Gresle

y

=t*

hg57
1.84-5

SUGGESTIONS

THE NEW STATUTE

TO BE PROPOSED IN

THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

W. GRESLEY, M.A.

PREBENDARY OF LICHFIELD,

LONDON:
JAMES BURNS, 17 PORTMAN STREET,
PORTMAN SO.UARE.
1845.

LONDON :
PRINTED BY LEVEY, R.OBSON, AND FRANKLYN,
Great New Street, Fetter Lane.

SUGGESTIONS,

ETC,

It is impossible that any true son of the Church of England,
be his opinions what they may, can be otherwise than very much
grieved at the present posture of affairs. The great question is,
how we are to get out of our present strait without serious loss.
Never was there more need of forbearance, and calm inquiry,
and prayer for guidance, and candid listening to reason, and
consultation one with another. I should not have ventured to
put forth an opinion on the questions at issue, had not I felt
myself called so to do by the request of some who thought that
the plain words of one unconnected with extreme parties might
be of use at the present juncture.
First, with regard to the measure proposed by the Hebdo
madal Board at Oxford to the Convocation (which is, so to
speak, the parliament of the University), that they should con
demn the book recently published by Mr. Ward, and degrade
that gentleman from his degrees of Bachelor and Master of
Arts. Most heartily do I wish that Mr. Ward were anywhere else
rather than at the University of Oxford at the present time,
or that he had never been so ill advised as to publish his un
happy book, or indeed any thing else. With good and upright
intentions, Mr. Ward's writings have been singularly infelicitous.
The Church was going on very well when Mr. Ward unhappily
became connected with the British Critic : since which time all
has gone wrong. The peculiar mischief in Mr. Ward's writings
is, that he puts forward the most important and valuable truths,
which, if discreetly stated, might be of the greatest value to the

4
Church ; but coupling them with such extravagant statements,
such apparent arrogance and scorn of those who differ from him,
such misstatement of other persons' views, and such an obvious
leaning, or rather identification of himself with the Church of
Rome, that an insuperable prejudice is raised against the very
improvements which he advocates. Never was such a mixture
of opposites. It may be questioned whether Mr. Ward's Ro
manising tendencies might not have been passed over unheeded,
but for the vehement manner in which he denounces the un-
holiness, and imbecility, and latitudinarianism, and various evil
attributes, which, whether rightly or not, he thinks he perceives
in the present system of our own Church. It is on account
of this that the anger of many persons is concentrated upon
him. He has himself contrived the conductor which is to
bring all the electric fluid on his own head.
Be this as it may, Mr. Ward has published such statements
as make him amenable to the ruling power of the University,
and the members of the Convocation are called on to give their
votes- on the question. If we had simply to express an opinion,
whether some of the passages selected from Mr. Ward's book
were in opposition to the doctrines of the English Church, there
could be little difficulty in deciding. But we are required to
declare our opinion that he, " the said William George Ward,"
has acted utterly inconsistently with good faith. He is to be
condemned, not only for heterodoxy, but moral delinquency ;
whereas the whole tone of Mr. Ward's book is manifestly that
of an honest though prejudiced man. We have also to declare
our belief, that all the passages selected by the Hebdomadal
Board are utterly inconsistent with the Articles of Religion of
the Church of England ; and farther, that the fit punishment
for the publication of such opinions is— not that Mr. Ward be
deprived of ministerial functions in the Church — but that he
be deprived of the degrees of Bachelor and Master of Arts,
formerly bestowed on him for his acquirements. This is ob
viously a penal measure, and must be construed strictly. It
is not enough that we have a general feeling that some serious

5
notice ought to be taken of Mr. Ward's book ; that would not
justify us in voting for the resolutions proposed ; but we must
be satisfied that the resolution concerning Mr. Ward is strictly
true, and his condemnation just. If we have any doubt, the
accused must have the benefit of that doubt.
The difficulty is much increased by the known fact, that men
of opposite opinions to Mr. Ward, and belonging to the Univer
sity, are not called to account for heterodoxy and apparent dis
honesty, which certainly equals, if it does not far exceed, that of
Mr. Ward. I allude principally to those persons who deny the
doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, and have published opinions
to that effect, and yet continually administer the sacrament of
baptism in the form contained in the Prayer-book. As what I
am writing may be read by some with whom these questions are
not familiar, I would simply ask them to read the baptismal-ser
vice in the Book of Common Prayer, and then say whether it is
possible that greater apparent dishonesty can be conceived than
for one who denies Baptismal Regeneration to perform that ser
vice. Can there be any comparison between the dishonesty of
one who twice or thrice in his life signs Articles which he takes
in a different sense from other people, and one who, every week
perhaps, officiates in a service which is point-blank contradic
tory to his real sentiments ? And yet I am far from accusing
such persons of wilful personal dishonesty, because I well know
the deceivableness of the human heart and the power of pre
judice. Still, since Mr. Ward's opinions are not more contrary
to the language of the Articles than the opinions of the other
party to that of the baptismal-service, it seems unfair to declare
the one party guilty of dishonesty, and to acquit or pass over
the other.
On a former occasion, much exception was justly taken
to the mode of proceeding against one who was accused of
preaching erroneous doctrine in the University pulpit. He
was summoned before a knot of the Vice-Chancellor's friends ;
the opinions objected to were not even set before him, and he
was condemned without a hearing. On the present occasion no

6
such objections can be raised. The proceedings appear to be
fair and open, ample notice is afforded for the different members
of Convocation to give the subject mature consideration ; the
specific charges are alleged ; and opportunity will be given to
Mr. Ward to make his defence. He will have no reason to
complain that he has not a fair trial.
I cannot, however, think that the same fairness is shewn in
what, after all, is of far greater importance than the censure or
acquittal of an individual, namely, the taking this opportunity of
excitement to propose a general statute which will be, perhaps,
very extensive in its application, and effect a fundamental change
in the practice of the University. Many persons feel indig
nant at Mr. Ward's book, and will flock to Oxford with a de
termination to vote for his condemnation. What I complain of
is, that advantage is taken of this occasion to propose a statute
which, with the semblance of providing against similar hetero
doxy in any member of the University in future, does in reality
furnish an instrument which may effect the most sweeping changes
and do incalculable mischief. It is to be proposed to the Con
vocation to give the Vice-Chancellor power not only to tender
the Articles for subscription to any member of the University at
his option (a power which he now possesses), but to require
from each subscriber a declaration, before subscription, that he
subscribes ihe Articles in the sense in which they were first pub
lished, and in which they are now proposed by the University ;
and on his refusal to make this declaration, he is to be expelled
from the University.
If this statute should by any possibility pass, an instrument
of enormous power is placed in the hands of each successive
Vice-Chancellor. It is impossible to say to what extent this
new power may be exercised. He may proceed the next day to
all the heads of houses, the professors and tutors, and if any one
declines to make the declaration, he may deprive him of the office
which he has held with honour for half his life. If a proctor ven
tures to oppose him, he may propose the test to him also ; in
short, he may offer the same test to any member of the Univers'ity,

from the Duke of Wellington himself, or any one of the bishops
— even the Bishop of Oxford — down to the poorest curate or
undergraduate. Is the University prepared to give these enormous powers to
any Vice-Chancellor ? It is like erecting for perpetuity a new
irresponsible censorship — a new court of high commission ; for
the Convocation will have no power to revoke the statute, when
it is once made, till the heads of houses themselves propose to
lay down the arbitrary authority they now wish to assume.
Shall we, like the horse in the fable, who desired to drive away
a troublesome neighbour from his pasture, suffer a man to mount
on our backs, of whom, whatever he may please to do, we shall
never be able to rid ourselves ? Why should the Convocation
thus relinquish its own powers and functions ? If a member of
the University is guilty of heresy or schism, let him be tried by
the University, as Mr. Ward is to be. Do not let a single
individual be empowered to engross the whole power of judg
ment. Besides, what can be more odious than this power of
arbitrarily proposing an entirely new test ? If a man writes a
heterodox book, or preaches an erroneous sermon, let him be
called to account for what he has done. But if he keeps his
opinions to the private circle of his friends, surely it is not the
spirit of the Church, or of English law, to put it in the power
of a private enemy to drag him forth, and call him to account
for matters which he has never obtruded on the public.
Very likely it will be given out that this test is only in
tended to be applied to those who hold the errors of Romanism :
but, besides the unfairness of applying it to the extremes of one
party and not of another, what guarantee have we that future
Vice-Chancellors may not use the same power much more ex
tensively, and very differently from what it is just now intended ?
Therefore, even supposing that some additional powers or some
new test were required, the statute proposed is the most ob
jectionable method of proceeding which can be devised, on ac
count of the arbitrariness and uncertainty of its application.
The force of these arguments will be tenfold increased by

considering the nature of the test itself, which really does seem,
on reflection, the most extravagant proposal that ever was
thought of. It is far more indefinite than the famous et-cetera
oath, against which such an outcry was once raised.
The subscription of the Articles is to be preceded by a de
claration that they are subscribed in the sense in which they
were first published, and in which they are now proposed by the
University. Who on earth is to know in what sense they were first
framed or published ? In the first place, when were they first
uttered ? Are we to understand the forty-two articles published
in the reign of Edward VI., or the thirty-nine published when
Elizabeth ascended the throne ? The ruling powers were very
differently minded at those two periods. The sense in which
the publishers of the Articles in Elizabeth's time understood them
was much modified and changed from that of the rulers in Ed
ward's time. Still greater was the difference of feeling in the
time of Charles II., which, in truth, is the real time from which
we now date the authority of the existing formularies.
Then, who were the concocters and editors of the Articles? —
was it the sovereign? the Parliament? the Convocation? the
bishops in general ? the archbishop alone ? or Melancthon and
others, whom he consulted ?
But, in truth, the Articles themselves bear manifest evi
dence of being drawn up by men of many different shades of
opinion. We know that great differences existed at that time
in the Church, and that the Articles were framed on a general
principle, so as to include differences in things which did not
affect the central truths of Christianity and essential points of
Church-discipline. Let any man consider what takes place when
a petition or set of resolutions is to be drawn up by a meet
ing in which difference of opinion exists — a rough draught is
read, then some one present objects to a certain expression,
and it is altered ; then, perhaps, another objects, and it is
further modified, until it is so framed that all can agree.
Surely we must suppose that something of this sort took place

9
at the concoction of the Articles. We can imagine Cranmer,
Ridley, and a dozen or twenty others to have been present,
representing the various opinions in the Church ; and we know
that though the reforming or movement party was most promi
nent, yet that the Catholic or conservative party of those days
was strong and influential. See how the twentieth Article, for
instance, is qualified and guarded, so as to express the opinions
of both parties.
On the side of Catholic authority it is said — " The Church
hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in
controversies of faith."
On the side of Christian liberty — " And yet it is not lawful
for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's
word written ; neither may it so expound one place of Scripture,
that it be repugnant to another."
On the one side : " The Church [is] a witness and keeper of
holy writ."
On the other : " Yet, as it ought not to decree any thing
against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce
any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation."
See how the Catholic and Protestant doctrines are here
brought out and blended one with another. Is this modification
and qualification of doctrine insincere and blamable ? By no
means. The Article comes out a true representation of the feel
ings of the Church. Nevertheless it is certain, that the individual
representatives of the two parties respectively, though they admit
the qualification of the other side, yet receive the Article and
dwell on it principally in their own sense ; and therefore, for
the right sense of the Article, we must look at its plain and literal
meaning — not the sense of the framers, which can only be ascer
tained, as the royal declaration prefixed to them reminds us, by
the " literal and grammatical sense."
Look, again, at the nineteenth article :
" The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful
men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacra-

10
ments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all
those things that of necessity are requisite to the same."
Who will say what the first publishers of this Article considered
to be the essentials of a sacrament ? Did they think it sufficient
to apply water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ?
or did they consider it essential that the sacrament should be
administered by a lawful minister ? Again, what was their sense
of the preaching of the pure word of God ? Calvinism ? Lu-
theranism ? Catholicism ? or what ? Who can tell what was the
sense in which this phrase was used by the majority of those,
whoever they might be, who were the first publishers of this
Article ?
But we are to make the declaration, not only in the sense of
the first publishers, but in the sense in which it is now proposed
by the University. Does this mean the majority of the Convoca
tion? or is the existing Vice-Chancellor, who administers the test,
to be taken as the organ or representative of the mind and soul
of the University? Probably the latter is meant. Well, then,
take the article just alluded to as a sample, of many others.
We know that the extremely Low Churchman understands this
Article to mean, that any congregation of faithful men, where the
pure word of God is preached and the sacraments are duly ad
ministered, is a Church ; and in this definition he is willing
to include Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists,
and others, considering them all to be Churches. The High
Churchman considers this Article not to be a definition of a
Church ; but — as its title, as well as its phraseology, bears
witness — to be a description of the visible Church. " The
visible Church of Christ," it says, " is a congregation of faith
ful men," &c. So far from admitting a variety of dissenting
Churches, he takes this Article simply as a declaration of the
nature of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Supposing, then, the test to be administered by a High-
Church Vice-Chancellor, as representative of the University, he
may have it in his power to expel all the Evangelicals from the

11
University ; or, on the other hand, an Evangelical Vice-Chancellor
may inflict the same punishment on all the High Churchmen.
You cannot tell, in short, whom this sweeping and arbitrary
statute will affect, or to what uses it may be applied. It may
prove a stumbling-block to thousands. Men are of different
temperaments. Some are bold and straightforward, and will
take the test without hesitation, even though they may not be
quite certain what were the opinions of the first publishers of the
Articles, or of the existing Vice-Chancellor. Others are of scru
pulous and tender conscience, and will either take it doubtingly,
and so incur guilt, or refuse it altogether, when there is no
occasion for them to do so. There is no single member of the
University whom it may not affect under successive Vice-Chan
cellors. It may be so applied as to expel from the University
the most learned, the most pious and holy of its members : it
may exclude from degrees, and consequently from office in the
Church, the most zealous and devoted of her rising members;
and what can be conceived so inexpedient and suicidal, in the pre
sent state of the Church, as thus to drain from it all the young
blood that is likely to give it life and energy ?
But it will be said, the young men are most of them Roman-
isers ? I answer, if they are only Romanisers, and not Romanists,
you will do ill to expel them. Let a clear distinction be made
between what is Romanism, and what is no more than a pardon
able, and even commendable, wish for some things which are to
be found in the Churches of the Romish communion. Surely
we may see our own defects, and lament them, and wish to
remedy them, without a thought of disloyalty to our own Church.
What we really want are, men who shall revive a reverence
for holy things, who shall give a tone of reality to our services,
who shall regard their office with enthusiasm, and introduce a
spirit of obedience and self-denial. All this is required to coun
terbalance the opposite tendencies which still lamentably pre
ponderate. Are we, then, some will ask, to tolerate such extravagancies
as those put forth by Mr. Ward ? No : let Mr. Ward be called

12
to account with fairness. There is a tribunal before which to judge
him ; and if any similar case should occur, which is not likely,
let that also be brought before the same tribunal. But do not,
on account of the extravagance of a few, forge a weapon, and
place it in the hands of those who may be wise and discreet men,
but who may also be tyrannical and filled with party-spirit, — a
weapon whereby they may lop off the most vigorous shoots from
the body of the Church, and deprive her of those whose services
she most needs.
What the Church requires is peace, which shall give scope
for the extension of her labours and development of her ener
gies, so that they shall be again coextensive with the wants of
the people. But this statute is evidently the commencement of
a helium internecinum — a war of extermination. It is a mea
sure which may, and probably will, at once cut off half the rising
young men in the Church, or, what is worse, will make them
hypocrites. When the Church scarcely knows where to find
instruments for her work, this statute will still further reduce
her numbers, partly by actual excision, partly by deterring the
young men of our public schools from entering the University.
One can scarcely believe that this ill-advised measure is a
plan of retaliation by the Vice-Chancellor on those who endea
voured to exclude him from the succession to the office ! Yet,
if it be not, it proves a degree of forethought in the promoters
of that attempt, which goes far to justify them in making it, in
the hope that they might by any means save themselves from
the domination of one whom they knew to be so inveterate an
enemy. Much as I, in common with many others, blamed the
attempt when it was made, yet certainly the result furnishes a
very plausible justification for those who made it.
Let us hope, however, that the proposed statute, whether
resulting, as we would fain hope and believe it does not, from
so bad a spirit as that of retaliation, or from a predetermined
resolution to expel a certain class of opinions from the Univer
sity ; let us hope that, on mature consideration, it will be aban
doned by those who have devised it, as ungenerous and unfair,

13
vague and dangerous, as well as in itself ill suited to the work
for which it is intended. If it be not withdrawn, let the mem
bers of the Convocation be at their posts, as on a recent occa
sion when a plan of similar tendency was proposed, and shew
by their votes that they are resolved not to suffer the funda
mental laws of the University to be tampered with, or the liber
ties of its members to be abridged.

THE END.

PRINTED RY LEVEY, ROBSON, AND FRANKLYK,
Great New Street, Fetter Lane.

3 9002 08837 0730