On comparing this article with the corresponding one in the Rules and Orders, as inserted above, we are struck with a 6 various reading of some consequence. In the copy given above, and also in another in Mr Hollis's own handwriting, the first which he sent over duly signed, the article begins differently. That it be recommended to the electors, that at every choice, they prefer a man of solid learning in divinity, of sound or orthodox principles.' It is true, this difference has no bearing on the true interpretation of the term orthodox,' which occurs in all the copies, and is used in the same connexion in all, and ought obviously to be understood in the same sense. But it shows, that, in framing originally this part of the instrument, nothing was further from Mr Hollis's intentions, than tying up the hands of the electors. However we understand the term 'orthodox,' it does not appear that he required them to choose an orthodox man, but only that he recommended it. Neither does it appear that the change in the phraseology of the article, grew out of any change in Mr Hollis's purpose in this respect. If such a change had really taken place, it would have led to some remarks, and we have not met with a syllable on the subject in all his letters. 6 6 The question recurs, What does the term 'orthodox' mean, as used in the existing statutes of this professorship? Orthodoxy, in its strict and etymological acceptation, does not stand for any set of opinions or doctrines actually held in the church, but for the truth, or right opinion. Dr Johnson defines it, 'soundness in opinion and doctrine,' leaving it, of course, still open to discussion, What is soundness?' This is the sense in which the word, or rather the adjective derived from it, is to be understood in the passage before us, as may be inferred from the connexion. The epithet orthodox,' is not added as meaning anything more than 'sound;' for it is not said that the principles of the candidate should be sound and orthodox, but only that they should be sound or orthodox,' making 'orthodox' and 'sound,' convertible terms. The candidate should be a man of orthodox principles, that is, of sound and correct principles; leaving it, of course, for the electors to decide what shall be considered as evidence of sound and correct principles, just as it is left for them to decide what shall be considered as evidence of a sober and pious life and good conversation.' 6 There is, we are aware, a loose and popular sense, in which the term 'orthodox' is used in some places, as designating the opinions of the majority for the time being. By the Orthodox in Catholic countries, we are sometimes to understand those who strictly adhere to the decrees of the Council of Trent; by the Orthodox in England, those who maintain the Arminian interpretation of the Thirtynine Articles, and by the Orthodox in this country, those who hold a modified form of Calvinism, which, however, strictly speaking, is not Calvinism. But it is obvious, that no man would have used the term in this loose and popular sense, without anything to fix and determine its signification, in a solemn instrument which was to be binding on all posterity. Doubtless the term in question was often used by the Dissenters in Mr Hollis's time, and by Mr Hollis himself, as synonymous with Calvinistic. But is not everybody using terms of this sort, sometimes in their strict and proper, and sometimes in their local and sectarian acceptation? Besides, if the governors of the College are required to select a man for the divinity professorship, who is Orthodox, in the local and sectarian sense of that term, as used by the Dissenters a hundred years ago, there is not, probably, throughout New England a single individual, even among the reputed Calvinists at the present day, whom they could place in the chair with a clear conscience. The reputed Orthodox amongst us, at the present day, by giving up, as we believe they have done universally, the doctrine of imputation, have departed as really and essentially from the proper and strict Calvinism of the Puritans, as if they had given up the doctrine of the trinity. Considering only the term itself, therefore, and the connexion in which it is found, we should conclude, without the shadow of a doubt, that the word orthodox,' in these Rules and Orders, was not intended to restrict the Corporation and Overseers to the choice of a Calvinist and Trinitarian. When we recur to the history of the instrument, and recollect by whom it was drawn up and recommended, what before we confidently believed, is converted into moral certainty. Can we suppose, that Neal, and Harris, and Hunt, and Oldfield, and Lowman, and Shallett, would have joined to recommend the exclusive principle in religion? the very principle, which, at that moment, they were contending against in their own country, and had been contending against all their days? Can we suppose that Hunt and Lowman would have been the idiots, the dotards, not only to recommend the adoption of the exclusive principle, but to recommend its adoption against their own tenets? If it had been a part of Mr Hollis's intention, by these Rules and Orders, to exclude Arminians and Unitarians, can we suppose that he would have employed Dr Hunt himself, an Arminian and Unitarian, to draw up the paper? Can we suppose that he would have employed his own minister, whom he so often heard preaching against Calvinism, to prepare the statutes of the new professorship, in the expectation that he would do it in such a manner as to exclude from this professorship forever, all but Calvinists? Moreover, what reason have we to suspect, with regard to Mr Hollis himself, that he had so soon forgotten the liberal side he had taken in the difficulties between Dr Hunt and his people, and in the Salters' Hall controversy, and was now disposed to act on that very principle of exclusiveness, which, for years, he had been so constant and loud in reprobating as unjust and unchristian? What reason have we to suspect, that he did not mean that we should put the most liberal construction on the term 'orthodox' in these statutes, especially when we remember, that in the only instance in which he alludes to the subject at all in his correspondence, he expresses an anxiety lest the term should be interpreted, not too liberally, but too exclusively. This, then, is our conclusion. Mr Hollis had strong political antipathies against the Church of Rome, and the Church of England; but in regard to all differences among Christians, purely theological, we believe he intended that his professorship should be entirely open. The donations of Mr Hollis to Harvard College amounted to about seventeen hundred and fifty pounds sterling, or to about five thousand pounds of the depreciated currency of the Province, equal to seven thousand, seven hundred, and seventyseven dollars of our money. This, considering the relative value of money at that time, was one of the most liberal and munificent benefactions which our College has ever received. We may form some notion of the difference in the relative value of money then and now, when we are told, that the yearly stipend, granted in the first instance to the divinity professor, was only eighty pounds currency, or about twentysix pounds sterling; and this in the Rules and Orders is called an 'honorable stipend.' The following is, we believe, a true account of the present state of the funds given to the College by the elder Hollis ; Appropriated for the Divinity Professor, For the College Treasurer, Whole amount, $2606 67 2606 67 520 00 2680 00 $8413 34 It will be seen from this statement, that the divinity professor can derive from these funds, supposing them invested at six per cent., but about one hundred and fifty of the fifteen hundred dollars, his regular salary. So far, therefore, as the interests of the College are concerned, it is not of much importance how the controversy about this professorship is determined. But it is of great importance to the good name of Mr Hollis, that he should be protected against the unjust imputation of being a bigot. There were three benefactors to the College, who bore the name of Thomas Hollis, and who are often confounded together. Thomas Hollis, the subject of this memoir, who died 1731. Thomas Hollis, nephew and heir of the preceding, and son of Nathaniel. Of this man little is known, except that he gave the College two hundred pounds sterling, and died in 1735. The family estates then descended to his only son, Thomas Hollis, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn. This gentleman gave for the library of the College about fourteen hundred pounds sterling. There is a memoir of him compiled by Archdeacon Blackburne, in two quarto volumes. We learn from his biographer, that he connected himself with no religious sect. He died January 1, 1774. With the exception of a few legacies, he bequeathed his whole property to his friend, Thomas Brand, Esq., of the Hyde in Essex, who afterwards assumed the name of Hollis. He also presented the College many valuable books for the library in his lifetime, and one hundred pounds sterling at his decease. There is a memoir of him in a thin quarto volume prepared and published by Mr Disney. He was an avowed Unitarian, and a regular worshipper at the Essex Street Chapel in London. He died September 9, 1804. By him the Hollis estates were bequeathed to John Disney, a Unitarian clergyman. ART. V.-1. Fourth Annual Report to the American Unitarian Association, read and accepted May 26, 1829, with the Addresses at the Annual Meeting. Boston. Leonard C. Bowles. 1829. 12mo. pp. 50. 2. The Second Annual Report of the Executive Committee of the American Society for the Promotion of Temperance. Presented January 28, 1829. Andover. Flagg & Gould. 1829. 8vo. pp. 64. 3. First Annual Report of the General Union for Promoting the Observance of the Christian Sabbath, adopted May 12, 1829. New York. 8vo. pp. 16. We have prefixed to this article the titles of several reports of Societies, not so much for the purpose of discussing the merits of the several institutions whose labors they celebrate, as with the more general design of offering some remarks on the disposition, which now prevails, to form Associations, and to accomplish all objects by organized masses. A difference of opinion on this point has begun to manifest itself, and murmurs against the countless Societies which modestly solicit, or authoritatively claim our aid, which now assail us with fair promises of the good which they purpose, and now with rhetorical encomiums on the good they have done, begin to break forth from the judicious and well disposed, as well as from the querulous and selfish. These doubts and complaints, however, are most frequently excited by particular cases of unfair or injurious operations in Societies. As yet, no general principles have been established, by which the value of this mode of action may be determined, or the relative claims of different Associations may be weighed. We will not promise to supply the deficiency, but we hope to furnish some help to a sounder judgment than yet prevails on the subject. That the subject deserves attention, no man who observes the signs of the times, can doubt. Its importance forces itself on the reflecting. In truth, one of the most remarkable circumstances or features of our age, is the energy with which the principle of combination, or of action by joint forces, by associated numbers, is manifesting itself. It may be said, without much exaggeration, that everything is done now by Societies. Men have learned what wonders can be accomplished in certasn cases by union, and seem to think that union is competent ito 14 VOL. VII.-N. S. VOL. II. NO. I. |