James Peirce
the name of James Peirce will ever occupy a conspicuous place in the annals of religious liberty. It was not his lot, like the worthies we have already commemorated, to contend against the magistrate and the judge, wielding the terrors of the law in support of an established faith. The parties with whom he had to deal were happily divested of these formidable attributes, and unable to visit their opponents with fine and imprisonment; but they gave ample proof that the spirit was not wanting; and if they did not assume the character of persecutors in the worst sense, it was from a deficiency of power rather than of inclination. Their proceedings, we fear, shewed but too plainly, that the old leaven was far from being as completely worn out as might have been supposed: there is, however, every reason to think, that the controversy excited on the occasion, notwithstanding the heat and violence with which it was conducted, was mainly instrumental in opening the eyes of great numbers to more just and liberal views, both of religious truth, and of the proper mode of conducting religious inquiries. In this way the wrath of man is made to work out the righteousness of God, and his vehement passions and contentions with his brethren are over-ruled and directed to better purposes than were intended; so that what [90] good men deplored at the time as a miserable and mortifying display of unholy zeal and unchristian principles and feelings, became ultimately the means not only of promoting the further diffusion of the doctrines everywhere spoken against, but of checking the growth of priestly domination and of spiritual pride, lording it over the consciences of men, which are so inconsistent with the true spirit of the gospel of peace.Mr. Peirce was the son of respectable parents in good circumstances, and was born in London, in the year 1673. Having the misfortune to lose his parents early in life, he was placed under the care of Mr. Matthew Mead, an eminent Nonconformist minister at Stepney, and father of the celebrated Dr. Mead. After a suitable course of preparatory instruction, partly in the house of his guardian and partly at various grammar schools, he was sent, according to a practice not uncommon among the English dissenters of that period, to pursue his theological studies in Holland, first at the University of Utrecht, and afterwards at the sister seminary of Leyden. At both these celebrated seats of learning the principal chairs were at that time occupied by a constellation of eminent men, whose fame drew to them a concourse of students from all the Protestant countries of Europe. Among these the names of Witsius, Graevius, Burmann, Leusden, Gronovius, Spanheim, &c., are still remembered with respect in the republic of letters.
Having passed several years in each of these universities, Mr. Peirce returned to England, and shortly afterwards spent some time at Oxford, not however as a member of the university, but [91] in private lodgings, for the purpose of resorting to the Bodleian library. After preaching occasionally for some time to various congregations of dissenters in and near London, chiefly among the Presbyterians, but without mixing himself up with the controversies at that period agitated with so much vehemence between the Presbyterians and Independents, he settled as minister to a congregation at Cambridge. How long he continued in this situation we have no means of ascertaining; but it appears that he had the opportunity of cultivating the acquaintance of several men of talent and eminence in the university: among the rest the celebrated Whiston, From hence we may safely conclude, that he had already acquired a fair reputation for ability and attainments; for a dissenting minister immediately under the shade of one of our great seats of learning, miscalled national, which are reserved for the exclusive benefit of the established church, must obviously have many prejudices to encounter and remove before he can obtain admittance on a footing of equality and intimacy among those who, having enjoyed privileges from which others are debarred, are often disposed, for that very reason, to look down on the scholarship which has not been acquired among themselves,
From Cambridge he removed to Newbury, in Berkshire, where he seems to have been very eligibly situated with an attached and encouraging congregation. During his residence here, he distinguished himself by various publications on the controversy between the church and the dissenters. His first appearance on this arena [92] was in reply to a Dr. Wells, a clergyman in Leicestershire, who had published ‘A Letter to Mr. Donley,’ a dissenting minister, containing many unfounded statements and gross misrepresentations of the principles and character of the dissenters. This pamphlet being circulated with great activity, Mr. Peirce, in 1707, published ‘A Eight Letters to Dr. Wells,’ in which he convicted him, not only of various mistakes, but of gross and unjust calumnies. But his most remarkable and valuable work, in connexion with this controversy, was occasioned by the appearance of a Latin treatise by Dr. Nichols, Foreign Secretary to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and more particularly submitted to the judgment of divines in the foreign Protestant churches. As this work, from the quarter in which it originated, and the authority it appeared to assert, was likely to have an injurious effect in diffusing erroneous impressions of the character, doctrines, and discipline of the English dissenters among their foreign brethren, it was thought most desirable that a complete and full reply should be given by some one who was competent to appear to advantage in the same field. With this view Mr. Peirce, as the most suitable man for the task, was earnestly solicited to undertake it; and, after some hesitation, he consented, and prepared a well-written volume, entitled ‘Vindiciae Fratrum Dissentientium in Anglia, adversus V. C. Gulielmi Nicholsii, S. T. P., Defensionem Ecclesiae Anglicanae,’ 1710. To this work Dr. Nichols attempted no reply, and Mr. Peirce thought the controversy at an end, till, some years afterwards, another clergyman, after [93] the death of Dr. Nichols, published an English translation of his treatise, with a preface, recommending it to the particular attention of the dissenters, as a complete and unanswerable refutation of their principles, without a hint at any reply to it having ever appeared.
It is possible enough that this proceeding arose not so much from any wilful unfairness as from pure ignorance; for the ‘Vindiciae’ having been chiefly intended for foreign readers, may probably have had only a limited circulation at home; and persons of all parties are too apt, in most cases, to content themselves with the writers on their own side of the question. Independently of other more unworthy motives, self-love and indolence often lead to this one-sided study of an important subject. It is much easier to confine ourselves to those arguments which we are already disposed to think conclusive, and to go along with the stream, than to undertake the labour of examination and patient inquiry; not to add, that it is much more agreeable to find or believe ourselves in the right, than to be forced to acknowledge that we had been in the wrong. It is not much to be wondered at, therefore, that so few, comparatively speaking, run the risk of becoming exposed to this painful necessity. It is not at all unlikely that this clergyman was one of those who ‘never read dissenting divinity,’ and therefore had no suspicion that the book which he held forth as conclusive had already been fully answered. Mr. Peirce, finding that this work was much recommended to English readers, yielded to the solicitations of his friends, and published, in 1717, a translation of his former [94] work, entitled ‘A Vindication of the Dissenters, in answer to Dr. W. Nichols's Defence of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England: in three parts.’ The first part contains the history of Non-conformity; the second treats of the doctrine of the Church of England; and the third contains all the heads relating to discipline and worship. The work is dedicated to the ministers of the Church of Scotland, which he seems to hold up as a model of purity, both in doctrine and discipline; and, in fact, he takes little notice of the main point, which would now be considered as lying at the root of the question between the opponents and the advocates of an establishment as such; namely, the claim of the church to decree rites and ceremonies, and to exercise authority in matters of faith. This is the more remarkable, when we observe the effect of the treatment he afterwards received, to open his eyes to the injustice of all attempts to impose creeds of human composition; a leading principle of religious liberty, with which the name of Peirce has since become intimately connected in the history of Protestant dissent. In some places he even makes it an objection to Dr. N., that he represents his church as having departed from the standards of Calvinistic orthodoxy.
Nevertheless, even during his residence at Newbury, it would seem, from Mr. Peirce's own account, that in respect of the doctrine of the Trinity, he had himself already deviated considerably from these standards. He had been brought up, he tells us, in a scheme which he was unable afterwards to distinguish from Sabellianism, and a set of unscriptural expressions had [95] been inculcated on him from his youth, which he had long a great veneration for, and which continued to influence him so much as to inspire him with a strong disinclination to examine more particularly into this subject, even when he began to suspect a deficiency of argument in its favour from Scripture. In his preaching, however, he tells us, that he was at all times careful to confine himself as much as possible to scriptural forms of expression. The doctrine itself he was accustomed to consider as a mystery, which it was to little purpose to search into. Still he was surprised to observe, that the early fathers, previous to the council of Nice, never came up to the notions which have since become prevalent; and, on the other hand, that the expressions used by those who have had the highest reputation for orthodoxy appeared to him downright tritheism.
The effect of these things on his mind for some time, was to produce a repugnance to the subject altogether; and he never voluntarily turned his thoughts to it. He was in this state of mind when the outcry began to be raised about his former friend Mr. Whiston, on account of his having embraced Arian sentiments. He wrote him a friendly expostulation1 on the subject, in [96] answer to which Mr. Whiston referred him to Novatian, whose opinions certainly savour strongly of Arianism, as most nearly agreeing with his views. It was not, however, till some time after the publication of Dr. Clarke's celebrated treatise on the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, that Mr. Peirce applied himself in earnest to the further study of this subject. “They who most dislike the Doctor's notion, must own the method he took to treat of the subject was the best that could be thought of. I confess,” (says Mr. Peirce,) “I was charmed with it; and cannot but wonder that writers on the other side have not attempted to vindicate their notion the same way. I soon saw the controversy was too hard for me, and that I was eased of a design that would have put me to abundance of trouble. I could not fall in with the Doctor in every thing; but saw clearly that I must part with some beloved opinions, or else quit my notions of the authority of the Holy Scriptures.”
The reader will easily imagine that this must [97] have been a terrible shock to me, and that I must have had a great concern upon my mind, when I found myself at a loss about a doctrine of which I had been all along fond, to a great degree of uncharitableness. However, this caused me to read the Bible with more care, and make it more my prayer to God that I might be led into the truth. I was soon convinced the common opinion could not reasonably be esteemed a fundamental article of the Christian faith, as I had been too apt before to take it to be; and on serious consideration, the subject appeared to me so abstruse and difficult, that I could not imagine God had made men's salvation to depend on their maintaining exactly the same notion concerning it; especially seeing the scripture never insists on the absolute necessity of one uniform belief about it; and I was much confirmed in this apprehension, by considering how widely good men had differed from one another on the subject.
‘While I continued in suspense, being still upon the search, I considered how I ought to order my practice: and here I thought it most safe for me to keep close to the scripture, which is much clearer in delivering rules and examples for our practice than in furnishing us with nice and intricate speculations. As to the Christian virtues, I thought them not much concerned in the controversy; and in conversation I had always avoided such intricate points, and might easily do so still. But my chief concern was about my preaching and praying. Concerning the former, I resolved to keep more close to the scripture expression than ever, and venture to say very little in my own words of a matter about which I was in so much doubt [98] myself. As to the latter, I could not find there was any occasion for my making much alteration, whichever notion should appear to be the truth; having always accustomed myself, as all Christians for the most part do, to pray to the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit. In this, therefore, I resolved to go on. The only doubt I had, was about the expediency and agreeableness of the doxology, I often used at the end of my prayers. I could not say it was unlawful; but I thought the safest way was to consider what sort of doxologies the scriptures set before us, and so recommend to our use. These, I was sure, must be safe, and the other might be doubtful. And it seemed to me very reasonable, that he that prays with others should make the worship as unexceptionable as possible to all Christians, by avoiding to bring into it disputable, doubtful, or unnecessary things. For this reason I left off the doxologies I had been wont to use.’2
From this extract, it appears, that in the year 1713, when Mr. Peirce was invited to remove to Exeter, he was fully convinced that the common doctrine of the Trinity was unauthorized by scripture, and had for some time been accustomed to address all his devotions exclusively to the Father. There were at that time three dissenting congregations at Exeter, assembling in different places of worship, but so far united that they were served in common by four ministers, who exercised a collegiate charge over the whole. A committee of thirteen was entrusted with the general management of their congregational affairs, the contributions [99] of the whole body being thrown into a common stock, and divided equally.3 The united body was numerous and highly respectable, forming a large proportion of the most substantial citizens of the place. Mr. Peirce's invitation appears to have been not only unanimous, but pressed with a more than ordinary urgency and earnestness, to such a degree, that Dr. Calamy, who happened to visit the city at the time when the matter was pending, describes himself as filled with a kind of misgiving, that such excessive solicitude might pass to the other extreme, and expectations raised so extravagantly high might end in disappointment. ‘Never before,’ says he, ‘did I see such an earnestness in any people for a minister's coming among them. They talked as if they were quite undone if he did not accept their call, and no one else could signify any thing to them, if they had not him. They ran to such a height, that I took the freedom to tell some of them, that I was afraid they were under a sore temptation; and that their carriage would provoke God some way or other, to cross their too raised expectations, either by suffering something to befall Mr. Peirce, that should keep him from coming among them; or by blasting his pains among them, if their desires were gratified by his settling with them. This was remembered by several of them afterwards with some concern, when there were such heats among them about doctrinal matters. By me, I am sure it can never be forgotten. I told Mr. Peirce himself of it, with no small trouble, when I saw him afterwards; [100] and could not help thinking that the peculiar eagerness and impetuosity of their spirits on this occasion boded very ill.’4
At this period, if we are to believe the representations afterwards brought forward by his opponents, the ‘new notions,’ as they called them, were altogether unknown at Exeter; but this is denied by Mr. Peirce. The writings of Clarke, Whiston, and others, who differ from the common opinion, had been read there before his coming among them; and some few of the people, though they kept it to themselves, had long before, by only reading their Bibles, been convinced that it was not agreeable to the scripture. Still there can be no doubt that a large majority of the society were, and continued to be, strictly Trinitarian; and this being the case, the question arises, how far it was or was not the duty of a man in Mr. Peirce's circumstances, aware that his private sentiments on a point which they thought, whether reasonably or not, to be of primary and essential importance, were materially different from those of the bulk of his congregation, to have explained his views in the first instance openly and without reserve. Something might perhaps be said on both sides. A Whiston or a Priestley would probably have not hesitated to lay their whole mind open, regardless of consequences, while others, feeling, or endeavouring to persuade themselves, that the points in dispute were of little interest or comparative importance, did their best to compromise such debatable questions, and veil their real opinions in general and somewhat vague language, [101] while they bestowed their chief attention on those doctrines which admitted of a more immediate devotional or practical application, and were therefore more available for the improvement of their hearers in the essential graces of the Christian character.
It is needless to observe, that this politic system, though adopted in many instances from pure and praiseworthy motives, is, to say the least of it, a doubtful and dangerous one. It is liable to involve those who practise it in a course of habitual dissimulation, which cannot be vindicated by its alleged motives, and can scarcely fail materially to injure the genuine integrity, simplicity, and godly sincerity, which the true Christian, and above all the Christian minister, will endeavour to cultivate with all assiduity and diligence. As far as Mr. Peirce's case is concerned, it is however worthy of remark, that if his preaching and public services were really conducted from the first on the plan which he describes, his ultra-orthodox hearers must have been much less alert and vigilant than such persons generally are, not instantly to detect his deficiencies, not so much in the actual assertion or introduction of obnoxious principles, as in the absence of topics and modes of address which a person thoroughly ‘sound in the faith’ may be expected to employ on all occasions. It may be added, also, that of the other ministers, Mr. Hallet, if not Mr. Withers, appear in a great measure to have adopted the same views, and to have acted on the same principle.
In 1715, a vacancy occurring among the associated ministers was supplied by a Mr. Lavington, a young man of no great talent, but abundant orthodoxy, [102] and more zeal than discretion. Most men in such a situation, associated with three colleagues, all of them greatly his superiors in years, in learning, in character, and reputation, would have been contented to remain quietly in the background. Mr. Lavington soon shewed that this was far from being his intention; the less so, as he was intimately connected with some ministers of the neighbourhood, narrow-minded and bigoted men, who encouraged him to thwart and oppose his colleagues, and availed themselves to the full extent of the opportunity which these troubles afforded them to exercise an inquisitorial influence in the concerns of other religious societies. In the general meeting of ministers called the ‘Assembly,’ which was held twice a year, in May and September, the old forms of Presbyterian Church government were at that time retained to a greater extent in Devonshire than in any other part of the country; and though they were not in themselves connected with any considerable ecclesiastical power, at least not in ordinary times, yet at a period of popular excitement or alarm, when disputes like those which at this time prevailed at Exeter increased the violence of party-spirit and sectarian animosity, they afforded facilities for the display of an illiberal bigotry, which, though it was happily disarmed of its more formidable attributes, had still power to light up the flames of civil discord, to set a man at variance against his brother, and to drive its victims from honourable stations which they had filled with credit and usefulness.
Mr. Peirce himself, however, had rather high notions of church authority; and in his estimation [103] Presbyterianism was by no means such a mere name as it has since become universally among us, and as it was among the greater part of the class of dissenters, so called, even in his own time. In a sermon under the title, ‘Presbyterian Ordination proved regular,’ he argues strongly against the Independents; maintaining that to the end of the world, presbyters, and not the people, are to judge of men's qualifications for the sacred office. ‘The congregation are invited to unite in prayers for a blessing on his person and labours, who is now to be set apart to minister in the church of Christ. This (he adds) is your act as well as ours. But the authoritative separating and commissioning him to the work is not your act, but primarily the Lord's, and secondarily our acting in his name.’ If we are to rely on the account given by Mr. Fox, of Plymouth, in his curious and biographical papers,5 Mr. Peirce was not indisposed, as long as his popularity continued, to carry matters with a high hand in the assembly; and he even insinuates that, if his falling into the Unitarian scheme had not convinced him that he should at one time or another stand in great need of the charity of his fellow-christians, he would have shewn but little to such as should happen to differ from him. The tone of some passages in the tracts he published in the controversy which ensued on this occasion, is certainly such as to shew that he had a sufficient feeling of his own importance, and was fully sensible of his superiority to the men who were enabled by circumstances to annoy and overcome [104] him. It must on the other hand be observed, that no one can read Mr. Fox's papers without immediately perceiving the prevailing bias of his mind to satire, so that his accounts of his contemporaries, where they tend to their disparagement, must be taken with some few grains of allowance.
The first serious indication of an approaching storm occurred in 1717; when a Mr. H. Atkins, a zealot for orthodoxy, preached in Mr. Peirce's absence a vehement sermon, charging some of the dissenters of Exeter with ‘damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them.’ Mr. Peirce, on his return, found that a great ferment had been excited, and, at the request of some leading members of his congregation, preached a sermon on the propitiation of Christ. The doctrine of this sermon, from which he has given a long extract in his pamphlet, entitled, ‘The Western Inquisition,’ seems to bear a considerable resemblance to what is sometimes called moderate Calvinism. The efficacy of the death and sacrifice of Christ is owing to the appointment of God, to the dignity of his person, and the holiness and purity of his oblation. We could have no certainty of this efficacy, if we did not know assuredly that it was the appointment of God; but, on the other hand, this alone, though we had been made acquainted with nothing more on the subject, would have been sufficient to satisfy us that all was right, and that a way had been made to reconcile the remission of sin with the divine justice, though we could not see it. Still he repels the notion, which he ascribes to the Socinians, that God might have been reconciled to us without a satisfaction. Justice to the sinner may [105] have admitted it; but there was also a justice due to himself—a regard to his own honour and glory, and the reputation of his government. On the other hand, he rejects the notion that an infinite satisfaction was necessary, because sin is an infinite evil as committed against an infinite Being;—he justly observes, that by the same rule any act of obedience would be an infinite good. In the sufferings endured by Christ on account of our sins, God is shewn to be righteous and sin revenging; and having thus secured his own honour, and been just to himself, he may, without the least impeachment of his wisdom, holiness, or sovereignty, be the justifier of him that believes in Jesus. Another thing to which the virtue and efficacy of Christ's propitiation is owing, is the dignity of his person. ‘Through the eternal Spirit he offered himself to God.’ This expression, according to Mr. Peirce, relates to the divine nature, the Logos, united to the human nature of Christ, which was the thing that gave such a mighty efficacy and virtue to his propitiation. This being the case, we should be on our guard not to depreciate him in our thoughts or our expressions. He then finds great fault with the forced and awkward interpretations, as he calls them, of the Socinians; and adds, that we need not be shy in giving to Christ the title which we find the scripture gives him over and over; (citing to this purpose, John i. 1, 2; Heb. i. 8; Isaiah IX. 6.) As to the difficulty of reconciling this with the unity of God, he observes that, whatever the difficulty may seem to be, since the Son is begotten of the Father, and derives all his perfections from him, it cannot be [106] unreasonable to resolve the unity of the Godhead into the same principle that the scripture does, and to represent the Father as the fountain of the Godhead in the Logos, who is his only begotten Son.6
It must be admitted, that it is necessary to enlarge our definition of Unitarianism to the very utmost, in order to comprehend such doctrine as this within its pale. We may, without impropriety, consider all who confine their religious worship to ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ as deserving the title of Unitarian; and this Mr. Peirce appears to have done; though, perhaps, some may be at a loss to perceive with what consistency he did so, after the concessions he made on this and other occasions. At all events, it would appear that for a time this sermon produced apparently the desired effect of allaying the jealousy which had arisen. There can, however, be no doubt, that whatever the ministers may have done who disclaimed any discussion of this sort in private, and professed their uniform endeavour to discourage all topics of controversy and dissension, the subject was much agitated by various members of the society, displaying probably on both sides more zeal and warmth than sound judgment. In this way much bickering and dispute doubtless arose, and many idle tales were circulated, which, instead of being suppressed, were encouraged and promoted by the orthodox minister, Lavington. Soon afterwards, he avowed his resolution to bring the whole affair before the Assembly. But in the [107] mean time it was taken up by the ‘committee of thirteen,’ —a self-elected body entrusted with the temporal concerns of the society, but who did not scruple to interfere occasionally in matters beyond their province. Urged by the representations of these gentlemen, Mr. Peirce consented to preach on the eternity of the Son of God. On this occasion, after dwelling for some time on what appears to us a somewhat fanciful argument, derived from Hebrews IX. 14, where he must needs have it that the ‘eternal Spirit’ means the divine nature of Christ, he introduces the following just and impressive view of the great principles of religious liberty with reference to the existing disputes; and which were certainly not less infringed by committees of thirteen, and by assemblies of ministers imposing their own creeds as a test upon others, binding men's consciences and lording it over their brethren, than by synods and councils backed with the authority of the civil power.
‘There is one thing which I cannot but think it just for men to insist on,—that, as the holy scriptures are the only rule in such matters, so men should not pretend to impose their notions upon others. 'Tis perhaps impossible to talk of these things, without sometimes using other than the express words of scripture; but then let us not impose such our expressions or our interpretations upon others. This liberty let others tamely give up as they please; I do and will insist on it for myself, as a reasonable creature, a Christian, a Protestant, and a Dissenter. As I pretend not to impose on others, so neither will I in this case be imposed on by [108] others. No king, no parliament, no church, no council, no synod, no minister or body of ministers, no man or body of men, shall be acknowledged by me to have any such power or rightful authority over me. They may deprive me of my civil liberty, of my estate, or of my life; but this liberty, by the grace of God, they never shall deprive me of, to think and speak of the matters of God and of religion only in that manner in which I apprehend they are spoken of in the holy scriptures by God himself. Tell me not what Athanasius or Arius, what the council of Nice or Rimini, have said, but what Christ, and Peter and Paul and James and John and Jude have said. I call no man master upon earth.’7
At length, the Assembly met in September 1718. On the preceding day a preparatory meeting was held to arrange their future proceedings. It was urged that the growth of Arianism rendered it necessary that they should purge themselves, and clear their reputation in the world. Some one expressed his surprise that the Exeter ministers were so backward. Mr. Peirce replied that he could not speak without some concern, seeing he apprehended that they were about to sap the foundation he stood upon, as a christian, a protestant, and a dissenter; and in the course of his speech, he called for a text in which the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were called the one God. The orthodox party only answered by dwelling upon consequences. At this meeting, Mr. Withers delivered an able and elaborate speech against the course proposed; arguing [109] strongly both against tests in general, and against this in particular. On the following morning, after much and violent dispute, it was determined to call on each member to declare his belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, a proposition of Mr. Peirce, that a declaration expressed in the words of scripture should be admitted as sufficient, having been negatived. Mr. Hallet, however, who was first called on, expressed himself as follows: ‘I declare that the Father is the most high God, Luke i. 32; VI. 35. I also declare that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, John i. 1. That Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is over all, God blessed for ever, Rom. IX. 5. I further declare, that when Ananias and Sapphira did lie unto the Holy Ghost, they did not lie unto men, but unto God. And the bodies of believers being the temples of the Holy Ghost, (1 Cor. VI. 19,) are the temples of God, (1 Cor. III. 16, 17,) and yet, “ to us there is but one God, the Father, of Whom are all things,” 1 Cor. VIII. 6.’ Mr. Peirce gave his creed in the following terms; ‘I am not of the opinion of Sabellius, Arius, Socinus, or Sherlock. I believe there is but one God, and can be no more. I believe the Son and Holy Ghost to be divine persons, but subordinate to the Father; and the unity of God I think is to be resolved into the Father's being the fountain of the divinity of the Son and Spirit.’ Three others, when called on, denied the authority of the meeting to require of them an account of their faith, and positively refused to make any declaration; and Mr. Peirce, in the account he has left of these proceedings, expresses his regret that he had not [110] done the same. At length it was formally resolved, on the motion of Mr. Lavington, ‘(that it is the general sense of this assembly, that there is but one living and true God, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are that one God.’ During the discussion, the wildest extravagances of Tritheism were defended; and one of the high party, when the absurdity of his creed was urged upon him, replied, ‘I leave God to reconcile his own contradictions.’
When this business was over, Mr. Matthew Huddy, one of the three recusants, who happened to be the preacher of the day, delivered an admirable sermon, earnestly contending for the right of private judgment, recommending the use of reason in matters of religion, and condemning the spirit of intolerance which had been excited so banefully and so extensively.8
No immediate steps were taken, either by the Assembly or by others, in consequence of these declarations; but in about two months, Mr. Peirce and his two colleagues were waited on by ‘the thirteen,’ with a requisition to profess their assent to the doctrine of the Trinity, either in the words of the first article of the Church of England, or of the sixth answer in the Assembly's Catechism, or as their own assembly had recently agreed. Mr. Peirce promptly refused; telling them, at the same time, that he could not satisfy his conscience to lay down his ministry himself; but if they would venture to lay him aside, and that would make them easy, he would give them no further trouble. On this, the managers, hesitating [111] to proceed to this extremity on their own authority, made application for advice to certain ministers in London. It is not much to the credit of these ministers, that, without making any further inquiries, or consulting the parties against whom the complaint was made, they proceeded immediately to give an opinion upon an ex-parte statement. Their advice was to call in some of the neighbouring ministers who might best judge of these matters on the spot. Accordingly, seven ministers were applied to, who may have been selected, as residing at no great distance, but who happen, nevertheless, to have been among those who took the most prominent part in the late violent proceedings in the Assembly, and who were, therefore, least of all likely to exercise an impartial judgment on the case. In fact, it does not appear to have been for the purpose of judging between the parties, or of reconciling differences, that they were assembled; but to assist one of the parties in the most effectual mode of accomplishing the object they were already determined on.
These seven, as was, in fact, expected and intended, set their names to a declaration to the following effect; ‘that there are some errors in doctrine that are a sufficient foundation for the people to withdraw from the communion of their ministers holding such errors; and that the denying the true and proper divinity of the Son of God, namely, that he is one God with the Father, is an error of that nature, contrary to the holy scripture, and to the doctrine of the reformed churches.’ Shortly afterwards, the four ministers were requested to meet these gentlemen, when the above declaration was read to them, and they [112] were severally asked, whether they owned that the Son of God was one God with the Father. ‘I told them,’ says Mr. Peirce, as to their article, ‘I would own that Christ and his Father were one, because he said so. They asked, if I would own that they were one God? I said, if they would turn me to a text where 'twas said so, I would own it; but I had over and over again declared, that I would subscribe no religious tests at all that were not expressed in scripture words.’ Mr. Hallet in like manner refused his assent. Mr. Lavington of course gave it without reserve. Mr. Withers offered them this explication in the words of Bishop Pearson: “though the Father and the Son are two distinct persons, yet since the Son is of and from the Father as the fountain of deity, and intimately united with him, I conceive in this sense he may be said to be one God with the Father.” But this was not accepted. After some further deliberation, they received a message from the gentlemen to this effect: ‘If the ministers have nothing more to say to us, we have nothing to say to them.’9
The next day, without the formality of any regular appeal to the congregation at large, three of the four trustees took possession of the keys of the meeting-house in which Mr. Peirce and Mr. Hallet were accustomed chiefly to officiate; and a meeting of the body of trustees (or proprietors as they style themselves) of the three chapels passed a resolution, declaring that neither of these gentlemen should henceforth preach in any of them. This was a strong measure, outstepping [113] the bounds or their legitimate authority, and was reasonably objected to as arbitrary and unfair. There is, however, good reason to believe that both parties were sufficiently aware that it was approved in substance, if not in form, by the majority of the people. If it had been otherwise, the one party were as little likely to have submitted to it as the other to have adopted it. At all events, there is no reason to believe that the trustees were ever called to account for their conduct by their own friends, or even found it necessary, in modern phrase, to sue for a bill of indemnity from those who were glad that the thing was done, though they might not altogether approve of the manner of doing it.
Of the three suspected ministers, Peirce and Hallet only were ultimately ejected; for Mr. Withers, notwithstanding the firmness and decision with which he had remonstrated against the first inquisitorial proceedings, and refused to assent to any creed imposed by human authority, was at length induced to sign the prescribed formula of the first article of the Church of England; thus subscribing slave to his imperious and bigoted junior, with whom he was consequently permitted to remain associated, and to whom, notwithstanding the unquestioned superiority of his talents and Character, we cannot doubt that he was an humble subordinate for the rest of his life. ‘May that good man's yoke,’ says Mr. Peirce (W. I. p. 160) ‘always sit easy upon him. I cannot yet repent that I did not submit to the same.’
The ejected ministers and their adherents with some difficulty procured a temporary place of meeting; and soon afterwards erected a place of [114] worship for themselves, in which, for nearly century, a succession of eminent men officiate to a respectable congregation. It is remarkable as being the first in this country avowedly erected for the worship of the one God, the Father; al-. though there can be no doubt that the worship of many dissenting societies had for some time been conducted on an anti-trinitarian plan; and, in the, liberal constitution of the trust-deeds of the greater part of the Presbyterian chapels which had been erected subsequent to the Act of Toleration, their founders afforded (and would seem to have in-. tended to afford) to those who came after them; the liberty of judging for themselves, and of varying their modes of worship and preaching according to what they might at any future period conceive to be most conformable to reason and scripture. The orthodox majority, of course, retained possession of the original meeting-house,. and speedily nominated successors to the ejected. ministers, one of whom (Mr. Enty, from Plymouth). was among the most active and zealous abettors of the recent illiberal proceedings. They continued, as before, to act in concert on all important occasions; but had no communication with their heretical brethren who had gone out from them. It is, however, a curious example of the silent; and unmarked progress of truth, that that genertion had not passed away when the Assembly virtually reversed the decree of 1718. It being proposed to the Assembly which met in May 1753, whether any candidates should be recommended who refuse to declare their faith in the deity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,—it was debated whether, the question should be put, and by the [115] majority carried in the negative. By that time, the celebrated Micaiah Towgood, who then occupied the pulpit from which Mr. Peirce had been ejected, was at least as far from orthodoxy as his predecessor had been; and now, under the successive ministries of Towgood, Manning, Bretland, Kenrick, and Carpenter, the descendants of those who excommunicated Mr. Peirce and his adherents have been long since brought to adopt a form of Unitarianism, from which the most heretical of those times would have started back with affright. In 1810, the two congregations, finding that there was no longer any material difference in their views on disputed points, again united.
The Exeter controversy, in consequence of the appeal made by both parties to certain ministers in London, was the means of bringing on a very vehement struggle on the general question, which was debated at great length in a multitude of publications, some very able, others displaying a degree of bitterness and party spirit which it is mortifying to observe in the avowed ministers of the gospel of peace. This dispute created a breach between the contending parties which was never entirely healed; and there can be little doubt that it tended materially to weaken the political weight and influence of the Nonconformists of that day, taken as a body. But, on the other hand, it is not less evident that, in the midst of the din of contending factions, the voice of truth was heard by many. The general attention was forcibly directed to important principles, some of them hitherto unsuspected, and others, though tacitly acknowledged, yet never before pursued to their practical consequences; so that what the friends [116] of peace deeply deplored at the time, became, in the hands of Providence, the instrument of important and extensive good. The parties who had been severally applied to from Exeter, when it was determined on to lay the question before the general body of ministers in London, were each bent on carrying the matter in their own way, and made great exertions to collect together as strong a body of supporters as they could. The friends of Mr. Peirce came prepared with a series of propositions entitled ‘Advices for Peace;’ of which the fourth, and most important, is as follows: ‘If, after all, a public hearing be insisted on, we think that the Protestant principle, that the Bible is the only and the perfect rule of faith, obliges those who have the case before them not to condemn any man on the authority of human decisions, or because he consents not to human forms and phrases: but then only is he to be censured as not holding the faith necessary to salvation, when it appears that he contradicts, or refuses to own, the plain and express declarations of holy scripture in what is there made necessary to be believed, and in matters there solely revealed. And we trust that all will treat the subjects of their common Lord, as they who expect the final decision at his appearing.’ The promoters of these ‘Advices,’ though deprecating any reference to human creeds, disclaim the imputation that they are themselves favourable to any other than the commonly-received notions on the subject of the Trinity; and this was probably true to a certain extent; though we perceive, in the list of signatures attached to them, the names of some who then were, and of others who afterwards became, [117] distinguished supporters of different forms of Unitarianism. On the other hand, a powerful body was favourable to the orthodox party at Exeter, and could not be contented without an express declaration of their faith. They insisted accordingly on a confession in terms of the first—article of the Church of England, and drew up a counter string of advices, with which in their apparent spirit and general tenor there is no material fault to be found. The course which they recommend in case of a disagreement, real or supposed, between a minister and either the whole or any considerable part of his congregation, is rational and proper enough; but it is obviously spoiled in its application to this particular instance, by the prescribed declaration of conformity to a creed of human composition by which it is introduced.
The general meeting, at which this important question was discussed and put to the vote, was held at Salters' Hall, from which circumstance the whole dispute has received the name of the Salters' Hall Controversy. At the final decision, the Bible (as Sir J. Jekyl wittily expressed it) carried it by 4; the numbers being 57 to 53.
Dr. Calamy (in his Memoirs lately published10), at the conclusion of his account of this dispute, in which he refused to take any part, though earnestly solicited on both sides, has the following very just remarks:
As to the grand matter which they contended about, I was entirely of the mind of the celebrated Mr. Chillingworth, who closes his preface to The religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation with these memorable [118] words: “ Let all men believe the scripture, and that only, and endeavour to believe it in the true sense, and require no more of others; and they shall find this not only a better, but the only way to suppress heresy and restore unity. For he that believes the scripture sincerely, and endeavours to believe it in the true sense, cannot possibly be a heretic. And if no more than this were required of any man to make him capable of the Church's communion, then all men so qualified, though they were different in opinion, yet, notwithstanding any such difference, must be of necessity of one communion.”
These sentiments are very just; but surely, if they were Dr. Calamy's, he ought, in proper consistency, to have recorded his vote with the non-subscribing majority.
Such was the issue of this contest, of which we have given a more minute recital than such disputes commonly deserve, considering it as a critical incident in the progress of liberal opinions and views among a large class of the Nonconformists of that period. The eager struggle and bitter debates which it occasioned, gave rise to much irritation, animosity, and ill-will, which, it must be confessed, was far from being limited to one party in the dispute; but the very agitation which it gave to men's minds served to shake the foundations and weaken the dominion of prejudice; to stimulate to more free and active inquiry; and, in more instances than one, to carry the inquirers forward to conclusions which in the outset they little anticipated, and even formally disclaimed. On the merits of the case itself the following remarks of Mr. Murch are not undeserving [119] of attention: ‘A calm review of the whole case suggests various apologies for the part which was acted by the Trinitarians. They attached incalculable value to their opinions, and saw that those opinions were in danger of being subverted by the influence of the ministers whom they invited, and long considered orthodox. They also saw that the places of worship which they had built at considerable expense were gradually becoming subservient to the dissemination of views which many called blasphemous and fatal. Moreover, their fears were increased by the well known fact, that what they deemed heresy was not openly inculcated; but that some friends of Peirce and Hallet carried on a secret mode of proselytizing, which appeared likely to be more hurtful to their cause than open warfare. And if on one side it be asserted that Mr. Lavington and his party were guilty of deceitful transactions, it cannot be denied on the other that the heterodox occasionally concealed their opinions on important topics, and endeavoured to give them a popular colouring. That the heterodox ministers wished for peace is very evident; but it is a question whether, in pursuing what they believed to be a Christian object, they did not sometimes resort to unworthy compromises. These considerations are perfectly compatible with a full appreciation of the difficulties in which they were placed, with high admiration of many parts of their conduct, and with firm persuasion that the cause of religious truth and religious liberty is deeply indebted to them. In the first place, they dared to inquire and decide for themselves, when it was the universal custom to be guided implicitly, [120] by established formularies; and they subsequently maintained their convictions, and advocated the great principle of the sufficiency of scripture, amidst the clamours of ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry, at the risk of losing friends, reputation, means of subsistence,—all, indeed, that most men value!’11
The minority which retired with Mr. Peirce and his colleague were, however, by no means contemptible in numbers, and still less so in respectability and intelligence; consisting, as might be expected, in a great measure of that class who, from their education and circumstances, were both more able to inquire and examine, and more likely to avow their conclusions in a spirit of independence. Some of them, there is good reason to believe, were already disposed to pursue their inquiries into ‘new notions,’ for which even their ministers were not prepared. At all events, it may be presumed, that Mr. Peirce now found himself much more at his ease than when associated with a jealous, narrow-minded colleague, envious of his reputation and superior abilities, and with a congregation to whom he dared not declare what he believed to be the whole counsel of God, for fear of an explosion. He had now no longer any thing to keep secret; no inducement to withhold any part of what he thought was scripture truth; no necessity for compromises and concealments, which are too apt to become a fatal snare to a man's conscience. It may be supposed, therefore, that, when the storm had subsided, he would enjoy more comfort and tranquillity than before. This however [121] scarcely appears to have been the case. His mind had been deeply irritated and harassed by the treatment he had received; and he seems to have allowed the recollection of it to affect his equanimity more than could have been wished. His health also began to give way, and his connexion with the newly formed society did not continue more than about six years.
During this period, he published the work by which he is chiefly known to posterity as a theologian,—a Paraphrase on some of the Epistles of St. Paul, after the manner of Mr. Locke. He began with the Epistle to the Colossians, which having been received with great favour by the public, was speedily followed by the Epistle to the Philippians. His next attempt was on the Epistle to the Hebrews, which however he did not live to finish the manuscript which he left prepared for the press extending only as far as ch. x. 34. It was afterwards completed by Mr. Hallet, junior, his colleague and successor. These are performances of great ability, and justly maintain a high reputation among biblical scholars. They profess to be a sequel, as far as they go, to the well-known works of Mr. Locke, and are formed for the most part on his plan; but the notes are considerably more elaborate and extended. In point of doctrine, as may be expected, they have a decided leaning in favour of the author's high Arian principles.
While he was engaged in this work, Mr. Peirce was attacked by a disorder which put a period to his life, March 10, 1726, in the fifty-third year of his age. He was buried in the churchyard of St. Leonard's, Exeter, and his friends were desirous of erecting a monument over his remains, with a [122] suitable Latin inscription, which they had prepared. They had no idea of the necessity of consulting the clergyman of the parish on the subject; but, when the work was nearly finished, this gentleman reminded them of his right to inspect and sanction every thing of that kind which was put up in his churchyard. When the intended inscription was submitted to him, he refused the necessary license. He was then requested to allow the following words to be inscribed on the tombstone, ‘Here lies the reverend, learned, and pious Mr. James Peirce.’ He replied, that Mr. Peirce could not properly be styled reverend, because he had not had episcopal ordination; nor pious, because he taught errors. All, therefore, that was finally placed on the stone was simply
Mr. James Peirce's Tomb,
1726.
