Then arose the question, In what ecclesiastical connexion? My relation to Methodism had arisen from circumstances, but now some study of ecclesiastical principles was necessary. I began to read what I could on the subject, acquainting myself with different sides, and being open to conviction one way or another. I had no predilections, and was ready to be either a clergyman or a Dissenting minister. I arrived at the conclusion that Congregationalism, on the whole, as far as I understood it, came nearest to New Testament teaching; but that probably no existing connexion corresponded exactly with Churches of the first century. What I thought then has been confirmed by studies in after-years, devoted largely to the New Testament and the history of Christendom. I have learned to distinguish between principles lying at the basis of religious beliefs and existing organisations through which they are worked out. The former may be true and sound, whilst the latter are defective, and in some points mistaken.
It is curious that at the time I first made up my mind I knew socially next to nothing of Congregationalists as a body; my chief associations having been with Methodists, Quakers, Church-people, and a few Roman Catholics. I joined the venerable society of Christians assembling in the Old Meeting House, Norwich; its fathers and founders having been gathered into Church fellowship, during the seventeenth century, under the teaching and influence of William Bridge, who resided in Yarmouth; some of the members being Norwich folk. When I expressed my desire for the ministry to two Dissenting ministers—the pastor of the Old Meeting House and his friend who occupied Princes-street pulpit—I met with different opinions, the former advising me to pursue the study of law, the latter encouraging my desire for the ministry. In the end these two friends concurred in advice, the consequence being my introduction to Highbury College, London.
I had from the beginning cautions against forsaking in after-life the pulpit for any other post. William Godwin, the famous author of “Political Justice” and other works, also W. J. Fox, the Anti-Corn-law lecturer, a distinguished public character at that time, had been intended for the Dissenting ministry, and, indeed, entered it. By a remarkable coincidence, both these distinguished men were connected with the Old Meeting House, where I then was accustomed to worship. Their abandonment of an early faith and a sacred calling for the sake of literature and politics, was held up to me as a beacon, to warn me off dangerous rocks.
Before noticing my entrance into college, I may be allowed to mention that the congregation which I joined contained some noteworthy people. Mr. William Youngman was a hard-headed, intelligent, and inquisitive man, much given to theological argument and incisive criticism of current opinions. He tried the patience of orthodox religionists, and was the terror of neophytes. Once, when I dined with him, he commenced talking about original sin as I was hanging up my hat, and went on in the same strain to the end of my visit. He found his match at book meetings in Mr. Thomas Brightwell, F.R.S., an eminent naturalist, whose name is perpetuated in a memoir of a plant called after him, to be found, if I correctly remember, in the Transactions of the Royal Society. He was a diligent student of the Bible, and published notes on the Old Testament, drawn chiefly from the Scholia of Rosenmuller and Michaelis.
In 1828 I entered Highbury College, afterwards merged in New College, St. John’s Wood; the professors—or tutors as they were called in my time—being Dr. Henderson, Dr. Burder, and Dr. Halley. Dr. Henderson had been engaged in foreign missionary and Bible work, spending much time in St. Petersburg, Copenhagen, and Stockholm, where he became acquainted with the languages of Northern Europe. He drilled us in the languages of the Old Testament, initiated some small study in Syriac, and delivered elaborate lectures on the evidences and doctrines of Christianity. He suggested essays to be written during the vacation on subjects demanding research, and he regularly required the careful preparation of comments on the original Scriptures, to be delivered viva voce in class. Dr. Burder was son of George Burder, once well known as the author of “Village Sermons.” He lectured on mental and moral philosophy, and employed as text-books the works of Reid, Stewart, and Brown having himself graduated in a Scotch university. Exceedingly careful, conscientious, and precise, he opposed all bold speculations, and was incapable of sympathy with mystical thinkers. He had a clear apprehension of whatever he taught, and used to lay down as a canon of composition. “Express yourselves, not so that you may, but so that you must be understood.” Dr. Halley was a good classical scholar, impulsive, unsystematic, and by no means a severe disciplinarian. He enthusiastically admired Demosthenes and Cicero, and to hear him give extempore versions of these orators was an immense treat. We read with him some Greek tragedians and Latin poets, and he delivered lectures on history and antiquities. Mathematics came within his department; but, certainly in my time, he never turned out a wrangler. His influence, however, was very stimulative, and he inspired when he did not instruct.
Defects in the Nonconformist educational system were apparent to me at that time, much more so have they become to me ever since; but, to a considerable extent, they arose from uncontrollable circumstances, so many students having had few advantages in their boyhood. I have lived to witness a great improvement in Nonconformist college methods.
It should not be omitted that during the latter part of our term a few of us attended the mental and moral philosophy class of Professor Hoppus in the London University College, Gower Street, that institution having been established by friends of unsectarian education, and numbering on its councils, and amongst its officers, several Nonconformists.
CHAPTER II
1828–1832
My most distinguished fellow-student for intellectual power and literary attainment was Henry Rogers, afterwards a large contributor to the Edinburgh Review. Some of the articles he wrote for that periodical have been published as essays in three volumes. His feeble voice stood in the way of his being an effective preacher; but his learning and ability eminently fitted him for the duties of a professor. In that capacity he rendered high service at Spring Hill, Birmingham, and next, at Lancashire College, Manchester. He was highly esteemed by Lord Macaulay, and Archbishop Whately; excessive modesty alone prevented his introduction to the highest literary circles.
He was a clear-headed, acute thinker and reasoner, delighting in Socratic talk, trotting out an unsuspicious conversationalist, until he entangled him in inconsistency and contradictions, the remembrance of which might be afterwards useful. Rogers, to the end of life, was a humble and devout Christian. Our intercourse in after-days was pleasant, and to me most encouraging.