Woo & gate

-

Mhg57

REASONS

VOTING AGAINST THE MEASURES

TO BE PROPOSED IN

CONVOCATION AT OXFORD

ON FEBRUARY 13, 1845.

RESPECTFULLY SUGGESTED FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF
MEMBERS OF CONVOCATION.

LONDON:
JAMES BURNS, 17 PORTMAN STREET,
PORTMAN SttUARE.
1845.

LONDON :
PRINTED BY fcEV-E-Tf; IfcOBSON, AHD fRANKLYN,
Great New Street, Fetter Lane.

REASONS,

ETC

The following objections against the measures to be submitted
to the House of Convocation at Oxford, on the 13th of February
next, are respectfully offered to the thoughtful and serious con
sideration of members of Convocation. The arguments against
the resolutions and measures relative to Mr. Ward have been
kept separate from those against the proposed new statute, the
questions being altogether distinct, however seemingly connected
by the Hebdomadal Board.
The writer will merely add, that he is not a friend of Mr.
Ward's — in fact, can hardly be said to be acquainted with him.
Neither does he approve of the sentiments expressed in the
extracts from his work, on which the proposed measures are
founded ; nor does he wish to screen their author from any pen
alties to which he may be justly liable, as soon as the University
has placed itself in a position to inflict them. He has been ac
tuated solely by a sense of justice, and a conviction of the dis
credit, as well as the serious practical evils, which must inevit
ably result to the University from the adoption, either wholly
or in part, of the measures in question.
Reasons for voting against the Resolutions and Measures
relative to Mr. Ward.
I. Because the University has never yet, at least in modern
times, recognised the principle that it is incumbent upon her to
take cognizance of the opinions pf her members, as such ; and it
is on this assumption only that she can be acquitted of conniving
at the various acts of heresy of which they have from time to

time been notoriously guilty ; whereas, if we adopt the resolu
tions and measures now proposed, we at once admit the prin
ciple, that such matters do fall within our jurisdiction, and become
ipso facto convicted of having connived at, if not sanctioned,
all the cases (infinitely worse than those alleged against Mr.
Ward) to which we have omitted to apply it ; thereby incurring
an awful amount of responsibility and guilt. The statute against
Dr. Hampden, which has been cited as a precedent for the pre
sent proceeding, is not at all in point, the cases being in no
way parallel. Dr. Hampden was proceeded against merely in
his official character, as Professor, by being deprived of certain
functions usually attached to the office ; and this was done, not
as a punishment, but in order that the University might, by thus
declaring their want of confidence in him, mark their disappro
bation of the appointment, and disclaim the responsibility which
a tacit acquiescence would involve. A most material feature in
the case is the circumstance, that, although his works had been
long published, and had attracted considerable attention, it was
not thought necessary to notice them by any public act until he
became Professor, and thereby invested with University trusts.
The course then pursued was, simply, to deprive him of such
trusts as we had it in our power to recall ; while as a mere
member of Convocation, which the analogy of Mr. Ward's case
requires, his degrees and other rights and privileges were left
untouched, including his Headship and his seat at the Heb
domadal Board. To make this a precedent, therefore, the
proposed statute ought to have been confined to a declaration,
to which few probably would have objected, that Mr. Ward
was incapable of University trusts. In order to make the
cases parallel, either Mr. Ward must be viewed merely
in relation to public offices, and dealt with according to
that precedent; or else Dr. Hampden must, like Mr. Ward,
be viewed as a mere member of Convocation, and be dealt
with according to the principle laid down in the proposed
statute, by being made subject to a similar statute of pains
and penalties.

II. Because, of the seven extracts from Mr. Ward's book
of which we are called upon to affirm, that they " are utterly
inconsistent with the Articles of the Church of England," three
only can by any ordinary interpretation be so construed ;
the others, however objectionable in themselves, or offensive
to some minds, from the way in which they speak of the
Reformation, the Reformers, and the Church of Rome,— how
ever censurable on the score of bad taste, or as indicating a
presumptuous or irreverent tone of mind, — yet are not such
as fall within the jurisdiction of any tribunal recognised by
the constitution of the Church. The English Church in no one
authorised formulary recognises the Reformation or the Re
formers, as such, nor any where forbids expressions or opinions,
however strong, on that subject. And to prohibit or affix
penalties to the free exercise of opinion, allowed by the
Church herself, upon an historical fact, is an act of tyranny and
oppression, as well as an assumption of the prerogatives of the
Church, and an infringement on the liberty of her members.
Yet these expressions we are called upon to pronounce, formally,
to be " inconsistent with the Articles ofthe Church of England."
III. Because the 3d, 5th, and 7th extracts, admitting them
to be inconsistent with the Articles, are infinitely less so than
the writings and acts of many other individual members which
we allow to pass unnoticed, but which have not only gone to
explain away the meaning of the Articles, but have directly
assailed the Creeds and fundamental Articles of the Christian
Faith ; while other members have, without censure or rebuke,
openly denied and preached against the doctrine of Baptismal
Regeneration, explained away the Scripture miracles, and im
pugned the plenary inspiration of Scripture itself. Therefore,
formally to admit the principle, that it is incumbent upon us to
punish these things (as we should by agreeing to the proposed
resolution), and yet to apply it to Mr. Ward alone, to the
exemption of all other offences far worse than those imputed
to him, is not only an act of unwarrantable injustice and tyranny,

but would involve an awful amount of responsibility in the
sanction it would afford, on our parts, to the most fearful heresy.
It is true that past error is no just plea for its continuance ; nor
does past neglect, in conniving at false doctrine, preclude us
from making a beginning, however late ; and were former of
fenders removed by death or other causes from our jurisdiction,
there would be less seeming injustice in making Mr. Ward the
first example. But the former, who have offended in a far
greater degree than Mr. Ward is alleged to have done, are not
only living, but many of them on the books at this very time,
and some, either now or recently, holding offices of trust and
importance in the University.
IV. Because, when certain members recently left our com
munion, and joined themselves, some to the Roman Church, and
others to heretical and schismatic bodies, — in either case repudi
ating the orders of the English Church, — not 6nly were they not
deprived of their degrees, but no proposal to that effect was
made or even hinted at ; nor has the slightest censure upon
them proceeded from the Hebdomadal Board, or the authorities
ofthe University. By enacting this Statute, therefore, we should
virtually avow both that a formal renunciation of communion
with the Church, and to deny her orders, is not " inconsistent
with the Articles ;" and also, the glaring inconsistency, that actual
communion with the Roman Church does not call for any censure
or authoritative notice whatever, but that to approve and ad
mire her system is worthy of being punished by expulsion, and
by a public deprivation of all University degrees and privileges !
V. Because, admitting that Mr. Ward is deserving of pun
ishment, yet the sentence now proposed is utterly dispropor
tioned to the alleged offence. Being the heaviest punishment
which we have it in our power to inflict, and being, moreover,
accidentally connected with the loss of other privileges external
to the University, it ought to be reserved for the greatest pos
sible offences. By inflicting it, therefore, we are either guilty

of a manifest act of injustice, or else thereby declare that the
offence imputed to Mr. Ward is of that class ; but that false doc
trine, heresy, and flagrant cases of immoral life and conduct,
which from time to time occur among our members, are not, in
our estimation, of sufficient importance to call for such a pun
ishment. VI. Because the persons spoken of in the foregoing Reasons
as having offended in a far greater degree than Mr. Ward, as
well as others who, in a healthy state of discipline, would long
since have incurred grave ecclesiastical censure, if not have been
put out of the Church, will now be allowed to sit in judgment
on Mr. Ward, in a matter involving questions of Church-doc
trine, and are already loudest in condemning him — a flagrant
violation of the principles of justice as well as of common
decency, which cannot fail materially to lower the character
and injure the influence of the University with the nation at
large.

Reasons for voting against the proposed New Statute.
I. Because it is an innovation upon the fundamental and
ancient constitution of the University.
II. Because it places the University on a different footing
from the Church as regards the basis of its doctrine. For
whereas the Church requires subscription to the Articles in
the " literal and grammatical sense," the University will, should
this test be adopted, require the two additional tests of the sense
of the first publishers of the Articles, and the sense held from
time to time by the University.
HI. Because both of the new tests are extremely vague, and
difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain. The persons concerned
in first publishing the Articles were themselves of various and

8
conflicting opinions ; and it would be impossible to determine
with certainty what may be the sense of the University from
time to time, without collecting the votes of Convocation. To
assume or conjecture what it might be, or to leave it to the
judgment of the Vice-Chancellor, in a matter involving the ex
pulsion, it may be, of half our members, would be subversive
of every principle of justice, and destructive of the liberties of
the University.
IV. Because, even if the two tests could be ascertained,
there is no necessary connexion between them ; the sense of the
first publishers being one and unalterable ; the other varying
from time to time, as both history and experience teach us,
according to the doctrinal feeling of the University : — so that
there is nothing to prevent them from directly contradicting each
other ; while the Statute assumes them to be identical, and rests
its whole validity and efficacy upon that assumption. The con
sequence of which will be, that while some, construing the com
bined test strictly, will shrink from taking it altogether, on ac
count of its doubtfulness and inconsistency, others, and perhaps
the greater number, will take it without scruple, as virtually
having no meaning or obligation, its contradictory and absurd
character evidently rendering it impossible to be taken in any
definite sense, and affording the presumption that it was not
designed to be so taken.
V. Because, instead ofthe literal and grammatical sense in
which the Articles have hitherto been subscribed, the new Sta
tute proposes two other tests, which, in the absence of all posi
tive or satisfactory evidence as to their real meaning, will neces
sarily be interpreted according to the views and prepossessions
of the persons subscribing :* thereby making the new mode of
subscription infinitely less effectual as a protection against false
doctrine than the present system, and opening the door to every
kind of latitudinarianism. * See note at the end.

VI. Because it is universally acknowledged to be an un
sound and dangerous principle to legislate for individual cases.
VII. Because, in the preamble, an improper reference is
made to those who incline to error on the Romish side ; while
the far greater class, who range with equal or greater blame-
ableness on the confines of dissent, are allowed to escape with
out censure or even remark : a distinction which would greatly
compromise the character of the University, and shews a vicious
and reprehensible leaning to latitudinarian error.
VIII. Because to invest the Vice-Chancellor with new and
irresponsible powers — at all times a source of jealousy and
alarm — cannot fail to be peculiarly so in the present state of
religious controversy and party-spirit, and must tend materially
to aggravate the existing irritation and excitement ; while the
proposed Statute confers an excessive and dangerous power,
which may be exercised harshly and oppressively, and must
vary much in its application by each successive Vice-Chan
cellor ; so that no single member of the University can tell
whether he may not be a sufferer by it either now or at some
future time.
IX. Because of the retrospective power of the proposed
Statute, which is at variance not only with the ordinary prac*
tice of legislation, but with every recognised principle of jus
tice. The most objectionable laws which have passed the Le
gislature have always had regard to existing rights and interests ;
whereas the proposed Statute not only makes no such exemp
tion, but expressly enacts that any senior member, " whether Head
ofa House or otherwise," who honestly and without equivocation
subscribed to the Articles in what he believed to be their " true,
usual, literal meaning," whether at matriculation or at his
degrees, may now, at the mere caprice of the Vice-Chancellor,
be called upon to take them in a new sense, and " on refusal
be dismissed from the University," and deprived of his home and

10
office; while any member who may be personally obnoxious
to the Vice-Chancellor, or whose vote may be deemed adverse
in any question about to be submitted to Convocation, may be
cited and dismissed in like manner.
X. Because the present excitement under which members
of Convocation are summoned to express their opinion on ano
ther and distinct matter is highly unfavourable to the fair and
calm consideration of a statute which will change the very con
stitution of the University, and more or less affect every present
and future member.
XI. Because for any individual or body of men to put forth,
as the sense of the Articles, what they suppose to be the mean
ing of the first publishers (of which no satisfactory proof can be
obtained), is in direct contravention of the Declaration prefixed
by authority to the Articles — " that no man shall put his own
sense or comment to be the meaning of the Articles, but shall
take it in the literal and grammatical sense."

Note to Reason V. p. 8.
Mr. Ward's case might be cited, among others, in illustration of
this. In the 4th extract from his work, where he " distinctly charges
the Reformers with fully tolerating the ahsence from the Articles of any
real anti-Roman determination, so only they were allowed to preserve an
apparent one," he shews plainly enough what is the sense in which he
believes " eos primitus editos esse;" so that the test clearly would not
bind him or those who think with him, if that is the intention of it.
Mr. Palmer, of Worcester College, one of the most prominent advo
cates of the Statute, in a letter inserted in the Oxford Herald, says,
" All that the subscriber is called upon to declare is (in substance),
'that he will subscribe in that sense in which he, ex animo, believes
them to have been originally put forth, and in which, also, they are
proposed at present by the University as a real test of the subscriber's
opinions.'" But he entirely overlooks the fact, that the animus spoken

11
of, and on which the " sensus in quo," &c. is made entirely to depend,
is solely in the breast of the subscriber, beyond the reach of any human
control, and directly opposed, it may be, to the sense iu which the
University proposes the Articles to him.
Mr. Palmer further observes: "This declaration, of course, cannot
be made by any one who ventures to affirm that the Articles have no
sense at all, or no meaning ; or who claims a right to subscribe them in
any sense which he may judge most Catholic (whether it be Romish,
Sabellian, Arian, or Calvinistic").
Why not, if the subscriber believes so, ex animo ?
Also : " But it ought not to create any difficulty in the minds of
those who  are willing  to subscribe the Articles
 in the sense of the Church of England."
A declaration to that effect probably would not. It is mainly be
cause this declaration does not call on us to subscribe " in the sense of
the Church of England," that is, "in the literal and grammatical sense,"
but in a sense entirely new and unauthorised, that such serious objec
tions lie against it.
Mr. Palmer adverts, with sarcastic severity, to the inconsistency of
the Hebdomadal Board in proposing this Statute, after their late attempt
virtually to abolish subscription at matriculation altogether, where he
says, with much apparent gravity, " It is certainly satisfactory to ob
serve, that the authorities of the University, who, a few years since,
were desirous of removing some of the securities for the reception of the
Church's doctrines in the University, have now evinced so plainly their
attachment to her Articles."
It is more than questionable, however, whether they will thank him
for such unwelcome reminiscences.

THE END.

PRIM TED B^ LEVEY, ROB SON, AN I: t RAM KtYN,
Great New Street, Fetter Lane.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 0888