Devxison

hj

y\\\osz

PROFESSOR JOWETT AND THE UNIVERSITY
OF OXFORD.

A LETTER

from

GEORGE ANTHONY DENISON, M.A.
Archdeacon of Taunton,

to

EDWARD BOUVERIE PUSEY, D.D.
Regius Professor of Hebrew,
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.

i r, / A

vrSS\

M

w/L'

,;• ''' n

\&£pl

f||-.

.:!*A0Ahl

' ' '/''''''
LONDON :
SAUNDERS, OTLEY,
AND
CO.,
66, BROOK STREET,
W.
1864.
_ \MH
%hts reset
•ca/.]
Price 2d.; by Post, $d.
London:
sj.ti&l and bdwahds, peintebs, chandos steeet,
cotbwt &abde3t.

A LETTER,

ETC.

East Brent, October 10, 1864.
My dear Pusey,
In your book " Daniel the Prophet," lately
published — for which the Church owes you a great
debt — -I read (Preface p. vi., note), " Continued
" study of Professor Jowett's Essay makes one
" think sadly what does there remain of Christianity
" which the writer can believe ?"
The book, of which Professor Jowett's Essay
forms a part,* has been condemned, since the
vote in Convocation of March 8 of the present
year, by the Synod of the Province in which it
was published, as under : — "Tuesday, June 21, 1864.
" The Upper House of Convocation, having
" received and adopted the Report of the Com
" mittee of the whole House appointed by them
" to examine the volume entitled Essays and
" Reviews, invite the Lower House to concur
" with them in the following Judgment : —

* Professor Jowett's Essay (Essay VII.) is the complement
and climax of the entire series of arguments contained in the
book.

duty, and has, as in a case which demanded its inter
ference, judged and condemned certain heretical
writings. Is the year in which this has been done
to see the University of Oxford asked by one of her
most honoured sons — twice asked : once before the
condemnation, and once after it — to endow a prin
cipal writer of the heretical writings so condemned ;
and this under a proviso which nullifies the authority
of the University, and sets aside its primary duty
of insisting that all its Professors be of sound
religion ? Nothing has happened in our time more
contounding or more disheartening than that the
name of Edward Bouverie Pusey should be asso
ciated with such an act as this.
It is indeed part of your own argument — why the
University should endow — that it would be a thing
most indecent, unfitting, and injurious to the Church
that the advisers of the Crown should prefer a man
circumstanced as Professor Jowett is, or that Parlia
ment should recommend such preferment. But how
it is less indecent, unfitting, or injurious to the Church
that the University should endow — that is, should
do what neither Parliament nor Government could
be justified in doing — passes my understanding to
comprehend. Surely there is no real distinction
between endowment by the University, which is
the handmaid of the Church, and preferment in the

Church. The safeguards proposed to be connected
with such endowment I show below to be worse
than nothing.
a. It cannot be among your reasons that such
endowment is in accordance with either the spirit
or the letter of the Constitution of the University, or
with the main object of the University.
Lib. iv. sect. ii. § a of the revised Statute Book
is as follows : —
cc De Lectoribus Publicis.
"Stat. Lib. IV. Sect. ii.
" § 2. Ne quis Lee tor urn quicquam cum fide Catho-
" lica, vel bonis moribus -pugnans doceat.
" Item Statutum est, quod nullus Professor
" aut Praelector publicus quicquam directe vel
" indirecte doceat vel dogmatice asserat, quod
" Fidei Catholicae, vel bonis moribus, ulla ex
" parte adversetur. Sed contra, quilibet eorum,
" quoties opportuna ei inter legendum offeretur
" occasio, Auditores suos ad sanam Doctrinam
" amplectendam et tuendam, atque ad honeste
" pieque vivendum, adhortetur. Et, siquis
" eorum, Scholares sive Auditores suos aliquid
" minus sane atque sincere de Fide sentire,
" cognoverit aut suspicetur, eos admoneat,
" atque ab erroribus ad veritatem revocare

8
" studeat. Quod si quis obstinate in aliquo
" errore perseveraverit, id Vice-Cancellario de-
" nuntiare teneatur."
Further, the main object of the University is
very well set forth in the words inserted in the
Bidding Prayer of Canon LV. : —
" Also ye shall pray for all schools and semi-
" naries of religious and useful learning, parti-
" cularly for our Universities ; that in these, and
" in all other places set apart to God's honour
" and service, whatsoever tends to the advance-
<c ment of true religion and useful learning, may
" for ever flourish and abound."
You cannot think that cc true religion, and useful
learning," which is a part of " true religion," is to
be advanced in the University by the endowment
of a Professor by the University of whose writings
you have yourself said, " What does there remain
of Christianity which the writer can believe ?"
3. Again, it cannot be one of your reasons that
it is good and right, or even decent, to renew
attempts of this nature from term to term, in the
hope of exhausting opposition, especially having
regard to the circumstances of the decision of
March last.

4. Again, it cannot be one of your reasons that
Professor Jowett has any claim for endowment,
legal or equitable, upon the University, because no
man knows better than yourself that he has none.
None of the above can be reasons with you,
though, as I said, they are, all of them, very strong
and sufficient reasons with many of those who sup
port you.
What, then, are your reasons ?
These appear to be two.
i. That to endow Professor Jowett is the only way
to counteract that prejudice against teachers of
The Truth which' at present exists in the
minds of many of the younger members of
the University ; who, having been won by
the labours and the popular powers of Professor
Jowett, conclude, more juniorum, that not to
endow him is to rob him.
2. That to endow Professor Jowett is the only
way to prevent Government or Parliament, or
both, from taking up Professor Jowett's case,
and compensating him with some preferment.
Forgive me if I say that it is impossible to have
worse or weaker reasons.
Are we then come to this, that the way of dealing

io

with the errors of the young is to minister to those
errors ? If they arrive at a false judgment, as some
of them have arrived in this case, is it for us to do
all we can to confirm them in their delusion ? Is
it possible to expect a blessing upon such dealing
as this? Is there in it any real kindness or care
for the young ? anything of that of which your
own heart is full ? Is it the way to win souls unto
The Truth, to begin with building up and establish
ing in the mind what is false ?
The like answer applies to the other reason. Is
the University, to violate her constitution in spirit
and in letter, to deny and stultify her purpose, to
dishonour her history, is she, in a word, to do wrong
that she may prevent Government and Parliament
from doing wrong ? What Government or Parlia
ment may do is not of the responsibility of members
of the University, as such ; but what the University
may do is ; and, indeed, though I only touch upon
it as inferior and subsidiary, any proceeding more
calculated than the endowment of Professor Jowett
by the University to defeat its own end, as here
avowed by you, cannot be conceived. However
made, and in whatever way attempted to be guarded
in words, it would at once be laid hold of by those
who are watching how they may soonest and easiest
break down what remains of the religious character

II

of the University, as a conclusive answer to all
objections to his being promoted to office and
dignity in the Church. Now, if the above be
your reasons, and I have never been able to arrive
at any others, the endowment of Professor Jowett
is, ex confesso, a thing for which, in itself, there is
nothing to be said ; but it is, nevertheless, you say,
a thing to be adopted as the means of preventing
or healing two diseases in other people. Now, I
think I have shown that the remedy proposed would
only increase and stimulate the disease in both cases.
But, if it should not, is it not very like " doing
evil that good may come " to administer it ?
I proceed to some further considerations.
We have seen, that it is a special duty of the
Academic body to provide collectively, and individu
ally, so far as each member of it may, that its
professors be of true religion. Forgive me then,
again, for saying that to propose to satisfy this re
quirement, and to discharge this duty by words so
empty of power, and so abdicating the proper func
tion of the University, as the words of the defunct
statute —
" Modo ne Academia de Script is ejus, quoad
" fidem Catholicam tractaverint, judicium tulisse
" censeatur."

12

I say nothing here of the Latinity of the above
sentence. I am only concerned at present with the
substance of it.
Or, again, as the words of the embryo statute —
" Modo ne Academia Scripta ejus de fide
" Catholicd comprobasse teneatur"
is alike an insult to the understanding, and a com
promise of faithfulness and of duty. I cannot, in
deed, conceive anything more the subject of scornful
ridicule by those into whose camp you have passed
in this struggle from our own, than these (so
called) safeguards : though, no doubt, such unholy
triumph is carefully concealed from you. Do
you marvel that Professor Jowett and his friends
accept the endowment on such terms as the
above ? Why should they not ? There is no room
for surprise in the case, unless you regard them
from your stand-point only. But this is never
a safe thing to do. We should always look at a
thing as the adversary looks at it. Now, you and
I think something of Academic censure, even though
it be by negatives only. They think nothing of
it, though it be by positives. You and I respect
it. They despise and laugh at it. You and I do
not want to establish for all time to come that there
shall be no necessary connexion between Academic

l3
endowment and truth of teaching. To establish
this is their principal concern, purpose, object.
Professor Jowett is only an accident of a great
revolution. You throw yourself, with some
confiding friends, into the arms of the revolu
tionists. Can you wonder that they open their
arms wide to receive you- — hail you with cheers,
and gladly accept at your hands all that they care
to have, and which they could not hope to have
without your help ? They laugh at Academic
censure, and this you withhold. They want the
link broken between professional endowment and
truth of teaching, and this you give. They have
everything they care to have ; they have nothing
that they care not to have. Why should they not
accept the endowment toto corde ?
If the struggle is unhappily to be renewed —
which may God avert — I cannot believe that many
who voted with you in March last, or who stayed
away because they did not like to vote against you,
will either vote with you a second time or will stay
away a second time. I believe that all who voted
against you then will vote against you now.
Indeed, unless a man be content to have it said of
him that he voted in March last from passion and not
from principle — from fear, and not from faith — he

*4
cannot stay away. Our majority must certainly
increase. Will your minority increase ? I do not
believe it. But, if it does, who are those who will
increase it ? Not the defenders of The Faith ; not
the lovers of the Church ; not the faithful sons of
the University ; but some of the young voters, just
able to exercise their franchise, and the victims of
a delusion which your whole honoured life has
been directed to unmask and to defeat.
You have taken your course, I know well, for
peace sake. Suffer me to ask you how can that be
for peace which is not for The Truth ? The
prophet says, " Therefore, love truth and peace."
Truth first, and at all costs, and under all dis
couragements ; and next, the peace which is built
upon it. It may not be an easy thing to live on
cheerfully in Oxford under the daily pressure of
what appears to be an endless conflict ; but is there
here are any sound reason for shrinking from that
conflict, or for evading it ? Must we not bear our
burden, whatever it be, in faith and patience of
hope? It is a sad and terrible thing to say, but how
we can escape saying it in these days I do not
know, that there can be no peace between those
who have by grace accepted The Truth and keep

15
it, and those who, like the Times* newspaper, the
great organ of the Oxford revolutionists, hold that
The Truth is yet to seek.
If we must live fighting and struggling, let
us at least fight only on God's side. We have,
I think, nothing to do in days, when not this or
that doctrine of The Faith only is called in
question, but the source and the foundation of all
doctrine, The Word of God Itself, is set aside as
the work of men not only fallible but purposely
untrue — when a Bishop of the Church does not
fear to say of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself
that either he did not know the difference between

* Times newspaper, Tuesday, October 4, 1864. — "When
" the one thing that repels thoughtful men from hearty
" allegiance to her (the Church) is the shallow dogmatism
"of clerical sciolists, and the 'practical scepticism' which
" shuts itself up in a system and virtually despairs of attaining
" truth, is it well to address the clergy of a whole diocese in
" language which will certainly encourage this disposition,
" and may cause a hundred pulpits to ring with futile invec-
" tives against the imaginary infidel ?"
If this sentence has any meaning, it means that the Church
system has not attained to Truth, but that Truth is still to
seek. " It is the last time, and there are many Anti-Christs,
whereby we know that it is the last time." Is it well with
the people of England when their " leading journal" is of
the number ?

16
what was true and what was not ; or that, knowing
it, He deceived men — we have nothing to do but
to say, " Who is on the Lord's side?" and for those
who are not, neither to receive them into our
houses, nor to bid them God speed, lest we be par
takers in their evil deeds. Least of all is it for us,
after the fashion of this evil time, to put expedi
ents into the place of principles, and because we
cannot serve God in some particular way to the
full extent of the craving of a faithful heart, to try
to serve Him after the fashion of, and in company
with, those who would bring in upon us " another
Gospel." Believe me, my dear Pusey,
Ever, affectionately yours,
GEORGE A. DENISON.
P.S. — I understand that on Saturday last, 8th
inst., the Vice-Chancellor, in his speech at the
opening of Term, expressed his regret that the
attempt of March last had been defeated, and his
hope that the decision would soon be reversed.
This challenge has been publicly made by the chief
resident officer of the University. It is high time
that those who "contend for The Faith" should
prepare to answer it.

8Z09