// ^/V7i^ /^$^ .S^ /£;." . 4y /f. /^. ZV _ - - - /2
 
 tj){ llepmnita&ii of % limfersitg of (B^kxis. 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 SIR BROOK W. BRIDGES, BART. M.P. 
 
 if-C d-< 
 
 By the Rev. JOHN KEBLE, M.A. 
 
 LATE FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE. 
 
 LONDON: 
 JOHN HENRY PARKER, 377 STRAND.
 
 LONDON: 
 Piinted by G. Babclat, Castle St. Leicester Sq.
 
 A LETTER, 
 
 My dear Sir Brook, 
 
 As a Member of Convocation, I have received 
 several papers signed with your name, on which I take 
 the hberty of offering a few remarks ; and I trust that 
 in so doing I shall not forget old times, nor old and 
 kindly relations, nor the true regard and esteem with 
 which I must always look upon you. 
 
 For as to these papers, I do not and cannot consider 
 them as being in any proper sense yours. 
 
 I find in them two conclusions, to which I am 
 requested to come, with their several premises. 
 
 I. Mr. Gladstone is not a fit candidate to represent 
 the University of Oxford. 
 
 II. Dr. Marsham is a fit candidate. 
 
 I will speak to the allegations in support of the first 
 proposition. 
 
 1. Mr. Gladstone has changed his "opinions" (or 
 " views," or " principles," for all these words are used) 
 " on the relation of the Church to the State." 
 
 Mr. Gladstone emphatically denies this assertion ; 
 and I put it to all fair and candid men among his op-
 
 ponents, whether the mere fact of his denying it does 
 not render it their duty to reconsider the grounds on 
 which it has been advanced, lest they should inadver- 
 tently have made themselves parties to a great and 
 grievous wrong. 
 
 Surely such misunderstandings, under present cir- 
 cumstances, were to be expected, and the chance of 
 them should be allowed for by all parties. I own that 
 I was myself perplexed at one time by the support which 
 I saw given by Mr. Gladstone, and others like-minded, to 
 the admission of Jews into Parliament. But I have long 
 since been convinced that there was no sacrifice of prin- 
 ciple involved in it, and any hesitation which I might 
 feel as to Mr. Gladstone's views on that question related 
 merely to a point of expediency. 
 
 Permit me, if 1 can, to explain very briefly the pro- 
 cess by which 1 came to this conviction. 
 
 I understood Mr. Gladstone's original view of the 
 relation of Church and State to have its scriptural grounds 
 in such texts as Isaiah, Ix. 12 (" The nation and king- 
 dom that will not serve thee shall perish ; yea, those 
 nations shall be utterly wasted ") ; and that his purpose 
 would be to bring his country, not in profession only, 
 but in reality, under submission to that Power to which 
 those prophetic sayings are addressed. What,* in his 
 view, was that Power ? Not " all who profess and call 
 themselves Christians," regarded as adherents to a cer- 
 tain sect, agreeing in a certain abstract view ; but " the 
 Catholic Cluu-ch of Christ," — (see " The State, in its Re- 
 lations to the Church," c. ii. p. 26), the Heavenly Jeru- 
 salem, in its earthly and visible Form ; such, in all 
 essential features, as the Apostles left it to theii- suc- 
 cessors. This is that Power to which he would have his 
 country submit itself. And if his country substituted 
 for this another power, or a mere semblance of this, so 
 withdrawing itself in reality from submission to this 
 Power, then, by the very terms on which he originally 
 set out, he was ]:)ound, for his country's sake, to consider 

 
 ill every case what course of proceeding would be most 
 likely to confirm, renew, or augment the real influence 
 of this Power; disregarding names and professions, so 
 far as they did harm and led to wrong practice by ob- 
 scuring the truth of things. Now, try Mr. Gladstone's 
 com'se by this standard, especially with regard to those 
 two matters on which this heaviest allegation is especi- 
 ally grounded. 
 
 " You want the nation to submit itself to the Holy 
 Catholic Church. How can you bear its admitting Jews 
 to be part of its Legislature ?" 
 
 " For this reason," might one reply : " In common 
 with all who know what the Catholic Church is, I cannot 
 help seeing that the nation is deceiving itself; it has 
 gradually given up its adherence to the One Catholic 
 and Apostolic Church, and has come to insist on its own 
 claims; has set up itself in the Church's stead, as suf- 
 ficiently endowed with Chm-cli authority by the mere 
 ch'cumstance of its being made up of persons pro- 
 fessing and calling themselves Christians. And so 
 all manner of mistakes are being made, the deadliest 
 errors sanctioned, the holiest things grievously profaned, 
 the discipline of Christ already gone, the doctrine in a 
 fair way to go ; and men see it not, because the intru- 
 ders are called Christians. It is better that we should 
 all know what point we are really come to. This ex- 
 clusion of Jews only serves to blind well-meaning persons ; 
 their admission will, in fact, be no additional sin, for tlie 
 sin is already committed and the curse incurred, by the 
 nation's refusal to " serve " the One True Church ; and it 
 will be a step (please God) towards future amendment : 
 liberties which a legislature calling itself Christian would 
 be allowed to take with holy things, will be denied to 
 one which acknowledges our Lord but in part. The 
 witness of the Church will thus continue unimpaired, 
 and the State will have a far better chance of coming to 
 a healthier nnnd, and submitting itself to the Church
 
 6 
 
 again, tliaii as if it were allowed to go on setting itself 
 lip in the Churcli's stead. For, indeed, in the latter 
 case, the Church would be too likely to disappear 
 altogether from the country."* 
 
 Now, I do not say positively that the time was 
 come for this mode of reasoning to be applied ; nor that 
 there were no errors in the manner of applying it. It might 
 or might not be so : I am quite sure that a statesman 
 hi Mr. Gladstone's position is far more likely to be a 
 competent judge on that point than we who see affairs 
 abstractedly and at a distance. It is enough for my 
 argument, if such a case is allowed to be possible. I 
 know that the perplexities of our time have long ago 
 suggested it to many of the most loyal and dutiful of 
 Englishmen and of Churchmen ; and, putting these 
 things together, I feel that the difference on this subject 
 between Mr. Gladstone and those who most grieve to 
 differ from him, is very far indeed from being a differ- 
 ence in principle : the true principle about Church and 
 State, the principle of the 60th chapter of Isaiah, as it 
 was both theirs and his in 1841 and 1847, so is it theirs 
 and his now. They have but disagreed Avhether at such 
 a time this or that way of holding to it was best. 
 
 But do not mistake me. I am far from imagining 
 that any such explanation could neutralise all the oppo- 
 sition which your papers manifest. 1 see in them 
 
 * Somewhat like this I understand to be implied in such a 
 statement as the following : — 
 
 " It is now so utter an impossibility to uphold a consistent 
 religious profession in the State, that we must be satisfied with an 
 inconsistent one, and thankful if it do not shock the common reason 
 and seffee of justice planted in mankind, by affecting a bastard and 
 deceptive consistency. I am jealous of all attempts at consistency, 
 most of all, because I am convinced that they would and must 
 result in the greatest of civil calamities — the mutilation, under the 
 seal of civil authority, of the Christian religion itself." — Letter to 
 the IJisJioj) (if Ahciilftn, p. D.
 
 another and a very different element of warfare. Eor it 
 is alleged against the re-election of Mr. Gladstone, 
 
 2. That he is not a " Protestant." 
 
 This, I say, is alleged against Mr. Gladstone ; for what 
 else can be gathered from the last clause of the following 
 sentence ? — " All are agreed that, at a time when the 
 stability of the Protestant Succession, the authority of a 
 Protestant Queen, and even the Christianity of the 
 national character, have been rudely assailed by Rome 
 on one side, and on the other by democratic associations 
 directed against the union of the Christian Church with 
 the British Constitution, — that, at such a time, it 
 becomes a Protestant University, from which emanates a 
 continuous stream of instruction on all Ecclesiastical and 
 Christian questions over the whole empire, to manifest 
 the importance Avhich it attaches to Protestant truth, by 
 the selection of a Protestant Representative." A re- 
 markable sentence, as it seems to me, on many accounts. 
 Not imfit, perhaps, to be preserved as a specimen of the 
 kind of eloquence which is apt to be cast up, like refuse 
 sea-weed, after such a gale as swept over this island at 
 the time of the Papal aggression ; but very unworthy 
 (pardon my saying so) of a company of Christian clergy- 
 men and gentlemen, professing to suggest grave reasons 
 on a serious point of conscience. 
 
 For what is the word " Protestant," vaguely used as 
 in this sentence, but an appeal to the passions and 
 fancies of the unthinking multitude (and even of our 
 Academic three thousand ^o^i^ will be unthinking), which 
 is to stand in the place of reason and facts, in order to 
 justify people to themselves for taking part in a most 
 severe censure on one who at least has tried to serve 
 them faithfully ? I say, the word " Protestant " must 
 be here vaguely used ; for in its strict sense, whereby it 
 denotes a Christian of the Western Chm-ch who is not 
 in communion with Rome, no one denies that Mr. 
 Gladstone is a Protestant. In what sense, then, is it
 
 denied ? I will veiituic to say that no two of the thirty 
 gentlemen, who appear to have made themselves re- 
 sponsible for this document, would exactly agree in their 
 answer to this question, were they each to answer it 
 without nuitual connnunication. It is well that they 
 distinctly disclaim, in the very next sentence, all "poli- 
 tical party watchwords," and decline the temptation, of 
 which they betray some consciousness, to employ any 
 phrase of that kind which has " taken a sound and form 
 from religion ;" otherwise one might have thought, 
 especially after the din of last year, that the word which 
 they had just been tossing at random, as it were, into 
 the air, was the very note to awaken the "popular 
 outcry " which they deprecate. As it is, the multitude, 
 it may be hoped, will be quiet, and our parishioners — 
 those of us who are clergymen, and happen to vote for 
 Mr. Gladstone — will not be made uneasy by the fancy 
 that we are supporting a Papist. Yet I must say, that 
 should any of my neighbours charge me with it, and say 
 he had seen this or that respectable name appended to 
 the statement, I should hardly know" how to do justice 
 either to Mr. Gladstone or to myself, without speaking 
 more severely than I could wish of the name that might 
 be quoted. 
 
 But perhaps some light may be thrown on the 
 meaning of this critical word, by its employment in 
 another place. Part of Dr. Marsham's warranty is, his 
 " combining sound Protestant views with a strong 
 attachment to the Church of England and Ireland." 
 If " Protestant " meant merely " not Roman Catholic," 
 this clause would run very strangely — as if one should 
 say, " o'^mbining views adverse to heathenism with a 
 strong attachment to Christianity -." or as if it were 
 possible to have " a strong attachment to the Church of 
 England and Ireland," and yet to accept the Roman 
 system. The Protestantism, then, which we are here 
 called on to support is something more than the negation 
 of Romanism ; and it is also something which one may
 
 9 
 
 have without being " strongly attached to the Church 
 of England." I would I knew just what it is. 
 
 In defaidt of more explanation from the Committee 
 themselves, they will allow me perhaps to resort to the 
 ideas connected mth the word in ordinary parlance. 
 There I find that " sound Protestant views " may mean, 
 according to the speaker's mind, either one of three 
 things : An absolute assertion of the right of private 
 judgment, to the exclusion of all Chm'ch authority ; or, 
 An acknowledgment of supernatural authority, not in 
 any visible Body, but in those (be they many or few) 
 who hold or have held a particidar notion of Justifi- 
 cation ; or, lastly, the phrase may mean, A determination 
 to defer to state authority in religious questions, provided 
 only the State be in antagonism to Rome. 
 
 In which of these three senses, may I ask, " is sound 
 Protestantism " affirmed of Dr. Marsham and denied of 
 Mr. Gladstone ? It is really a very serious question ; 
 for in that same sense, if Dr. Marsham be elected, and 
 the election never reversed, Avill the University itself be 
 made or declared " Protestant." It is the very issue 
 which your friends profess to have raised. 
 
 Now, I will not believe, until those affirm it who 
 only can know, that " Protestantism" is here used in the 
 first of these three senses : neither, looking at the 
 Oxford names especially, can I well imagine that it 
 refers to any exclusive theological view. It remains, 
 therefore, that the opinion or principle which Oxford is 
 called on to adopt, and for demurring to which Mr. 
 Gladstone is to be discarded, is that which is commonly 
 called " Erastianism,' unlimited State control in religious 
 questions— even as it has been clearly set forth within 
 these few days by one of its most active champions. " It 
 is," said he,* " one of the conditions of the Established 
 Church, that Parliament, which created that Church, shall 
 
 * See Mr. Horsman's Speech in tlie Fromc debate, on the 8th 
 instant.
 
 10 
 
 be able to consider its affairs, and correct what is wrong." 
 " The Estabhshed Church is the creation of Farliament ; 
 it exists by the breath of Parhament, and is subject to 
 its jiuisdiction." 
 
 It was against these propositions, in substance, that 
 Mr. Gladstone was contending, when he was opposing 
 the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill : on which opposition, if I 
 may judge by another paper not signed with yoiu name, 
 at least half of this movement is grounded. (An argu- 
 ment, by the bye, that the construction which I am 
 now putting on the word " Protestant," is the right 
 oe.) If, then, Mr. Gladstone be rejected for such opposi- 
 tion, these are the propositions which the University will 
 in effect be adopting and indorsing. Dr. Marsham, of 
 course, does not mean this, neither do the great body of 
 his supporters ; but it is their doings and their votes, not 
 their meaning, which makes the difference : and that their 
 doings and their votes, for a long time past, have had 
 this tendency, no calm intelligent observer, I am sure, 
 will deny. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's claim of religious liberty for the 
 Chm'ch, in opposition to these too-commonly-received 
 pretensions of the Parliament, is just the one com^se 
 which must be maintained, if we are at all to keep the 
 Church and State together : but it cannot and ought not 
 to be maintained without giving Dissenters also, both 
 Protestant and Roman, the benefit of it. Hence the 
 line which he took in respect of the Papal Aggression : 
 hence his anxiety to set forth distinctly, in behalf of all 
 religious communities, the principle of non-interference on 
 the part of the State in then- internal religious concerns. 
 In all this, I will be bold to say, he is doing more than 
 any other statesman to uphold that which he is accused 
 of disturbing — the remains of the old English constitution 
 in respect of the alliance of Church and State. 
 
 You must excuse me from dwelling at any length on
 
 11 
 
 the other reasons which I see alleged in the circulars for 
 displacing Mr. Gladstone. As far as I can make out, they 
 are but two. 
 
 " All sorts of people" {i.e. some of all sorts) " have 
 united in declaring him unfit." 
 
 This may be a very good prima facie ground for con- 
 sidering the subject : but if, on consideration, I find his 
 course such as has been now described, I should be pre- 
 pared for all this opposition, and it would only make me 
 the more anxious to give him what little support I could. 
 
 Lastly, " he has opposed, by his speeches and votes, 
 the judgment pronounced by Convocation on questions 
 of great importance," and so can no longer be con- 
 sidered " a suitable representative of the University in 
 Parliament." This comes out under the sanction of 
 Dr. Marsliam's Oxford Committee, and of eleven Heads 
 of Houses. 
 
 If it is to be taken according to the letter, it assumes 
 a very material point hi our academical relations, not 
 exactly self-evident ; viz. that Avhoever in any important 
 matter votes with the minority, and against the Heads of 
 Houses (for they, I nuist remind you, possess the sole 
 initiative), disqualifies himself thereby from being our 
 representative. 
 
 It also goes the whole length of the principle of 
 delegacy, as opposed to that of free representation, — 
 a principle generally so much complained of as un- 
 constitutional, when advanced by agitators, for the 
 pm-pose of controlling Parliament. 
 
 I do not wonder that statements carrying this 
 sound should have failed with the great majority of 
 our resident members, however agreeably they might 
 ring in the ears of those whose prerogative is enhanced 
 by them. 
 
 If the words are not to be so taken, but refer to the 
 special questions on which Mr. Gladstone has judged
 
 12 
 
 difFerently from Convocation, they have been spoken to 
 before in this letter. 
 
 For the second proposition to which you ask my 
 assent, — " Dr. Marsham is eminently fitted to represent 
 the University in Parliament," it is as little in my wish as 
 in the requirement of my argument to dispute it. 
 
 What I want is, to have it proved to me, that he is 
 so much more eminently fitted than Mr. Gladstone, as to 
 overbalance the evil of distm^bing, for the first time,* — 
 and in the event, probably, for all time, — our ancient 
 and honourable tradition. With this view, and I hope 
 in no invidious spirit, I would observe on one or two 
 topics of recommendation which your papers allege. 
 
 Passing over qualities which, in whatever degree, will 
 be allowed, I suppose, to be common to both candidates, 
 such as " business habits," ability in speaking, tried use- 
 fulness, courtesy, and the like, I am asked to vote for 
 one of the two on this ground, among others, that he is 
 Head of a College. 
 
 Pardon me if I own that this seems to me an objec- 
 tion, not a recommendation. Without entering into the 
 question, whether the two offices are easily compatible, — 
 (to doubt which, I hope, is no offence, especially as the 
 stress of work in each of them falls, for the most part, on 
 the same portion of the year), — I should have thought 
 it rather unadvisable, just now, to give unnecessary 
 countenance to the notion that our high college offices 
 are sinecures. 
 
 " But he has the ' cordial concurrence ' of at least 
 ten others of the same rank." Very natm^al and very 
 amiable. But is it the most prudent of all conceivable 
 arrangements? — considering the great prerogatives with 
 
 * I say, for the first time, because it is one thing to be turned 
 out, and another thing to resign, and challenge the University to 
 re-elect, with a view to one special measure, — which was Sir R. Peel's 
 case, as every one loiows.
 
 18 
 
 which the Heads are invested, and the sort of con- 
 stitntional jealousy with which, in consequence, they are 
 always regarded. 
 
 And, what is a far more serious consideration, this 
 marked preference on the part of the Warden's Peers 
 seems to imply that he is in some special degree a 
 favourer and sharer of their ecclesiastical policy. What 
 that policy is and has been, the University very well 
 knows ; and so do those who have looked to Oxford, as 
 in old times, for aid, in the trying distresses and per- 
 plexities of late years : when, e. g., the Laws of Marriage 
 have been tampered with ; or when Bishops of doubtful 
 orthodoxy have been uncanonically forced on the Church ; 
 or, when the plain doctrines of the Prayer-book have 
 been judicially wrested, by way of keeping things quiet ; 
 or, when mere Laymen, and even Aliens, have been per- 
 mitted to intrude on the trust and " good deposit " com- 
 mitted to none but Successors of the Apostles. I need 
 not specify what measure of help and sympathy, in mat- 
 ters like these, the Chiu"ch may expect from Dr. Mar- 
 sham, as Member for Oxford University, if the conduct 
 of the Governing Board to which he belongs is to be 
 our index. 
 
 Then we have mention of his "consistency," — his 
 " manly consistency of principle." So far as this is 
 meant to be contrasted with the supposed vacillation of 
 Mr. Gladstone, I have said enough, if I mistake not, to 
 shoAv that it is irrelevant, since in principle Mr. Glad- 
 stone has not changed. 
 
 But will you allow me two little words more upon this 
 same " manly consistency ? " Is it, or is it not, true, that 
 by successive changes within the last quarter of a century 
 many of our ecclesiastical arrangements have been so 
 altered, that he Avho was satisfied with them — I mean 
 with their existing theory — in 1827, would be incon- 
 sistent if he were satisfied with them now? So that 
 the onus prohandi, in point of consistency, cannot but be
 
 14 
 
 thrown rather upon those who are for ignoring all these 
 changes, than upon those who see it needful to acknow- 
 ledge them and allow for them. Can this be denied ? 
 And if this be so, on which of the two %\&es,, prima facie, 
 is the praise of consistency really due ? 
 
 Again, " consistent " loyalty to the Church of Eng- 
 land would, I suppose, make men earnest and watchful 
 against all her clangers and enemies. Mr. Gladstone 
 has proved himself such. His Letter to the Bishop of 
 London on the Supremacy, in 1850, is only one among 
 many sayings and doings, whereby he has strengthened 
 us in the hour of need against Rome. If anything 
 parallel to it, as against the opposite (and siu'ely no less 
 real) danger, can be pointed out as having been said or 
 done by those of whom Dr. Marsham is the representa- 
 tive, I shall be most happy to be made aware of it. 
 But, to the best of my recollection, the line which they 
 have taken through all these anxious years has been just 
 what might have been taken, had there been never a 
 Piu-itan, Erastian, or Rationalist in England, — had our 
 only peril arisen from Romans and Romanizers. On 
 this notion only Avould their course appear to have been 
 consistent ; whether one look to the measures which 
 they have introduced, or declined to introduce, in Con- 
 vocation ; or to the use they have commonly made of 
 their patronage, in the- appointment of Tutors, Preachers, 
 Bampton Lecturers, &c. The censure on Dr. Hamp- 
 den's book, in 1836, would be a material exception to 
 this statement, had it not been formally withdrawn, so 
 far as the Heads of Houses are concerned, in 1842. 
 And Dr. Marsham, from the beginning, was earnestly 
 opposed to it. So far, he has been personally con- 
 sistent ; but as to the " manly consistency " of those 
 whom he represents, taken as a body, it seems to me 
 much as if a person caught in a storm should insist on 
 keeping his umbrella towards the south, after the wind 
 had shifted, and the rain was driving from the north.
 
 15 
 
 Whether or no the Warden's " opinions on all- eccle- 
 siastical questions " are " sound," I do not know that we 
 have any direct means of judging. We can but take your 
 testimony and that of the Committee ; and much as I 
 might be inclined to do so, I should, I fear, on coming 
 to particulars, find no small perplexity : for unless there 
 has been some great and silent change, there are 
 certain " ecclesiastical questions " of no small moment, 
 on which the " opinions " of some of those gentlemen, 
 whose names I see before me, are as diametrically op- 
 posed to those of others on the same list, as either of the 
 two can be to Mr. Gladstone's. 
 
 However, the next and concluding qualification does 
 enable one, in some sort, to judge what is the measure 
 of " soundness of opinion " on which these otherwise 
 conflicting authorities have happily been able to agree ; 
 and it coincides remarkably with, and so far confirms, 
 the conjecture advanced above as to the meaning of 
 their " Protestantism." They care, " above all," for 
 Dr. Marsham's "steady attachment to the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church, as forminy an essential element in 
 the Constitution'' Is this a description of That which 
 we all are pledged to — the One Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church in England, reformed, and free to perform its 
 high functions — with more or less aid from the State — 
 for the nation's welfare, and the salvation of souls ? Is 
 it not rather a phrase studiously lowered, for the 
 sake of those who contemplate nothing higher than 
 one of the many (so-called) Protestant Churches ; — 
 differing indeed from the rest, because it is Episcopal, 
 but in other respects bound — without present hope, 
 because without sense of the evil, — to a state which 
 boasts that it can make and unmake it at pleasure? 
 That is not yet our condition, and God grant it never 
 may be so. But this opposition, if it succeed, will be a 
 fearful step towards it. 
 
 You must excuse me, then, if, because I have
 
 10 
 
 {Deo gr atlas) a most unhesitating Faith in the Reformed 
 CathoKc Church .of England, and because I earnestly 
 desire to maintain and increase the influence of the 
 Church upon the State of England, therefore I shrink, 
 with all my heart, from the course which you recom- 
 mend, and remain content and very thankful with Mr. 
 Gladstone; as I shall always remain, 
 
 My dear Sir Brook, 
 
 Faithfully and tilTectionately yours, 
 
 JOHN KEBLE. 
 
 Hurslei/, June Ifi, 1852. 
 
 London:— Printed by G. Barciat, Castle St. Leicester Sq.
 
 ^-m^'l. Ifi 
 
 ^ )-■ 
 
 *f.l 
 
 m^f 
 
 ^'1: d