Oake

ley

HhgSl Oa.47

A LETTER

LORD BISHOP OF LONDON,

ON A SUBJECT CONNECTED

WITH THE RECENT PROCEEDINGS AT OXFORD.

REV. FREDERICK OAKELEY, M.A.
FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD,
..- PREBENDARY OF LICHFIELD,
AND MINISTER OF MARGARET CHAPEL, ST. MARY-LE-BONE.

LONDON:
JAMES TOOVEY, 192, PICCADILLY.

M.DCCC.XLV.

London :
Printed by S. & J. Bentley, Wilson, aud Fley,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.

A LETTER, &c.

My dear Lord,
I ought, in the very first place, to apologize for
addressing your Lordship in a form which, in the
eyes of the public, may seem inconsistent with the
relation in which I stand to you, or indicative, at
least, of a desire to claim greater familiarity with
you than persons unacquainted with the circum
stances of the case may be readily disposed to
recognize as becoming. But on the whole I see no
reason for addressing your Lordship when I write
to you publicly, in more formal and distant terms
than those which I am in the habit of using in
private communications with you, which you have
never discouraged me from using, and which far
better represent the habitual state of my feelings
towards your Lordship than any mode of address
less free and less affectionate.
And next, I owe your Lordship a still farther
apology for addressing you in public at all, when I
cannot but be aware that my own name is con
nected in many minds which I am far from wish
ing to wound or irritate, with unwelcome associa-

tions; that it has been brought far oftener before
the public eye than I like to think of, and hardly
ever, I must candidly acknowledge, except in a way
calculated to hold it up to suspicion and odium.
With a name so unpopular as well as so unworthy,
I am most unwilling to connect such a name as that
of your Lordship. And I trust that I may appeal to
the past in witness to the sincerity of this assertion.
Nor, again, am I now desiring to involve your
Lordship in any sanction of courses which, under
peculiar circumstances, I may have felt it my duty
to adopt; but for which I did not hold myself
immediately accountable to your Lordship. My
purpose in addressing you is one quite of a different
nature, and I consider the occasion such as fully
to bear me out in coming forward : for in saying
that I do not hold myself directly responsible to
your Lordship for a certain course of proceeding,
I by no means intend to deny that I am responsible
to my Bishop for the explanation of acts which,
though performed in a wholly different relation,
are yet of such a kind as to involve him, by possi
bility, in embarrassment.
Your Lordship, and others, probably, who may
read this letter, will at once anticipate the reason
of my desiring to address you at this moment. I
am alluding, of course, to a letter which I have
lately forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford,
with the view of justifying the honesty of my
subscription to the thirty-nine articles. Now your
Lordship is well aware that I have certain intimate
relations with the University of Oxford, as well as

with your Lordship. I hold a fellowship in a prin
cipal college of that university, and, although I am
not now, nor have been for some time resident,
yet I retain my rooms in college, and keep up, I
think I may say, a far closer connexion with my
society than many other non-resident fellows of
colleges ; am never, except under circumstances of
urgent necessity, absent from elections, and other
occasions of collegiate interest ; am in habits of very
friendly intercourse both with the head of my col
lege and with all my brother fellows ; and, above
all, though not at this moment resident, yet with a
footing in the college which would enable me at
any moment to resume residence, had I not duties
elsewhere, and such as I consider quite compatible
with my statutable obligations. I am indeed
anxious in this preliminary stage of my explana
tion to press upon your Lordship and the public
how little my connexion with this diocese is really
inconsistent with a very close and intimate relation
to the university also.
As a member of the University of Oxford, then,
and far more as senior fellow of an important
college, who, though actually at this time non-resi
dent, is yet thus closely connected with the univer
sity, I think it will be generally acknowledged that
I have a right to consider myself implicated as
much as any member of the university (excepting,
of course, a resident fellow of a college) in acade
mical acts.
And for this reason I felt, after the event of
Thursday, the 13th, that if that event were of a

6
nature to involve me in the eyes of the university
and of the public at all, I ought not to be deterred
from coming forward to " clear my position " by
the mere circumstance of being actually at this
time non-resident.
Again, that the result of Thursday's convocation
was actually an occasion, not to justify only, but to
demand, a certain declaration on my part, was a
matter upon which I made up my mind weeks ago,
and my view of which has never wavered for a single
moment. Had the Hebdomadal Board submitted, and Con
vocation affirmed, a mere resolution of censure upon
Mr. Ward's book, without impeaching the " good
faith" of his subscription to the Articles, and above
all without proceeding to found serious penalties
upon that impeachment, I do not consider that any
member of the university would have been bound
to come forward with a view to clear himself from
the effect of supposed imputations. Mr. Ward's
book is his own ; and an adverse expression of opinion
upon that book would have been generally under
stood to touch no party but the author himself ; not
even those who might be known to approximate with
whatever nearness to Mr. Ward's theological opi
nions. For it might very properly have been consi
dered that the view under which certain voters had
declared against Mr. Ward's book, or certain por
tions of it, had been affected to an indefinite extent
by characteristic peculiarities in Mr. Ward's manner
of expression which, whether right or wrong (a ques
tion with which I am not here concerned) do, at all

events, to a certain degree, insulate his case in the
comparison with other similar cases.
But the matter became far otherwise when the
measure which Convocation was called upon either
to affirm or negative, came out in a form not really
(as I maintain) but still apparently reflecting upon a
certain mode of subscription to the Articles. For,
supposing other members of the university to have
publicly declared themselves to subscribe the Arti
cles in this particular sense, it might very fairly
have been said, and doubtless would have been said,
that such persons ought to consider such a reflec
tion as a call upon themselves to resign academical
privileges of which subscription to the Articles is
commonly supposed to be one of the conditions.
I am here, your Lordship will observe, considering
the moral, not the legal, effect of such a decision.
And I will say that, had the moral effect been clear
and unequivocal, I think that several persons would
not have been disposed to screen themselves behind
any legal informality, but might have felt them
selves bound in foro conscientice to relinquish their
place in the university at once.
Now, with respect to myself, it is no news to your
Lordship or to the public at large, that almost as
soon as the measures against Mr. Ward were an
nounced, I felt myself called upon to declare that I
sign the Articles in the sense which Mr. Ward
vindicates. This was little more than a repetition
of what I said years ago ; for as far back as 1841
I put out a pamphlet, the object of which was to
prove historically that the Articles were intended

to include the Catholics of the time, and that this
circumstance might very fairly be taken to illustrate
the position which had been maintained by others ;
namely, that their wording does not in terminis
exclude the formal decisions of the later Church, as
contradistinguished from certain popular misrepre
sentations of those decisions. It is then, I say, no
new thing for me to declare what I have lately
declared to the Vice-Chancellor ; though a new
thing, I grant it is, to set forth that declaration in
the way of a challenge to the university.
Now, if your Lordship, or any other person, asks
why I felt it necessary to say what I did when the
propositions relating to Mr. Ward made their ap
pearance, considering the very serious consequences
to myself and even to the Church of England, which
such an act might entail, I answer, 1st. That I con
sidered it a plain matter of duty to Mr. Ward not
to allow him to sustain alone the whole brunt of a
battle, in which I feel that I ought to stand by him.
2nd. I was not without hopes, however feeble, that
with many minds, the circumstance of knowing that
the attack upon Mr. Ward might very probably
affect others besides himself, might tell as an argu
ment against taking the first step in a certain direc
tion. 3rd. I felt it likewise due to the Hebdomadal
Board itself, to give that Board a full and clear
foresight of the possible consequences of the pro
posed measures. Not, of course, that I wished the
Hebdomadal Board to pause, in what it might con
sider an act of duty to the University, through the
mere apprehension of consequences ; still less, as I

9
hope I need not say, because I supposed that my
own poor name could carry any great weight either
with the Board or with the other members of Con
vocation, but merely because I thought it right all
persons should know exactly what they were about
in taking, what I felt to be, the first of a series of
aggressive steps. And, such being my object, I
took pains that the Vice-Chancellor, as President
of the Hebdomadal Board, should be at once ap
prized of the statement which I felt it my duty to
make ; and accordingly forwarded to him my pam
phlet on the day of its re-publication.
Now whatever reasons may have existed for
making this declaration in the first instance, seemed
to me with tenfold power to demand a repetition of
it, when the Act of Convocation had passed. For
then I felt that, if I did not renew my declaration, I
might be considered to acquiesce in a decision which
I, in truth, felt as not more morally obligatory, than
it is legally worthless. I accordingly stated at once
to the Vice-Chancellor, in what light I regarded
that Decree ; but I stated this, my interpretation of
it, " under correction," from the parties with whom
it originated, and by whom it was affirmed. I
offered myself, as plainly as I could offer myself
without seeming to act in a spirit of disrespect and
defiance, to encounter a like penalty to that with
which Mr. Ward had just been visited. But at the
same time I stated, and here I think your Lordship
and the public will bear me out in considering that
I was justified in stating, that, supposing no mea
sures of penalty to be instituted against me, I should

10
regard myself after that plain and public declara
tion, as justified in maintaining, without even the
suspicion of dishonesty and disingenuousness, my
present place in the University.
What course the Hebdomadal Board may see
fit to take with respect to me, is still, I suppose,
subjudice ; I have as yet received no kind of official
intimation on the subject. I can but hope, very
sincerely, that the Board will not allow itself to be
precluded by that mere kindly feeling towards my
self, which I doubt not to exist in it, from any step
which it may conscientiously regard as necessary to
the welfare of the University and of the Church of
England, of which the University is an integral part.
But now I will say why I feel it right to explain
my course to your Lordship. I did not, and I do not
forget, that although I am a member of the Univer
sity, I am likewise a Clergyman ministering in your
Lordship's Diocese. Nor, again, do I lose sight of
the fact, that my letter to the Vice-Chancellor, as
its very object required, has been made extensively
public. I am really not aware that any person has
commented upon my proceeding as one in any
way likely to involve your Lordship, although my
Bishop. I think that my act strikes every one, as
I should naturally expect it to strike them, in the
light of a merely academical procedure ; dictated
solely by the sense of my academical relations, and
having reference to an issue determinable (accord
ing to the general view), and at all events to be
determined, in the University.
But because there happens to be no sort of out-

11
cry on the subject, this is no reason why I should
abstain from giving your Lordship these explana
tions of my step, which may tend to clear it in your
Lordship's mind from the suspicion of wantonness
or undutifulness. I do not deny that it may na
turally strike your Lordship, as a gratuitous and
disturbing movement. Nor, again, could I be
surprised to hear that your Lordship had been
seriously startled by my further declaration of an
opinion, that the Articles are subscribable in what
may be called an ultra-Catholic sense, so as to
involve no necessary renunciation on the subscri
ber's part, of any formal decision of the Western
Church ; and that I myself, actually so subscribe
them. I do admit that, considering the temper of
our Church, there is something apparently wanton
in such an announcement ; that it requires, in mere
charity, some intelligible explanation ; and that my
own Bishop is, of all other persons, the one to
whom it is most natural to explain it. It is for these
reasons that I come forward, before the public, 1st,
to account to your Lordship for the act ; and 2nd,
to explain the meaning of the declaration in question.
The former part of my task I have already accom
plished ; and now I will proceed to the latter.
I wish your Lordship then very particularly to
observe that, in the passage of my pamphlet on
Tract XC, to which I refer in my letter to the
Vice-Chancellor, I not only draw a distinction be
tween holding Roman doctrine and teaching it, but
in a note to that passage, I explain very fully what
I mean by not teaching, and how very far I carry out

12
the principle wliich is involved in that distinction.
I say, As respects teaching, however, there is no duty which I hold
more sacred than that of abstaining in sermons, and other acts
of public ministration, from the statement of theological opi
nions, or the recommendation of devotional practices, allowed,
as I conceive, by the Articles, but foreign to the views and
habits of our Church. And generally, I will say, even of what
are called " Church principles," that it seems to me far better
to imply them in our public teaching, than to assert them in a
dogmatical and controversial way. It is in the very rudiments
of faith and practice, that our flocks, as a general rule, need to
be instructed. Moreover, to speak to them of Church autho
rity, and such-like subjects, when the whole practical system of
our Church is in flat contradiction to such claims, is to tempt
the more thoughtless to the use of words as mere unmeaning
sounds, or mere party-symbols ; and the more serious to the
disparagement of very real privileges which they possess,
through craving after others of wliich, it may be, that the thank
ful and diligent use of actual means is the appointed prelimi
nary condition.— Subject of Tract XC. historically examined,
p. xiii. (note.)
And now I wish to draw your Lordship's atten
tion to the following point. The distinction in
question is, as I contend, wholly irrelevant to my
question with the University, for, in the University, it
is not the practice of teaching certain doctrines which
is even apparently impugned, but the claim to hold
them. Mr. Ward himself never claimed to teach
Roman doctrine ; on the contrary, he urges over
and over again, that such a procedure would be
highly wrong under our circumstances. What he
maintains, and what the Vote of Thursday seems to
deny, is the honesty of subscribing the Articles in a
certain sense. The University, then, cannot pretend

13
to let me off on the ground of the above distinc
tion ; for with respect to it I differ in no way from
Mr. Ward, whom it has, by the hypothesis, con
demned. Mr. Ward does not claim to teach. I
claim to hold.
But with your Lordship, I contend, this distinction
ought to, and will, receive consideration. Were I
to be found teaching Roman doctrine in my public
ministrations in your Lordship's diocese, I should,
as I feel, most deservedly expose myself to your
Lordship's censure. It is plain that your Lordship,
as a Bishop of our Church, could not, and would
not, suffer it.
But what is the fact? It is that which I have
stated in the above extract. Far from introducing
in my public ministrations characteristically Roman
doctrine, I am not in the habit of introducing
(dogmatically and controversially) what some per
sons call (though I do not), by way of contradis
tinction from it, Catholic doctrine. I mean that
there are a great many subjects upon wliich clergy
men in this diocese who do not proceed to my own
length of theological opinion, quite commonly, and
as a matter of conscience, preach, which I, on the
other hand, rather studiously avoid. I will mention
one instance — the doctrine of the " Apostolical
Succession." This I know is with many clergymen
the great weapon of controversy with Dissenters.
To myself, on the contrary, it seems, together with
its whole class of kindred subjects, a very unedify-
ing topic in the pulpit, however important as a
point in controversial writing.

14
Your Lordship is personally acquainted with
many members of my congregation. I appeal to
them as persons fully capable of contradicting me
when I say, that the general subjects of my preach
ing are singularly uncontroversial ; more so in
fact than three years ago, when my doctrinal
views were less clear. I feel that, with the vast
and frightful amount of sin and practical infidelity
which surrounds us in this great metropolis, clergy
men have something else to do than to try and
convert Dissenters by merely intellectual argu
ments. What I generally aim at doing in my pub
lic ministrations, is, on the one hand, to warn
against sins which Catholics and Protestants, where
sincere, are alike agreed in denouncing, and, on the
other, to build up and console humble and faithful
Christians. O that " quantum caperem, possem quo-
que !" For it quite shames me to set before your
Lordship, in so favourable a point of view, minis
trations which I feel so utterly, so miserably, ina
dequate to the end of my calling, and the needs of
those who are committed to me. Still the point
here is, not what I effect, but what I purpose.
It may be replied that my public declaration on
the subject of Subscription, precludes me from
preaching against the Roman doctrine. Most assur
edly it does. If my obligations as an English
Clergyman require me to controvert the doctrines
of Rome, then I freely admit that I do not fulfil
those obligations. But surely, my Lord, if I be
justified in considering that there are things among
us to be done more important than controverting

15
Dissent, d multo fortiori am I bound, upon any
Catholic principles whatever, not to be harder on
what your Lordship acknowledges to be a branch
of the Catholic Church, than upon those who are
not even members of the Church of England. It
would indeed be hard to expect of me that I
should spare Dissenters at the expense of Catholics.
However, I do not imagine it possible that so pre
posterous a demand could be deliberately set up in
any quarter. I take it for granted that I am gene
rally supposed to controvert (I mean of course directly
controvert) Dissent; in that case, I admit that I might
not unnaturally be called upon by those who con
sider our Church as a via media, to controvert sup
posed error in an opposite direction. But I really
do not think that controversy of any sort is my
" line." I will make one or two farther remarks only in
connexion with this part of the subject. My flock
never so much as hear a (characteristically) Roman
doctrine from my lips. If those doctrines be not
intrinsically true, certainly I take the course of all
others calculated to explode them. No Roman
doctrine makes its way to the minds of those who
are under me through my intervention. I very
much doubt whether twenty members of my con
gregation or one poor person in my district (except
actual Roman Catholics) know even what Roman
doctrine is. Again, I have seen in some news
papers and magazines of the day, an objection to
my distinction between " holding" and " teaching,"
founded upon the alleged impossibility of not teach-

16
ing (by implication) that which is in the mind of
the teacher. The teaching, it is said, of one who
holds a certain doctrine must needs be tinctured
with that doctrine. This no doubt would be true,
if what is called " Romanism" implied a certain
tjBos, or habit of mind, distinct from Catholicism. I
suppose, for instance, that a Socinian could not hold
his baleful heresy without in a certain way teaching
it. And so again no doubt a strictly Catholic tem
per results in strictly Catholic teaching, even though
doctrine be not directly brought forward. So far,
then, I acknowledge the truth of the remark. But
I deny that the teaching of one who holds Catho
licism in the Roman form, but who studiously
abstains from exhibiting specially Roman doctrine,
will be in any way different from that of another
who holds (essential) Catholicism at all, though
in a less full-grown state of development ; excepting,
indeed, that I think he is less likely to allow par
ticular Catholic truths to protrude, in his teaching,
above others. The objection, therefore, tells in no
degree more strongly against what are denominated
" Roman izers," or " Romanists," than against all
teachers of a " Catholic " profession, but rather,
as I believe, less so.
The principles upon which I act in my public
teaching, I endeavour to carry out also in visiting
the poor, so far as I visit them at all. But here,
indeed, I hold myself under a special obligation to
my kind superior, the Dean of Chichester ; I regard
it as a condition of my relation to him, as in charge
of a portion of his parochial district, to abstain from

17
any course of teaching which I know might be
displeasing to him. I must freely acknowledge
that the Dean is not apt to put restrictions of any
sort upon me ; but this, I take it for granted, is
partly because his own kindly nature disinclines
him to impose laws where he is sure of sympathy,
which is ever better than law ; and partly because,
as I hope, he has really not found much occasion,
during the years of my service under him, to suspect
me of a wish to presume unduly upon his indul
gence. But here I shall be asked, ' Is then your claim to
hold (as distinct from teaching) all Roman doc
trine, no more, after all, than the assertion of
a right to a merely speculative opinion ? Because if
so, you are doing yourself injustice, and coming for
ward, in an obnoxious character, for no sufficient
purpose.' I reply frankly that my opinion is not merely
speculative. I hope none of my opinions on reli
gious subjects are merely speculative. If I say that
the view in question is not practical, I mean that it
in no way affects my teaching, except negatively.
I do not follow out a particular line of action either
in public or in private, with any view of making
converts to Rome. I could wish, as best I might,
to make people good Christians in the Church of
England ; I think that this is work enough for me.
But, more than this ; if I see any one disposed to
join the Church of Rome, my arguments with such
an one are always in arrest, generally even in con-
c

18
travention, of that step : though, even were it other
wise, I do not see how those could very consistently
charge me with ' tempting' persons to " schism,"
who are continually urging myself and others who
think with me, to quit the Church of England.
So far, then, my profession on the subject of Ro
man doctrine certainly does not produce any visible
difference between my own ministerial course and
that of others very unlike myself in many respects.
So far as there is any difference between myself
and some others whose claim to remain in the
ministry of the English Church is not disputed, it
is, as I have said, rather in my favour (towards
the present argument) than against me. My
preaching and general ministrations are, I con
scientiously think, much less (what may be called)
distinctive than those of many clergymen who
would be popularly considered of my own school
of theology. Indeed, I am not at all sure, that
many even of those who are associated with me in
public opinion, would not consider my preaching
as somewhat ' latitudinarian.' I really think, that
' spurious liberality,' or ' unworthy compromise,' or
the cowardly ' suppression of great Catholic truths '
might be with much greater reason imputed to it,
than party violence or ' Popish ' leanings.
Still, I do not at all deny that, where I plead
for the utmost latitude in the interpretation of
our formularies on the Catholic side, I mean
something very real, and, in a certain sense, very
practical. Now, then, I will crave your Lord
ship's kind attention for awhile, that I may say

19
what I do mean by the exceeding reluctance I
feel to accept anti-Roman limitations of our Ar
ticles and Prayer-Book. I will try to analyze
the feeling under which I regard it as a point
of duty to my own Communion, to extract, nay,
and if so be, extort, the most Catholic meaning
possible from her apparently anti-Catholic deter
minations; and why, moreover, I cannot consent
to draw those distinctions between the " Catholic "
and the " Roman" sense, upon which some of my re
spected friends are disposed to lay so great a stress.
My Lord, I am not in the number of those who
are able to draw a line between the earlier and
the later decisions of the Catholic Church. I can
understand those who make a broad difference be
tween " primitive " and " patristic " Christianity ;
but I cannot follow the farther distinction between
" patristic " and " mediseval." How early what is
called " dogmatic theology " had its rise in the
Church, it is, I suppose, difficult to decide, since
even St. Paul speaks of a " form of sound wrords,"
&c, and St. John begins his Gospel as if it were
a creed. But if it be hard to fix the date of its
commencement, still harder would it seem to de
termine the limit to its expansion. Certainly I
cannot imagine the Creed of the Church to have
been put into its final shape in any of the earlier
centuries. We all know that the course of dog
matic theology runs parallel to the course of heresy;
and it will not, I suppose, be contended that heresy
had its ultimate issue in the fifth or the sixth cen
tury of Christianity. The ramifications of heretical
c 2

20
invention would appear to be almost indefinite and
incalculable ; but so many as are the extravagancies
of theological error, so many also must be the safe
guards of orthodoxy. I will never believe, then,
that the strong current of dogmatic theology was
suddenly frozen up in the fourth or the sixth cen
tury of the Christian sera. Moreover, I believe
also, that, in the latter centuries, heresy assumed
quite a new shape, and, whereas in earlier times,
it occupied itself in dealing with the objective doc
trines of the Gospel, in the more modern ages it
caught the subjective spirit of the times, and issued
in all kinds of fatal speculation upon matters con
nected with the internal life of the Christian ; such,
for example, as the mode of his justification in the
sight of God. Shall I suppose the Church to have
been silent on such emergencies ? On the con
trary, I believe her to have been ready at Trent, as
at Nicsea, with her scholastic definitions and her
preclusive anathemas. And so in the times inter
mediate. That sort of relation which the Atha-
nasian Creed bears to the Apostles', I believe that
still later dogmatic decisions bear to it. With
these feelings, your Lordship can hardly wonder
that I should deem too well of my Church to
suppose, without overpowering reason, that she
directly and unequivocally contravenes the decrees
even of the later Councils. What ? a body of
divines in one corner of the world, (good men, I
doubt not, in their way, yet surely exposed, and
apparently not superior, to exterior influences,)
set about deliberately to call in question the solemn

21
acts of the assembled Prelates of Christendom !
I know it is a moot point how far the Council of
Trent is to be regarded as oecumenical. I do not
wish to enter upon this question, but I cannot
conceive any Catholic-minded person not feeling
that, (considering our Blessed Lord's promise) there
is on the whole so much reason for expecting that
the Holy Ghost would be present in any large as
sembly of Bishops, representing the different mem
bers of the Catholic body, as to dispose him to
grasp any alternative which would at all events
keep him clear of the unspeakable danger of ma
ligning, if so be, that unutterably sacred Presence !
That at any rate, then, the desire of interpreting
our Formularies, if not in harmony, at least not in
discordance, with the determinations of assemblies
so august, and by possibility so sacred, should not be
met by so much as a hearty sympathy, nor the
attempt at such a reconciliation viewed with in
dulgence, where encouragement is conscientiously
felt to be impracticable ; this, I confess, would sur
prise me, and seem to promise ill for our Church.
But again, I am sure your Lordship will
allow that among blessings which should be x,ar'
ivyfjv to all of us, that of the re-union of Christen
dom stands in the very foremost rank. I am not
saying that this great and happy consummation
seems to myself in any way likely to be realized ;
nor, again, am I saying that it can, under existing
circumstances, be made a primary object of exertion.
We, of the Church of England, must try to be at
one among ourselves, before we can hope to affect

22
in any sort of way, the religious destinies of Christ
endom ; and, looking to the extreme improbability,
not to say utter hopelessness, of the nearer issue, it
would indeed be the very height of enthusiasm to
entertain any sanguine expectations of the more
distant. But I suppose there is such a thing as not
liking to part with a fond hope, even when pros
pects are darkest ; nay, perhaps one clings to hope,
as to life, with the more pertinacity the feebler the
thread by which it hangs. I cannot then, for my
own part, admire that peculiar organization of theo -
logical vision which, in circumstances such as ours,
is quick to discern, if not even prone to magnify,
the points of difference which, whether rightly or
wrongly I will not say, but at any rate unhappily,
rend in parts that Body in which, as we know,
there should be 'no schism.1 And, therefore, I am
anything but surprised that so many members of
our Church should have hailed the attempt which
has been made in our own time to bring the Thirty-
nine Articles into somewhat of harmony with the
decisions of the Church Universal ; and again, that
they should be loth to interpret as final, the grave
objections which that attempt has undoubtedly
encountered at the hands of this, or the other,
high ecclesiastical authority.
And this, my Lord, appears a fit place in which
to make one or two remarks upon this much can
vassed subject of Subscription to the Articles.
The view taken in many quarters, of the eager
ness which certain clergymen and members of the
University display to reconcile with their ecclesias-

23
tical and academical pledges certain views of doc
trine which the Articles are popularly supposed to
contravene, comes, as I need hardly say, to this ;
that honesty is with the clergymen in question, of
less account than ' filthy lucre.' But, my Lord, I
will not deny that there are many temptations (of
which I verily believe that the desire of a compe
tent maintenance is one of the least) which do un
doubtedly tend against a thoroughly disinterested
view of the question. It is not rare to hear per
sons speak as if throwing up posts of duty, and
snapping ties of affection, were among the easiest
and pleasantest things in the world. I am not
here speaking of popular objectors, but of some
among our own friends. These respected persons
often speak as if all the inducements by which per
sons like myself, for example, are likely to be
actuated, lie on the side of (what is called) " join
ing Rome," and against the course of quiescence.
Your Lordship is, I am persuaded, too well ac
quainted with human nature to fall in with so un
real a view ; but I doubt not that you have ere now
heard it maintained. For myself, at all events, I
am quite free to acknowledge that our estimate of
the Articles does seem to me in no little danger of
being coloured by our natural wishes and our
home sympathies. I suppose it will not be consi
dered an extreme stretch of self-flattery in a clergy
man to think that he is not at all events overpower-
ingly influenced by the love of money. But I am
by no means so sure that we ought not all of us to
be on the watch against what seem to myself the

24
exceeding dangers of a slothful and grovelling
acquiescence in our actual position, and of an at
tempt to sustain ourselves in it at whatever sacrifice
of consistency and acute conscientiousness.
Yet I do honestly think, that there is a consider
able number of persons among us, keenly alive to
these peculiar temptations, and sincerely anxious to
follow God's leading, whether it be for settlement, or
for change. Under what kind of feelings it is that
these persons are desirous (as I do not deny) of
even straining the Articles to the utmost admis
sible point of latitude in the Catholic direction,
your Lordship will have gathered from my late
remarks ; and you will, I trust, acknowledge that
they are anxious for such a liberty, not in that they
are disloyal to our Church, but in that they love
her, " not wisely," indeed, as some may say, and yet
surely not otherwise than " too well." Still, there is
no denying that our Formularies maybe owr-strained ;
and, considering how powerful are the motives to
such a practising upon their sense (motives indeed,
many of them, no otherwise interested than as all zeal
for our Church may be so accounted), I do feel, for
one, most willing and eager for a consideration, with
aview to some final adjustment, ofthe whole question
of Subscription to our Formularies. All, I suppose,
will agree that the Articles have a meaning ; and yet
they are actually subscribed in almost every conceiv
able variety of sense. They were put forth, as we are
told, with a view to the avoiding of " difference of
opinion." And yet, my Lord, when we look to the
actual state of our Church, how can it be said they
have answered their end ?

25
Some authoritative Imposer and Interpreter of
the Articles surely there must be in our Church.
Yet it seems easier to say where that authority
does not, than where it does, reside. The Univer
sities, it is now generally admitted, present the
Articles to their own members for subscription, in the
name and on the behalf of the Church of England,
and have no power whatever of determining in what
sense they shall, or shall not be subscribed. And as
the Universities are not the Imposers to their own
members, so neither (and I say it with the utmost
respect) will all the Clergy, as I think, consent to
accept the Articles, at least without some very clear
understanding on the point, in the sense of their re
spective Bishops. For it is no secret that different
Bishops of the Established Church hold widely dif
ferent opinions on certain very important theologi
cal subjects, and, since a Clergyman may be thrown
by accident into different dioceses, or may hold pre
ferment in several at once, it is obvious that he can
not alter his theological creed as he moves from one
county to another ; or, under the other supposition,
hold several conflicting creeds at once. It is my
own privilege, for instance, to hold an ecclesiastical
position under your Lordship and under the Bishop
of Lichfield. But what if, instead of enjoying a
stall at Lichfield, I were similarly dignified in some
other diocese which might be named ? Why, I
might perchance be accepting the Articles in two
contradictory senses ; and, supposing the Declara
tion lately carried at Oxford had met with success,
I might, as a member of the University, be declaring

20
myself, contemporaneously, to sign the Articles with
in its walls, " tanquam opinionum mearum," &c. &c.
But I suppose it is nowhere even maintained or
imagined that individual bishops of our Church are
invested with the power of authoritatively deter
mining the sense of the Articles. That power,
I apprehend, to reside in the corporate Church of
England, whether speaking by an act of Convoca
tion, or a judgment of the Ecclesiastical Court, with
the sanction, probably, of the three estates of the
realm. And now, my Lord, in conclusion, for a few
words upon a subject very near my heart — Mar
garet Chapel. As this is the first time during an
ecclesiastical connexion of many years that I have
ever addressed your Lordship before the public, I
hail with peculiar satisfaction the opportunity of
thanking your Lordship for the great, the almost
unparalleled kindness and forbearance which I have
experienced at your Lordship's hands, and, at the
same time, of offering one or two remarks upon the
subject of objections which my ministrations have
encountered in some quarters, under circumstances
which quite preclude the suspicion on the one hand
of any wish to obtrude myself on your Lordship's at
tention ; on the other, of any purpose to address your
Lordship in the spirit of apology. My Lord, in this
letter I am not volunteering to bring matters before
you ; I am merely undertaking the explanation of a
step, which I have felt it right to take in a character
and capacity wholly independent of my connexion

27
with your Lordship. Nor, again, can what I am
about to say be fairly regarded as, in any sort of
way, apologetic. For the idea of apology pre
sumes that of charge ; and the idea of charge
that of a certain legitimacy in the position of
the accusers. But I wish your Lordship to under
stand clearly, and at once, that I consider myself to
" owe no subscription," to the various parties with
whom my ministerial acts and proceedings have been,
from time to time, the subject of liberal comment.
I do not say this in any temper of vain-glory, nor
yet of unkindness. I am too conscious ofthe defects
of my service to take it amiss that its short-comings
should have been brought home to me, through the
medium of objections which I could not but feel in
themselves perfectly groundless. Still less do I
desire to bear hardly upon the objecting parties ; as
well because I am not insensible to the difficulties
which these times generally must present to all but
very reflecting and discriminating minds ; while, on
the other hand, as your Lordship well knows, the
saying that the ' mass of men are undiscriminating,'
is as old as the time of a Greek philosopher. I
have known all along that the course which I have
felt it my plain duty to take at Margaret Chapel,
would necessarily be open to misconstructions ; but
I have yet to learn that such a prospect as this is
in itself enough to shake a Clergyman in what he
conscientiously regards as his duty. I well knew
that my own regular congregation and flock could
alone be competent judges upon matters concern
ing which I found that all kinds of misunderstand-

28
ing and misrepresentation were abroad; but I
knew also that if others could not see and feel this
as a plain matter of common sense, they were not
likely to feel it the rather for my pressing it upon
their attention. And therefore I have abstained,
on principle, from replying to the various charges,
or meeting the several objections, relating to myself
and my ministrations, which have from time to
time, met my eye in newspapers and magazines:
though fully aware that my silence would be liable
to the same misconstructions as my acts, and would
be characterized as contemptuous by those who had
characterized my proceedings as wanton, or extra
vagant, or whatever else. Moreover, it is, as I
consider for another reason, highly undesirable to
meet specific accusations, anonymously made in
the publications of the day. For those persons
who are known to be in the practice of contra
dicting, are supposed to allow all which they do
not contradict ; so that a notorious person like
myself would have established for myself a rule,
by which I should have been obliged to pass a
portion of every day in reading every newspaper,
and a portion of many days in writing letters of ex
planation ; and at last remain without certainty that
all the objections had been noticed, but with cer
tainty that none of the objectors had been satisfied.
I say, then, that I have really no feelings of
unkindness against those parties, and I hope I have
even, in some degree, profited by the discipline
to which they have been instrumental. But I do
feel it of the very highest importance to disclaim

29
every kind and every degree of accountability for
my ministerial acts to any tribunals, save two.
First and chiefly, I hold myself, of course, respon
sible to your Lordship, both for my teaching and
for the manner in which Divine Service is con
ducted in the church or chapel in which I regu
larly officiate. On the subject of teaching, I have
perhaps said enough, I do not say to satisfy your
Lordship that I am right, but at least to put you
in possession of materials for judgment. I will
here add only that I lately put out two Sermons,
under the title of " Things Dispensable and Things
Indispensable," in which I had an eye to certain
objections, but without any personal or contro
versial object. I mention these Sermons in the
present connexion, because I do not think them
an unfair specimen of my usual tone and line of
preaching ; but of this point the regular members
of my congregation are of course better judges than
myself. With respect to my general views of the duty
of Clergymen as to the conduct, under actual cir
cumstances, of Divine Service, in case your Lord
ship, or any other person, care to know them, I
will refer to a Letter on the Rubrical Question, ad
dressed to the editor of the English Churchman,
and originally inserted in that paper; and subse
quently, at my request, introduced into the British
Magazine for the present month, through the kind
ness of the editor of that periodical. Your Lord
ship will see that in that Letter I take a some
what different view of the much-agitated question

30
to which it relates from some of my respected
brethren ; allowing considerably more than all of
them are disposed to allow to certain popular ob
jections, and taking a far less definite view than
many "High Churchmen" about me respecting
the stringency of certain Rubrics. That Letter
was written before the disastrous proceedings in the
Diocese of Exeter, as well as before the concili
atory Address of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Both of these occurrences (if I may mention my
own name in such very high company) should be
taken by any one who thinks it worth while to
read my Letter in connexion with it.
It may be asked me, ' How can you, who have
done such and such things at Margaret Chapel,
argue against the force of certain Rubrics, or in
favour of the legitimacy of certain influences V
My Lord, if you should ever think it worth while
to cast your eye over that paper of mine, you will
find that my own course at Margaret Chapel offers
no sort of practical contradiction to its suggestions.
Your Lordship will observe that I speak as strongly
of the evil and danger of yielding to certain ex
trinsic objections, or to mere popular clamour, as
of the duty of giving full and fair consideration
to the conscientious difficulties of habitual wor
shippers. And again : that I only do away with
the indispensable obligation of certain Rubrics,
practically (as I conceive, and so far as they are
to be regarded in the light of binding laws) an
nulled, in order to make way for a duty far more
imperative than that of obedience to dormant or

31
equivocal Rubrics — the duty of promoting in every
allowed way the glory of Almighty God and the
edification of His people.
To your Lordship, then, I hold myself in the
first place accountable for my manner of regulating
Divine Service in my Chapel. And your Lord
ship has ever shewn me, and I trust your Lord
ship will not be displeased by my saying it before
the public, the most tender and forbearing consi
deration. I too well know that certain parties in
and out of our Church have been long attempting
to goad your Lordship into some Episcopal act
against Margaret Chapel ; but your Lordship would
not be provoked. Do not let me be supposed,
my Lord, for one instant to imply that the ill-
report of a Church in your Diocese can ever be
otherwise than a matter of concern to your Lord
ship ; or that my supposed proceedings have not
been to you a subject of uneasiness, and, at times,
also of displeasure ; nor, again, let me be supposed
to claim your Lordship's explicit sanction of every
minor change which, with a view, at least, to the
objects which I have stated myself to recognise
as paramount, I have introduced into the chapel
during the five years and a half of my connexion
with it. My Lord, I candidly own that I did not
feel my way up to a certain time to consult your
Lordship touching every single point in the arrange
ment of the Chapel, or the manner of conducting
the Service. But, from the moment (now three
years ago) that your Lordship told me you wished
me to make no change, which might give offence,

32
without consulting you, I have proceeded on a
different view of my duty. Up to that time, and
ever since, in matters perfectly indifferent, I ac
knowledge that I rather used, and have used, my
knowledge of your Lordship's principles and wishes
to guide my course, than cared to burden you with
the trouble and responsibility of a decision in each
special case. If, in any instance, I have interpreted
your Lordship's mind amiss, I can but tender the
expression of my sincere regret.
But (and this brings me at once to the next
division of my subject) I have always attributed,
whether rightly or wrongly, your Lordship's for
bearance in the case of Margaret Chapel, to your
conviction, First, that I had a basis of Rubrical
authority for every considerable " innovation " upon
existing practice ; and that " innovations " are only
wrong where existing practice is perfect (which
cannot be pretended) ; and second, that, above all,
there was this great distinction between Margaret
Chapel and some other churches where improve
ments had been attempted, that my regular con
gregation were quite unanimous, either in approving
the alterations, or in delegating to tlieir clergyman
the power (so far as they were concerned) of mak
ing them. My Lord, it is not necessary I should
say to your Lordship, how very different are the
circumstances of a chapel from those of a parish
church. I am not going to argue the question on
which side abstractedly is the advantage, for on
this matter the minds of English Churchmen are
pretty well made up; but I certainly feel, after

33
some considerable experience, that, in the present
state of our Church, what is called the " voluntary
system " is not without its own very special ad
vantages. It is a miserable thing indeed where a
Clergyman's influence depends upon the popularity
of his preaching ; but I do not see any harm, quite
the reverse, in an influence which is derived, if so
be, from the mode in which Divine Service is
celebrated. And besides, since the tie between a
Chapel and its congregation, is either one of affec
tion, or none at all, I do not see why persons who
dislike a particular Service or Ministry, should not
withdraw themselves. If people recognise strongly
the parochial tie, then I wonder wh^ they come to
Margaret Chapel at all ; and if they do not, there
is an ample choice of chapels in London.
But whether or not this particular distinction
between my own case and that of others, has
weighed with your Lordship, at all events I can
assure your Lordship that with myself it has always
produced the most powerful effect. Some of my
brethren, I imagine, do not distinctly recognise any
special duty to their congregation, in respect of the
manner of arranging Divine Service. On the con
trary, I recognise that duty as so important, that
nothing but my duty to your Lordship can be more so.
To all, then, who, under whatever circumstances, or
on whatever grounds, are actually brought under my
eye, (it is quite immaterial to me how, or why, so
long as I am satisfied that it is from no improper
truckling on my part,) I consider myself bound as
"their servant for Christ's sake." Had I been
D

34
rector of a parish, it is quite obvious that I never
could have done what has been done (through God's
blessing) at Margaret Chapel. I never should have
dreamt of attempting it. Had my flock been
obliged to recognise, from their very position, the
"parochial" tie, had they frequented my Church,
not because they felt edified by its services, or the
better for my teaching, but because they and their
fathers before them had always been accustomed
to frequent it, and except they frequented it, had
no alternative but to stay at home, or wander from
church to church, or attach themselves to some
dissenting congregation, how could I have ventured
upon giving tRem no option but between a dis
tasteful and perplexing mode of worship, and some
of the evils I have just specified ? But the case is
as widely different as possible, where the sympathies
of a congregation go almost side by side with a
certain course of (intended) improvement, never
lagging far behind, sometimes even pressing on
before. Now, considering, my Lord, that during all the
years I have been at Margaret Chapel, and not
withstanding all the outcry of which it has been
the subject, certainly not more than half-a-dozen
persons who, were even attached to the congrega
tion at all ; and not half so many of them who
had been attached to it for any length of time,
(indeed I recollect no instance under this head,)
have left the Chapel in consequence of any dis
satisfaction with the mode of service, or the system
of teaching ; I really think that I have some ground

35
for turning a deaf ear to the comments of persons,
however respectable and well intentioned, who come
only once in a way, and then without knowledge of
the reasons of certain practices, (such, for instance, as
the Offertory,) with which they are not familiar,
or of the general system of which those practices
are a part, sit down and write off their first impres
sions to the newspapers, or to myself, or to your
Lordship. My Lord, there are manifold more circumstances
which I might mention to my present point, were
I engaged, as I am not, in a regular defence of
Margaret Chapel, or of myself. But with many
of these your Lordship is, I believe, already ac
quainted, and some of them border upon subjects
too sacred to expose unnecessarily to the public eye,
or at least which could not be mentioned without
a great liability to misconstruction. Among these
I have omitted all allusion to the amount of offer
ings, the number of communicants, &c, as rather
in my judgment popular and available, than ade
quate criteria of the blessing by which, most
assuredly, the general ministrations of Margaret
Chapel seem to have been accredited.
And now, my Lord, if I have not unduly taken up
your Lordship's time, and tired your patience, bear
with me for a few minutes longer, while I con
clude these explanations with a few very serious
and heartfelt words.
My Lord, I labour under an impression more
overpowering than easily explicable, that the Church
of England — that Dispensation of God, which has
D 2

36
been to all of us so great a means of blessing, and
so high an object of loyalty— that this Church, so
highly favoured beyond other Protestant com
munities, (if Protestant indeed it be,) is in the way,
if not on the very brink, of a momentous, though it
may be not a sudden and conspicuous, crisis. I will
not enter into the grounds of this my impression —
indeed I have already said that it is of the nature of
what is commonly called a ' presentiment,' and
therefore incapable of being colourably sub
stantiated. Yet, at any rate, to those who love the
Church of England, there remains one strong con
solation, and to that they will cling while they may.
Mere danger is no note of discredit against God's
heritage ; on the contrary, the greater the danger,
the more marvellous, if so be, the rescue. But
there is another reason against specifying too
minutely the grounds of such an apprehension,
even where they exist, and that is the fear of
suggesting difficulties to minds happily as yet un-
assailed by them. To some few, however, it may,
perhaps, be a comfort to know, and therefore I
will say it, that recent events at Oxford do not, in
themselves, press upon my own mind as among the
most alarming signs of the times. And yet I cannot
but feel those events as significant. As to the dog
matical or intrepretative "decrees" ofthe Convocation
of Oxford, they are now generally admitted to be
quite devoid of any other weight than that which
they may possess, as declarations of opinion, on the
part of a respectable but motley body of voters. But
I will not say so much against the penal sentences of

37
that tribunal, (supposing them legal,) as well because
such measures are evidences of a far more determined
and energetic animus in individuals, and because
they involve consequences far more obvious to the
eye, and irritating to the imagination. And under
some foresight of this effect it was, that I myself
came forward as I did at the risk of much odium,
and some even more practical results, (of which,
however, I really do not wish to speak, so plain has
always appeared to me the course of duty,) to lift up
my feeble voice against a measure of almost unprece
dented severity, in a case where neither heresy nor
immorality were even so much as in question.
However, let this pass. The University of Oxford
has entered upon a course of aggression ; let it find
some way of following up its step with safety, or
retracing it with credit.
But were the authorities of the Church of Eng
land to help on this academical agitation, then it
would at once become, I do not say less justifiable,
but certainly more serious. It is no business of
mine to question the policy, still less to impugn the
motives of any one who has, or who may, come
forward on either side of this struggle. I have no
opinion about better or worse ; I deprecate nothing,
I invite nothing ; I only trust that all persons, (and
the more eminent they are the greater of course
is their responsibility,) may be aided to act cau
tiously and deliberately. Of caution and deliberation
there is certainly need ; and yet the times are sin
gularly adverse to the due exercise of those great
qualities.

38
If I might hope that a Bishop of our Church
might lend a gracious ear to the appeal of one
among the most unworthy, and yet not least de
voted of her sons, I would say, Pause, my Lord,
I implore you, pause, before you snap one binding
tie, break up one compact system, dislodge one
needful element, in the existing Church of England.
It subsists by a balance ; it is kept in its orbit
through the operation of rival and conflicting in
fluences. If we tamper with a body of such de
licate structure and such heterogeneous materials,
or enforce or enfeeble either of the powers on
whose gentle and well-poised sway it depends for
the equability of its movements, my own deep and
deliberate apprehension is that it will break up,
and its dissociated parts fly away in obedience to
some more powerful attraction, or wheel their rest
less and self-chosen course round and round the
dreary regions of space. This, its brittleness and
want of inward balance, might, indeed, be a proof
that it had never been a Divine work at all, at
least, as to its essential framework ; but they might
also tend to shew that, though a Divine work, it
had not been treated as God would have it treated.
My Lord, I will say no more, and perhaps, al
ready, I have said more than my relative situation
warrants. But, at least, that I may dispel the im
pression of levity, and indicate to your Lordship
that I do not forget whom I am addressing, or
on how high a subject, or in how sacred a season,
I will conclude with a portion of the Service which
some of us have offered up to-day.

39
" O God, merciful Father, that despisest not the
sighing of a contrite heart, nor the desire of such
as be sorrowful, mercifully assist our prayers that
we make before Thee in all our troubles and adver
sities, whensoever they oppress us ; and graciously
hear us, that those evils, which the craft and sub
tlety of the devil, or man, worketh against us, be
brought to nought, and by the providence of Thy
goodness they may be dispersed ; that we Thy ser
vants, being hurt by no persecutions, may evermore
give thanks unto Thee in Thy Holy Church, through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
" O Lord, arise, help us, and deliver us, for Thy
Name's sake.
" O God, we have heard with our ears, and our
fathers have told us the noble works that Thou
didst in their days, and in the old time before
them. " O Lord, arise, help us, and deliver us for Thine
honour." And now, with sincere gratitude and respect, I
request your Lordship to believe me,
Your very faithful Servant,
Frederick Oakeley.
Margaret Street, Wednesday in Lent,
19th. Feb. 1845.

THE END.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 0862
 n