Keble

Mhgfi- K^

A FEW VERY PLAIN THOUGHTS

ON THE PROPOSED

ADMISSION OF DISSENTERS

TO THE

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

BY THE
REV. J. KEBLE. M.A.,
VICAR OF HURSLEY, NEAR WINCHESTER.

Tutor. " ' By the bye, there is one little thing I had almost forgotten, what
it K li o ion would you like your son to be of?' It is all one to me, for I know
them all." Anonym, Ap. — Blanco Whiie.

OXFORD:
ALEXANDER AMBROSE MASSON ;
AKD SOLD BY
J. H. PARKER, OXFORD, AND 377, STRAND, LONDON.
1S54.

The proposed opening of Oxford to all sorts of
religionists, though so long dreaded, has in fact
come so suddenly upon us, and raises such a com
plicated question, involving such deep principles,
that even a mere " recluse" may hope to be excused
for putting forth what has occurred to him upon it,
if haply but one of his hints may be of use to any
one person.
I am not going to argue here such points as that
no Education can be good without religion, — that
no religion is worth anything that is not earnest, —
that no one really earnest in his religion will (if he
can help it) send his children to be educated by or
among equally earnest persons of a different reli
gion ; such propositions nevertheless appear to me
both incontrovertible and closely connected with
the subject, since they lead at once to the following
conclusion : — that such an arrangement as is now
proposed, should be an arrangement for the benefit
of those only, whether Churchmen or Dissenters,
who are not earnest in their religion, a numerous
body, no doubt, and perhaps the majority of the
nation, but not those for whose exclusive benefit a
wise statesman would desire to legislate.
Neither will I dwell on the obvious thought that
so far as these considerations may be superseeded
by hard necessity, or by other influences sucli as
may be easily imagined, (e. g. a strong spirit of
proselytism,) i. e. so far as Oxford may still continue

to be peopled more or less by earnest persons, just
so far will it be a place of restless strife and divisions,
perplexities, heart-breakings, and fallings away, pro
bably to an extent of which nothing, that has yet
happened, can give us the smallest idea. Only con
sider for a moment what manner of men they are
who have gone out from among us, (moved, many of
them, by the passive way in which interferences like
this on the part of the state were taken by those to
whom they had looked for defence), and imagine
what power they will have to unsettle and draw
after them zealous, but half-informed minds, when
the door will be opened to them in such a place as
Oxford will then be, to set their own apparent unity
and self-denial side by side with the prevailing indif
ference. And consider, what a fearful re-action this
will cause, when all .who cannot accept all their
teaching, will be tempted to combine against them,
and, in combining, to give up, it may be, the very
links which bind us to the Church at all. And this,
observe, is only a single instance of the conflicts
which, humanly speaking, are in store for us.
But, as I said, I do not here dwell on these things,
which are so very obvious that they cannot but have
been considered by the persons urging this change
upon us ; persons, many of them, no doubt, entitled
to have their opinions greatly respected, but they
must pardon us if we ask for some kind of solution,
or at least mitigation, of these and many other diffi
culties, before we lend ourselves, in any way, to such
a change as is now pressed upon us. As yet no such
solution at all, that I know of, has been even offered ;

the only point I hear much of is, that we must ac
cept the will of Parliament, and make the best of it.
Those then, who think as I do, that the connexion
with the Church implied in the exclusion of Dis
senters is of the very essence of Oxford, and that it
will no longer be the same place when it has once
accepted this measure, are thrown upon the enquiry,
what is " making the best of it ?" Had we better
accept it at once, " with a smile and a shrug," as the
infidel historian said, and accommodate our institu
tions to it ? or had we better, once for all, refuse to
have anything to do with it, and lay the whole
responsibility of it on those who think it a good
thing ? We know that before now Oxford has been
rudely dealt with, in matters not at all graver or
more vital than this, — once, in 1647, and again, in
1687 ; and in both cases she. " held her own," not
at all accommodating herself to the " time of day :"
and still she survives, and has so much life in her,
as to be a prize worth contending for. What if she
were once more to try the same plan 1 At any rate
it would be clearing our own consciences. It would
be a course which I presume by far the greater
number of us would be glad to pursue, if we could
see that we were not incurring some aggravation of
the dreaded mischief. But what aggravation can
be imagined ? To put an extreme case, — what if
Parliament took away our Charters, and a fresh one
were granted, modelled altogether in the spirit of
this clause : we should but be where the clause itself,
if we accept it to-morrow, will place us ; or, if any
thing vindictive took place in the way of withdraw-

ing of privileges, or partial confiscation, it would do
us that great good of proving and trying us, and
making our protest a reality ; and it would be a
great thing to redeem our liberty of going on in
peace as Churchmen, were it only for one Academi
cal generation. But to vote for the admission of
Dissenters, or (which is the same thing) to refrain
from voting against it, for fear Parliament should
pass an Act compelling us to admit them, there
could be but one thing to be said of it : —
" What, leap into the pit our life to save ?
To save our life leap all into the grave ?"
It will be said, " Oh ! this is just the old trick of
useless protest, and what is the good of struggling
when we are in the noose ?" I will not, in reply,
talk of saving our reputation, and leaving something
for future generations to think of : there might be
something in that topic, but I^feel that it is unrea
sonable now. Rather I would ask, " Is there never
any use in struggling 1" Though one cannot get
free, yet sometimes possibly so much strength may
be shewn as may induce the captor to respect and
spare the prey. I have yet to learn that protesting
earnestly against the principle of complex enactment
weakens the hands of a legislator, if finding the
principle carried, he sets himself afterwards to
amend the details. The daily experience of Parlia
ment, I apprehend, proves the contrary.
The first thing, then, and a thing to be done
at all hazards, is to offer the calmest and most
determined resistance we can to the admission of
Dissenters in any manner or degree ; to lose no time

in preparing and signing such a declaration, whether
in the form of petition or otherwise, as that which
proved so effective in 1834.
Supposing this to fail, we might then exert our
selves in reducing the harmful concession to its
minimum ; in which department of the subject I
will not now go into detail. There would be a great
many things to be considered, for, the principle once
carried against us of admitting all kinds of religion
ists, we should be bound, in charity and courtesy, to
see to it, that no restrictions purely vexatious were
imposed upon our new inmates. Yet neither ought
we to leave any point unguarded which is left to us,
and which we see to be important.
Two subjects, however, I will specify, on which I
apprehend it should be our duty to make as uncom
promising an effort as possible.
First, that whatever may be said of the University,
there can be no pretence in equity for admitting men
of any or all religions, or, which is the same, of no
religion, into the Colleges. It is said indeed, and
the saying purports to stand on high authority, that
this ground is untenable since the precedent of the
Reformation. Now surely there were many things
done both in Church and State in the troublous
times of English history, in the course of .the Reform
ation, of the Civil Wars, and of the Revolution, which
it would be very unconstitutional to draw into a
precedent ; and yet, after so great a lapse of time,
it would be sometimes impossible, sometimes iniqui
tous, to disturb the settlement then made, however
questionable that settlement might have been at

first. And there is another consideration, which
may be thought not unimportant in this case. What
was the ground of the transference (not quite pro
perly so called) of the Colleges from the Roman to
the Anglican Church ? Undoubtedly the doctrine
that the Church and State were identical, and that
their combined will had a right to overrule all the
Ecclesiastical arrangements of individual Citizens.
But now this doctrine is confessedly given up, and
on the principle of full toleration to all denomina
tions, the Church of England ought to keep what
she has ; otherwise it would be hard to prove it
iniquitous for the Legislature to seize on any Roman
Catholic or independent Endowment, and open it
to all, without distinction of creed.
This will be met by the saying, that Colleges are
Lay Corporations, not Ecclesiastical. But (under
correction, and speaking as a mere i'Swoti??) I should
suppose that distinction to refer rather to the right
of final visitation and appeal, than to the conditions
of the Endowment. For example, there are Pres
byterian Schools in England ; should any one of
them be incorporated, it would, I presume, be a Lay
Corporation ; and yet it would carry with it a con
dition most certainly religious. For Parliament to
dispense with the religious condition expressed in
the Statutes of the College, would be the same kind
of thing, apparently, as if it should decree that
Presbyterianism should no longer be taught in a
school endowed to teach it.
I am almost afraid to say anything of the intention
of Founders ; it seems to have become so very dis-

9

tasteful a topic, that any argument raised upon it,
one fears, may rather damage than help a good
cause. But so far as it is at all worth considering,
undoubtedly it tells against doing away with all
religious tests on admission to Collegiate Endow
ments. After all deductions made for the difference
between the two Churches, no man of candour or
common sense can doubt that William of Wykeham
and Archbishop Chichley, (to say nothing of the
earlier and more liberal class of Founders, nor of
those who were actual Protestants,) would rather
have their alumni Churchmen after the fashion of
the Prayer Book, than a mixed multitude of any or
no religion, without common prayers, or definite
instruction. On this point I will only add, that seeing we are
compelled, by the real or supposed exigencies of the
times, to make so very many exceptions to the
obedience which (I suppose) we would gladly pay
to those who have such a claim on us, natural piety
would seem to require that we should be the more
careful in following up the spirit of their ordinances,
where no conflicting duty intervenes. On this
ground, amongst others, I regretted the disregard
of local preferences which was sanctioned by the
pending measure, as it first came out, and wished
well to the clauses which tended to enforce residence
and work.
But in this, I am sensible, it is vain to expect
much sympathy. It is but too likely (God grant
it may yet be averted) that before very long not
only Private Halls, of various denominations, may

10

be licensed in those precincts which, almost ever
since England was a nation, have been a sort of
reserved ground for the training of the Holy Church,
but that room will be made for all sorts of religion
ists within the walls of the Colleges also, the obliga
tions to religious instruction and service being neces
sarily suspended. There must be many of course
who will sigh and sigh again over the hard alterna
tive of sending their children, or others for whom
they are answerable, to finish their education under
such disadvantages, or leaving them without any
Academical education at all. The thought suggests
itself, might it not be a relief to such persons, and
withal an unobjectionable mode (under careful rules)
of University extension, to follow in part the ex
ample of Trinity College, Dublin, and allow Affili
ated Halls at any distance from Oxford, instead of
limiting them to a mile and a half from Carfax ?
They might send their members or be visited them
selves, for periodical Examinations, and of course
(as at Dublin) to be tried for honours and degrees.
No doubt the course would be Academically imper
fect. There might be less chance of a thriving and
brilliant career. But, in cases not a few, the com
parative security from proselytism and infectious
scornfulness, and the chance of growing up altoge
ther under the shadow of the Church, would be ac
counted as a full compensation for all this and more.
And the plan would certainly have the advantage of
being and seeming quite impartial ; earnest Dissent
ers of every class might profit by it, no less than
earnest Churchmen. There might also be hope of

11
the University thus taking up into itself many
hopeful minds and hearts, well fitted to belong to
it, but now kept away by indigence, obscurity, or
distance. It need hardly be observed that any Endowments
which may be raised for this purpose, carefully be
kept down to the very minimum necessary for Col
legiate existence ; since the moment they grow into
importance, they will be called a " national institu
tion ;" and an unscrupulous Legislature will be
tempted to deal with them as it is now dealing with
the old Colleges. The Founders' intentions, even
in such a point as religion, — we have fair warning
of it — will be henceforth pleaded in vain.
Such Halls, then, as I am imagining, must in
prudence be kept down to the very minumum of
Endowment. This will be, in many respects, a loss ;
and there is another advantage in the present Ox
ford system, which it will be quite impossible for
their Students to have ; but neither could they have
it, under the supposed circumstances, by residing in
Oxford itself, in any of the most venerable Colleges.
Neither in nor out of Oxford, when once this change
has taken its full effect, will the old Oxford feeling
be possible : that indescribable mixture of something
like innocent family pride, something like religious
reverence, and something like a youth's playful fond
ness for an indulgent mother, mixed too often with
just regrets (sometimes, one may hope, not unprofit
able,) for opportunities thrown away ; all that will
be gone, — it will not be possible, — then Oxford shall
no longer be able to say, as hitherto, Dominus Illu-

12

minatio Mea. If any Oxonians be true believers
then, it will not be because of, but in spite of, their
Alma Mater.
In all this I have spoken only of the bearings of
the proposition on the University itself. But every
one knows, no one better than those who are press
ing it, how momentous it is likely to prove, partly
in its own working, and more especially by the prin
ciple which it involves, in respect of the religious
faith and practice of the empire. If indeed it were
offered to us, bona fide, as a condition of Church
Emancipation, we might have accepted it with a
heavy heart ; retiring from Oxford to liberate a
holier city. But it is too evident that nothing of
the kind is intended : we are simply asked to sur
render our Endowments and Franchises, and the
control of our teaching into the same hands which
already hold the appointment of our Bishops and
the determination of our doctrines.
Hard indeed must be the pressure from without,
which can force such a measure on generous and
high-principled statesmen. Of that we cannot judge,
but we can judge of our own duty ; and our duty
surely is, until it has passed, to disavow, deprecate,
resist it to the very uttermost of our power ; and,
at the same time, to be quietly preparing places of
refuge, if God permit, for those who are likely to
suffer by it.