question !" would not do it, who should ? He gave that he broke off, and the Chairman, the motion his hearty concurrence, and having put the question, and not being conceived it an honour to vote for it. able to decide by show of hands, re
Mr. Bompas (a barrister) anticipated quested a division, and tellers being apvery little difficulties as to the mode of pointed, the numbers were declared to investment;-they had only to take care be, and keep each share or number of shares
For the motion...... 44 in three or four names, and there would Against it ...... be no difficulty about deaths. As to the On which the Chairman gave the casting right to make this appropriation, he had voice in favour of the motion. felt at first that there might be some difficulty ; but after the explanation
The Committee then chosen for the given from the Chair, he could not be ensuing year, were lieve any lawyer, koowing how these
Charles C. Bompas, Esq , Temple; J. funds arose, without any limitation as to B. Brown, Esq., LL.D., Temple; William the discretion of the Society, could have Burls, Esq., 56, Lothbury; Edward Busk, a momeut's doubt. A Society was ap- Esq., Temple; Samuel Favell, Esq., Cam. pointed to manage the civil affairs of the berwell ; W. B. Gurney, Esq., Essex Dissenters, and in the course of their Street; James Gibson, Esq., Great Saint duty received subscriptions for the pur- Helen's; William Hale, Esq., Homerton; pose, which, instead of their spending, as
George Hammond, Esq., Homerton they might have done, had, from acci- Benjamin Haubury, Esq., Blackfriars dental circumstances, accumulated. Could Road; W. A. Hankey, Esq., Fenchurch any one doubt that what such a Society Street; Samuel Jackson, Esq., Clapham; determined in its discretion to be a fit R.H.Marten, Esq.,Mincing Lane; Samuel mode of pursuing the interests of Dis. Medley, Esq., Threadneedle Street; John senters, must be conclusive on the sub T. Rutt, Esq., Clapton; Benjamin Shaw, ject? If he thought there was a pre- Esq., Cornhill ; Richard Taylor, Esq., tence for doubt, he would take an opi- Shoe Laue; John Wilks, Esq., Finsbury nion on the subject; but as it stood, he Square; Thomas Wood, Esq , Little St. could not for a moment believe that Thomas Apostle; Joseph Yallowley, Esq., they had any other than a full and free Red-cross Street; William Yockvey, Esq., liberty to decide for themselves what Bedford Street, Coveut Garden.
CORRESPONDENCE. Several articles intended for the present Number have been unavoidably postponed. -Clericus Hibernus will appear in the next Number.-The Conductors will be glad to receive the remaining portion of the article from Chesterfield.Mr. Holland's request has been complied with.
THE MONTHLY REPOSITORY
NEW SERIES, No. IV.
ON A RECENTLY-DISCOVERED WORK OF LEIBNITZ, ALLEGED TO
PROVE HIS ADHERENCE TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. AMONG the mass of manuscripts in the hand-writing of Leibnitz which are preserved in the Electoral (now Royal) Library at Hanover, it had been rumoured that there was one entitled Systema Theologicum, in which he had defended the doctrine of the Romish Church. During the existence of the Westphalian government, a Frenchman of the name of Emerg, who had heard of this report, obtained the manuscript and transcribed it with a view s publication; but he died before he had accomplished his purpose, and it was edited at Paris with a translation, after his death, in 1819. From some cause or other, the original was not sent back to Hanover in the general restitution of French spoliations after the overthrow of Napoleon; at least in the summer of 1820 it still remained at Paris. No reasonable doubt exists as to its genuineness. It has been re-published in Germany with a translation by two Professors in the episcopal seminary at Mentz, and a preface by a former professor at Heidelberg, tending to prove that Leibnitz was at heart a Roman Catholic; and has excited some interest among the members of the Lutheran Church, to which Leibnitz always professed to belong. At the present moment, some notice of it may not be without interest to the English reader. We must premise, however, that we know the work only through the medium of an article in the Jenaische Allgemeine LitteraturLeitung for November, 1822,
Leibnitz is well known to have wished earnestly for the re-union of the Romish and the Lutheran Churches, and to have been engaged in a long correspondence with Bossuet on this subject. It is not wonderful that soch a wish should have been formed by many persons in Germany in the latter half of the seventeenth century, when we reflect what miseries had been inflicted on that country in the earlier part of it by the war of thirty years
, the consequence of the Reformation. Leibnitz had previously carried oui a correspondence, tending to the same result, with Pelisson, a converted or apparently converted Huguenot, who enjoyed at that time considerable reputation as a fine writer in France; and the Bishop of Neustadt on the part of the Roman Catholics, and Molanus, Protestant abbot of Lokkum, near Hanover, on that of the Lutherans, had proceeded so far as actually to have
agreed on twelve articles as a basis of re-union. (See Butler's Life of Bossuet, Works, Vol. III. p. 242.) Molanus having conducted the negociation thus far, appears to have resigned it to Leibnitz. His views differed in some respects from those of Molanus. Bossuet distinctly declared that the Church of Rome, though she might shew indulgence in matters of discipline, would not yield a single article of faith propounded by the council of Trent; while Leibnitz, aware that there were some of these articles to which the Lutherans could not assent, wished that the re-union should take place provisionally, these points being reserved to the decision of a general council, to which, if fairly constituted, the Lutherans should promise to submit. After a correspondence which lasted ten years between Bossuet and Leibnitz, the plan was ultimately abandoned, and the Catholic writers charge Leibnitz with having caused its failure by his presumption and double-dealing-an imputation from which Mr. Butler, in the passage before quoted, declares that in his opinion he stands free. The correspondence to which we have referred terminated apparently in the year 1701. If we knew the date of a letter of Leibnitz to Ernest, Landgrave of Hesse-Rheinfels, we might be able to decide whether the work of which we are speaking be that referred to in it or not. “ Je veux,” says he, “dresser un jour quelque écrit, sur quelques points de controverse entre les Catholiques et Protestans, et s'il est approuvé par des
personnes judicieuses et modérées j'en recevrai beaucoup de joie. Mais il ne faut pas qu'on sache en aucune façon que l'auteur n'est pas dans la Communion Romaine. Cette seule prévention rend les meilleures choses suspectes." There is every probability that the work lately published is that which Leib nitz here declares his intention of composing: The manner in which the doctrines of the Church of Rome are viewed, is precisely that which would be required for the concealment which he deemed necessary in order to obtain an unprejudiced hearing. The inscription “Systema Theologicum Leibnitii” was not placed on the cover of the volume by Leibnitz himself, (it has no internal title,) but was given by some one who recognized his hand-writing and designated the work according to its contents. We proceed to mention what ihese are.
In regard to what are called the mysteries of religion, Leibnitz had already declared his opinion in the Discours de la Conformité de la Foi avec la Raison, prefixed io his Theodicie, that the doctrine of the Trinity (to which he adds creation and the distinct knowledge on the part of God of an infinity of things at once) is above reason, but not contrary to it, so that it cannot demonstrably be proved false. In pursuance of the same mode of arguing, he contends in this work, that the doetrine of Transubstantiation cannot be demonstrated to be false. Original sin he thus defmes: “Peccatum originale genus hominum in primo parente invasit; i.e. contracta est pravitas quædam quæ facit, ut homines sint ad bene agendum segnes, ad male agendum prompti, obnubilato intellectu, sensibus vero prævalentibus. Etsi autem anima pura a Deo emanat (neque enim adhuc animarum (probably impuritas is to be inserted] intelligi potest) tamen vi unionis cum corpore ex parentum vitio prave constituitur, sive per connexionem cum externis peccai um originale seu dispositio ad peccandum in eâ exoritur. Atque ita facti sunt omnes filii iræ et conelusi sub peccato et in exitium præcipites ituri, nisi magnâ Dei gratiâ subleventur; non eo tamen extendenda est vis peccati oria ginalis, ut parvuli, qui nullum actuale peccatum commiserunt, damnentur, quemadmodum multi volunt ; sub justo enim judice Deo, nemo sine culpa suå miser esse potest." Sins are divided into venial and deadly, under the latter being understood those “quæ malo animo et contra conscientiam ex