2013 Annual Report - Jesus College - University of Cambridge

FREND OF JESUS I Jesus College Annual Report 2013 49
Moreover, he had abandoned the Church of
England and his priestly vocation to embrace
the beliefs of Unitarianism.
The Unitarian movement, as it implies,
denied the doctrine of the Trinity. God was
seen as unitary in nature, Christ was a good,
prophetic human being, but not divine.
Unitarianism also rejected sacramental
theology and the doctrine of apostolic
succession. Most important, for the temper
of the times, Unitarianism denied the
doctrine Original Sin. For the political
radicals of the 1790s, fired up by the early
spirit of the French Revolution, belief in
Original Sin hindered expectation of
an amelioration of society through social
and political, rather than spiritual, means.
For its opponents, Unitarianism encouraged
rebellion by insisting that the basis of sin was
unjust social and economic structures, rather
than a “deep stain in our nature”, as
Coleridge once put it. There are resonances
of this perspective in the views of Liberation
Theologians in our own day.
One of the major texts for the Unitarians
(Joseph Priestly referred to it as their “Bible”)
was the two-volume work of the philosopher
and physiologist David Hartley, Fellow of
Jesus College from 1727 to 1730. Hartley’s
Observations on Man (a copy of which is to be
found in the Old Library) proposed a quasideterministic
mind-brain theory, often
labelled “necessitarianism”. The theory
argued that the causes of sin, and of virtue,
were principally environmental. Coleridge so
passionately worshiped Hartley that he would
name his first born after him (a decision he
later regretted on recovering his belief in
Original Sin – after, on consideration,
concluding that only the “deep stain”
explained the failure of his marriage and his
inability to control his opium addiction).
On a more petty scale Frend upset the more
conservative Jesus Fellows by appearing in
the Combination room with his hair unpowdered
and wearing a blue coat – the
equivalent today perhaps of sporting a pony
tail and a tea-shirt at formal High Table
dinner.
In May of 1793 Frend was summoned
before the Vice-Chancellor’s court, charged
with offending the University statutes by
publishing treasonous statements, and of
theological heterodoxy. The Vice-Chancellor,
Isaac Milner, was a man of formidable girth.
He was said to weigh 20 stones and had a
stentorian voice, which “combined with a
peculiar shrillness, could make itself heard at
a considerable distance”. At examinations he
would berate students with extreme sarcasm.
He was given to describing the less clever as
“sooty fellows”. As for his own academic
abilities in mathematics, he was said to
combine exceeding laziness with a tendency
to browbeat any who thwarted him.
Milner presided over the public trial of
Frend which took place before the University
graduates, who were divided in their
opinions on the matter, and a rowdy
constituency of undergraduates who were
pro-Frend to a man. As the trial proceeded,
rival graffiti appeared on the walls of
colleges: “Frend for Ever”, versus “Frend of
Jesus, Friend of the Devil”. The legends
“Liberty” and “Equality” were burnt with
trails of gun-powder onto the sacred lawns of
Trinity and St John’s. Meanwhile, Frend
continued to publish a series of appendices
to the original offending text. His biographer,
Freda Knight, while being sympathetic to
Frend as an admirable and influential
reformer, argues in her University Rebel
(written during the tide of late 1960s
university student activitism) that he might
have avoided what was to follow had he been
capable of a degree of moderation. Forty
years on, he perhaps stands in need of a more
favourable reassessment, celebration even.
He showed considerable courage in going
against the tide of opinion that, even then,
was in much need of change. His convictions
were well in advance of his time, and it is
arguable that his brave and determined
stance brought about significant reforms in
higher education.
Frend was banished from the University by
the court. He appealed; the appeal was
rejected. The terms of his expulsion meant
that he was no longer allowed to teach in the
University. He was also “rusticated”,
meaning that he was not allowed to reside
within the confines of the town.
Nevertheless, he was still a Fellow of Jesus
College – entitled to draw his stipend,