MatriMillen

18+1

COPIES

CORRESPONDENCE

IN THE CASE 01'

THE REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY

MR. MACMULLEN.

OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKERj
JAMES BURNS, 17, PORTMAN STREET, PORTMAN SQUARE,
LONDON. 1844.

M Kg 5-2

BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.

The following Correspondence is now published
without any farther comments on it than are
necessary to render it intelligible, because, it is
believed, that much misapprehension prevails even
within the University as to the subject with which
the Correspondence is concerned.
C. C.C. May 15, 1844.

CORRE;^PONDENCE,

No. I. Ch. Ch. June.U, 1842.
The Regius Professor of Divinity encloses these Sub
jects to Mr. Macmullen for the Divinity Exercises agree
ably to his request. The Professor will thank Mr. Mac
mullen to give him a week's notice of the days when he
wishes to read his Exercises. He should also mention,
that he expects to have copies of the Exercises delivered
to him after the reading of them.
1. The Church of England does not teach, nor can it
be proved from Scripture, that any change takes place in
the Elements at Consecration in the Lord's Supper.
2. It is a mode of expression calculated to give erro
neous views of Divine Revelation, to speak of " Scripture
and Catholic Tradition" as joint authorities in the matter
of Christian doctrine.
R. G. Macmullen, C. C. C.
No. II. Leicester, July 7, 1842.
Mr. Macmullen presents his compliments to the Regius
Professor of Divinity, and begs to thank him for the
Subjects of the Exercises for the Degree of B.D. which
have been sent to him from Oxford,

Mr. Macmullen was not aware, when he called upon the
Professor, that it was the usual, or at least the ancient,
practice for the disputant himself to select the Subjects on
which he was to write, and he hopes therefore that the
Regius Professor will kindly allow him to do so on the
present occasion. In that case Mr. Macmullen would
wish to name the 8th and the 30th Articles of the Church
of England, or (as bearing upon the subjects which the
Regius Professor himself proposes, and as the determina
tions of our Church on the points in question) the leading
proposition of the 6th Article, and the statement con
cerning Transubstantiation in the 28th. Mr. Macmullen
hopes the Regius Professor will excuse him for the trouble he
is thus giving him, and he would feel greatly obliged by an
answer to this communication as early as is convenient to
the Professor, which will find him if addressed to him at
No. 3, Camden Crescent, Dover.
To the Regius Professor (if Divinity.

No. III.
Ewelme Rectory, July 9, 1842.
The Regius Professor of Divinity presents his compli
ments to Mr. Macmullen, and begs to say, thtit Mr. Mac
mullen is mistaken as to the practice with regard to the
Subjects for the Divinity Exercises, though occasionally
the Candidates have sent in two or more Subjects, at the
suggestion of the Professor, for his approval. As the
Professor is not aware of having departed in any instance
from the Subjects proposed to a Candidate, and as it
might be inconvenient to establish such a precedent, he
trusts Mr. Macmullen will feel no objection to adhere to
the Propositions already sent him for his Exercises.

No. IV.
Mr. Macmullen presents his compliments to the Regius
Professor of Divinity, and is sorry to be obliged to trouble
him again on the subject of his last letter. Mr. Macmullen
had hoped that the Regius Professor would have acceded to
his request of being allowed to select the Subjects of his
Exercises, especially as it was not inconsistent with the
practice adopted at least by the predecessors of the present
Regius Professor of Divinity. Under the circumstances
however in which Mr. Macmullen finds himself now placed,
he has no alternative left him but to decline (which he wishes
to do with the utmost respect) writing upon the Subjects
which the Regius Professor has proposed to him. Mr. Mac
mullen feels that it would be unbecoming in him to enter into
any controversy with the Regius Professor, and he will there
fore simply add, that as the Disputant must of course be
considered to adopt as his own opinions the Propositions
on which he disputes, he finds it quite impossible for him
to do so with respect to the two Theses which have been
set him, and especially the first, viz. " The Church," &c.
As it is of some importance to Mr. Macmullen to proceed
to his Degree of B.D. he would feel greatly obhged to the
Regius Professor if he would have the kindness to inform
him how he proposes to act under the circumstances which
have been now stated.
No. V.
Ch. Ch. July 14, 1842.
The Regius Professor of Divinity presents his compli
ments to Mr. Macmullen, and regrets that it is not in his
power to assist him in the perplexity in which he appears
to feel himself placed.
The Professor having given the Subjects for the Divinity
Exercises, and seeing no just reason to depart from them.

can have nothing further to say- until the Exercises come
before him. No, VI. C. C. C. Sept. 24, 1842.
Mr. Macmullen hopes the Regius Professor of Divinity
will pardon him for recurring once more to the subject of
his late correspondence with the Professor. Mr. Macmullen
finds that he was borne out in the observation which he
made in a previous letter, that it was not according to the
ancient practice of the University for the Professor to
appoint the Theses for the Exercises for the Degree of
B.D. He finds that the practice which the Professor has
probably adopted from his immediate predecessor was
originated by him, and that only for the convenience of
those who had to dispute, not as matter of authority ; that
those who were provided with any Subjects of their own
disputed upon them, and that it was only in case that any
individual was at a loss what to choose that Dr. Burton
used to furnish him with a list out of which he might select.
Mr. Macmullen wishes respectfully to point out that this
practice, in itself not uniform, never received the sanction
of Convocation, and that consequently the old Statutes
respecting the Disputations for the Divinity Degrees
remain in as full force as before. In these Statutes
nothing is said as to the power of the Regius Professor to
impose the Subjects, or to settle who are to be the Op
ponents and Respondents in the Disputations", but it is
enacted, Tit. viii. §. 1. " de Disput. Ordin. in S. Theol."
that the questions to be discussed are to be approved by
Congregation ; and again. Tit. viii. §. 5. " de Disput. per
Bedellos prsemonendis," that the Respondents in the
' These Statutes, it was afterwards ascertained, were repealed; but
this does not aflfect the point at issue ; there is abundance of evidence
from the Statute Book to the same effect elsewhere.

several faculties of Divinity, Law, and Medicine, shall
propose their own questions (qusestiones suas) within two
days after they shall have been approved to their Pro
fessor; and the Regius Professor's part is that of Moderator.
If on a further examination of the Statutes the Professor
should be of opinion that this view of the subject is well
founded, Mr. Macmullen earnestly hopes that the Professor
will not put any obstacles in the way of his selecting his own
Subjects, and disputing on them preparatory to his pro
ceeding to his Degree of B.D.
No. VII.
Ewelme Rectory, Sept. 27, 1842.
The Regius Professor of Divinity presents his com
pliments to Mr. Macmullen, and begs to say that he does
not feel himself called upon to argue the question of the
right of appointing the Subjects for the Divinity Exercises.
The case is simply this ; Mr. Macmullen applied to
the Professor for Subjects, which the Professor sent to
him according to his request. Mr. Macmullen then
declines the writing on them, without assigning any
particular objection to them. If a difficulty has occurred,
therefore, it is not the Professor who has occasioned it.
Nor, however sorry he may bo on account of it, does he
conceive it to be in his power to remedy it.
No. VIII. Sept. 28, 1842.
Mr. Macmullen presents his compliments to the Regius
Professor of Divinity, and wishes to say, that nothing
could have been further from his intention than to argue
the question with the Professor of the right of appointing the
Subjects for the Divinity Exercises. Mr. Macmullen simply

10
desired to direct the Professor's attention to the Statutes
which regulate the order of the Divinity Disputations,
under the impression that these Statutes were still in
force, and with the hope that the Professor would see that
they were applicable to the present case, and would so
release Mr. Macmullen from the difficulty in which he had
involved himself; for Mr. Macmullen readily acknowledges,
that when he first applied to the Professor for Subjects, he
had no reason to believe but that the usual present practice
was the Statutable practice also; but when the Theses
were sent to him, he felt at once how exceedingly difficult
and painful it would be for him to dispute upon them,
and especially the first of them. And with respect to
what the Professor urges, that Mr. Macmullen hasdeclined to
write upon the Subjects without assigning any particular ob
jection to them; Mr. Macmullen begs to say, thathe adopted
this course as the one which he thought most becoming to
him, and most respectful towards the Professor, as he
stated distinctly in one of his former letters. On the whole,
in closing this correspondence, Mr. Macmullen earnestly
hopes, that in his endeavours to establish a right which he
belieyes to belong to him both by Statute and by long
and ancient precedent, he has not given expression to a
word that can be considered in the least degree dis
respectful to the Regius Professor; and he trusts he may
be permitted to beg the favour of being informed, whether
in the event of his being prepared with Exercises on other
Subjects than those which the Professor has given him,
the Professor would refuse to preside in the Divinity
School.
No. IX.
Ewelme Rectory, Sept. 30, 1842.
The Regius Professor of Divinity presents his com
pliments to Mr. Macmullen, and must repeat his regret

11
that it is not in his power to remove the difficulty with
regard to the Divinity Exercises. He would add, that he
by no means prescribes to Mr. Macmullen the view which
he is to take of the Theses, or restricts his line of argu
ment. He merely states in each case the proposition on
which the disputation is to turn.
The Professor feels accordingly, that, whilst he could
not with propriety admit a change of the Subjects in this
instance, he is not pressing any severe conditions on
Mr. Macmullen in expecting him to adhere to the
Subjects given.
It is probable that there will be two other Candidates
for the Degree of B.D. in the first or second week of
November. Perhaps it will be convenient to Mr. Mac
mullen to make his appearance in the Divinity School at
the same time.

No. X.
Oct. 12, 1842.
Mr. Macmullen presents his compliments to the Regius
Professor of Divinity, and hopes that the Professor will
not think that he is guilty of any disrespect towards him,
or that Mr. Macmullen is actuated by any other motive than
a desire to maintain an Academical right, (which under the
circumstances of his case is of the greatest importance to
him,) when he announces to the Professor his intention of
being ready to make his appearance in the Divinity
School at the time the Professor mentions, the first or
second week of November, with Exercises on the following
Subjects, which Mr. Macmullen trusts the Professor will
consider unobjectionable.
I. Preface to The Ordinal.
2. The Novatian Heresy.

12

No. XL
Ewelme Rectory, Oct. 14, 1842.
The Regius Professor of Divinity presents his com
pliments to Mr. Macmullen, and must remind him that
the Professor has already said that he cannot with pro
priety admit a change of the Subjects for the Exercises.
He must beg also to remind Mr. Macmullen, that there
is no question in the case about the right of appointing the
Subjects. No. XII. October 15, 1842.
Rev. Sir,
Before I take any further steps in consequence of the
determination to which you seem to have come with
regard to my claim to be allowed to choose for myself the
Subjects of my Exercises, I think it due both to you and
to myself to state more distinctly the case as it lies between
us ; for I must be permitted to say, that I do not think
that you understand it correctly. You may perhaps re
member, that it was nearly three months after our cor
respondence had commenced before you were good enough
to explain to me that you did not " prescribe the view
which I was to take of the Theses you had given me, nor
restrict my line of argument," although I had from the
first told you the difficulty in which I was placed, and that
I could not adopt your propositions as my own opinions.
To these representations you gave no other reply, than that
you " regretted the difficulty in which I seemed to feel
myself placed, and that you were not able to assist me in
my perplexity;" nor was it till after an interval of con
siderably more than two months, during which time I had
had an opportunity of consulting the Statutes and making

13
myself acquainted with them, and with the precedents from
the earliest times which bore upon my case, that vou gave
me reason to suppose that your decision with regard to my
Exercises was taken upon the ground of my having
originally applied to you for Subjects. It may be that
I have embarrassed what would otherwise be a very plain
question by this proceeding, and that I have put myself in
some respects into a disadvantageous position with regard
to the maintenance of my rights as a Member of Con
vocation, though I cannot conceive that it can be in
accordance with the principles of any law, as 1 am sure it
is against all notions of natural justice, that I can have
precluded myself from all power to assert a privilege,
because at another and earlier time I was ignorant of the
nature and extent of my own Academical rights. And
I would whilst on this point beg also to direct your
attention to this consideration, that my very application
to you for Subjects shews how little I thought of intruding
upon your province, how little disposed I was to question
your powers as Professor, and that it was only when I saw,
as I thought and still think, my rights of conscience vio
lated, and an attempt made to impose upon me a task which
I could not fulfil without dissimulation, or at least without
great pain and difficulty, that I had recourse to the plan
I adopted of examining the Statutes and precedents by
which your power, and the powers and the rights of all
Members of the University, I conceive are limited ; in the
course of which examination I ascertained that there was
no recognition in the Statutes of that right of appointing
the Subjects for the Divinity Disputations which I had
improperly and incautiously conceded to you in the present
instance. Again, with reference to the point to which
I just alluded, I would beg the liberty to observe, that
even if I were willing to avail myself of the latitude you

14
now seem disposed to give me, of treating your Subjects in
any way I thought fit, I could not in fact do so : for in
every case I believe I may safely say since you have been
Regius Professor, the Subjects for the Exercises have been
given out with the Disputant's name attached to them as
Respondent, implying that he was ready to make his
Propositions good against any objections which might be
brought against them by the Opponents, whom the Statutes
suppose to be present also. One other observation only
will I make. You put the question now on point of
the irregularity which I committed in asking you for
Subjects. I will only say, that after all the enquiries
which I have made, I have not been able to ascertain that
you have ever before imposed any two Subjects on those
who like myself, in ignorance of the Statutes and the
ancient customs, have applied to you for Theses ; whereas,
on the contrary, I do know of instances in which you have
given in such cases the Candidate either the option to
choose entirely for himself, or of selecting two out of many
Subjects which you have given him. Of course it is not
for me to say why you adopted a course so very different
towards me, or why you should again have insisted in my
case upon having " copies of the Exercises delivered to
you after the reading of them," a claim which, I believe
I may safely say, is wholly unprecedented. If you still
refuse to me the right of choosing my own Subjects after
this explanation, I shall deeply regret it; deeply regret
that I am obliged to interrupt in any way the peace of the
University : but I stand entirely on the defensive. It is of
the greatest importance for me to obtain my Degree, and
I see no alternative open to me at present, but that of
seeming to adopt opinions which I in heart repudiate, or
of seeking a remedy by an appeal to those Statutes which
we are both bound equally to respect and to obey.

15
What I claim therefore is, that I may be allowed to
dispute upon the Subjects which I mentioned in my last
letter, and which I hoped would be unobjectionable to you ;
since these Theses, or Theses similar to them, have been
chosen since your appointment to the Professional Chair.
I am sorry I that I have been obliged to occupy so
much of your time and attention on this business, and
I beg, Rev. Sir, to subscribe myself,
Your obedient Servant,
R. G. Macmullen.

No. XIII.
Ewelme Rectory, Oct. 17, 1842.
The Regius Professor of Divinity presents his com
pliments, and in acknowledging the receipt of Mr. Mac-
mullen's Letter of the 15th instant, has only to refer him
to the Professor's former communications to him for an
answer. No. XIV.
To the Rev. the Vice-Chancellor. C. C. C. Nov. 19, 1842.
Rev. Sir,
I am very sorry to be obliged to occupy your time with
any matters of my own, but I know of no other course which
it is possible for me to pursue, under the circumstances
which I am about to detail to you, but that of making an
appeal to you for the remedy of a grievance under which
I am at present suffering. During the last Term, at the
latter part of it, in compliance as I imagined with the
custom now prevailing, I applied to the Regius Professor
of Divinity for some Subjects for Exercises for the Degree

16
of B.D. The only two Theses which the Professor sent me,
were the following :
" 1. The Church of England does not teach, nor can it
be proved from Scripture, that any change takes place in
the Elements at Consecration in the Lord's Supper."
" 2. It is a mode of expression calculated to give erro
neous views of Divine Revelation, to speak of ' Scripture
and Catholic Tradition' as joint authorities in the matter
of Christian doctrine."
As I entertained strong objections to writing on these
Subjects conceived in these terms, I begged to be allowed
to choose others, and I named as two, those Articles of
the Church of England which bear respectively upon the
above-mentioned propositions.
" 1. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance
of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be
proved by Holy Writ ; but is repugnant to the plain words
of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and
hath given occasion to many superstitions."
" 2. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to
salvation : so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may
be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that
it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be
thought requisite or necessary to salvation."
The Regius Professor declined acceding to my request,
nor have I been able to induce him to alter his deter
mination. I have since found, on examining the Statutes,
that the selection of Subjects was anciently left to the
individual himself, and that the approval was vested in
Congregation only ; and that in recent practice individuals
have chosen their own Subjects entirely for themselves.
The custom now common, and which unfortunately I
followed, originated, I am informed, in the time of the
late Regius Professor, who kept a list of Subjects from
which any Candidate might select, who was not provided

17
with any of his own. Yet even recently I now learn that
this has not been acted on uniformly, but that individuals
have either chosen for themselves, or selected such Sub
jects as they preferred out of several proposed to them by
the Regius Professor. Under these circumstances, I trust
I am not guilty of any irregularity in requesting your
advice either personally, or in conjunction with the Board
of Heads of Houses, or with any other Body, to whom may
be entrusted the decision of such questions, in what way
I ought to proceed. I hope I shall be excused also if I
further beg, that this my appeal may be taken into consi
deration as soon as is convenient to you, since I am
obliged to proceed to the Degree of B.D. on pain of
losing my Fellowship after a certain time, and am at
present deprived of my proper standing in my College, by
the proceedings of the Regius Professor of Divinity with
regard to me. Believe me to be, Rev. Sir, with great
respect, Your obliged and very humble servant,
R. G. Macmullen.

No. XV.
St. John's College, Nov. 28, 1842.
My Dear Sir,
The Board did not think itseh" justified in dealing with
your case so as to come to any decision upon it. I shall
therefore content myself with recommending you to fulfil
the previous conditions required by the Divinity Statufe'in
regard to Subjects for Exercises. It may be as well to
remind you, that your notices should be in Latin.
Believe me yours very faithfully,
P. Wynter.
c

18
No. XVI.
C C. C. December 3, 1842,
Mr. Macmullen presents his compliments to the Regius
Professor of Divinity, and begs to inform him, that in
obedience to the Statute Tit. vl. §. vi. c. 2. and in
pursuance of recommendation from authority, it is Mr.
Macinullen's wish to respond on the following Subject on
Wednesday the 15th and Thursday the 1 6th, at two o'clock,
or should that time be inconvenient to the Professor, at
any other hour which he will be good enough to appoint.
" Typicse interpretationis ratio Scripturarum sacrarum
auctoritate sancitur."
Respondens. R. G. Macmullen, M.A. C.C.C. Soc.
Opponentes. C. Man-iott, M.A. Coll. Oriel. Soc.
J. B. Mozley, M.A. Coll. Magd. Soc.
Should neither of the above-named days suit the con
venience of the Regius Professor, Mr. Macmullen will be
happy to put off his Disputation till the next Term ; Mr.
Macmullen will also see that the seven days' notice of the
Disputation be affixed at the places prescribed by the
Statute, viz. at the two outer gates of the Schools, and the
walls of All Souls and Oriel Colleges.
No. XVIL
Ch. Ch. December 5, 1842.
The Regius Professor of Divinity presents his com
pliments to Mr. Macmullen, and informs him, that he is
quite ready to act strictly on the letter of the Statutes
prescribing the requisites for the B.D. Degree. But
Mr. Macmullen's proposal submitted to the Professor in
his note of the 3d instant, is not, in his view, according to
the Statutes, either as to the particular forms, or the whole
requirements for the Degree, laid down in the Statutes.
The Professor therefore must decline acceding to Mr.
Macmullen's proposal.

19

No. XVIII.
C.C.C. Dec. 5, 1842.
Mr. Macmullen presents his compliments to the Regius
Professor of Divinity, and begs to state, that it is his wish
to comply in all points where it is practicable to do so with
the Statutes which prescribe the requisites for the B.D.
Degree. Mr. Macmullen is not aware in what particulars
the notice of his intention to dispute in the Divinity
School is deficient, except it be as to his discharging the
office of Opponent as the Statutes require; but Mr.
Macmullen will be ready to do this on any other occasion,
and the Statutes neither enjoin nor imply that the Candi
date for the Degree of B.D. shall respond aud oppose at
the same time. But if in any way Mr. Macmullen has
failed of interpreting the Statutes rightly, he will feel
greatly obliged to the Regius Professor if he will have the
goodness to inform him how he is " to comply with the
particular forms, or the whole requirements for the Degree,
laid down in the Statutes." Mr. Macmullen trusts he
shall be excused for begging the favour of an early reply.
XIX.
Ch. Ch. Dec. 6, 1842.
The Regius Professor of Divinity presents his compli
ments to Mr. Macmullen, and must observe that it is not
for the Professor to suggest any interpretation of the
Statutes respecting the B.D. Degree. It is enough, he
considers, that he states that general view of them which
guides his own conduct. If a fresh difficulty has arisen
in attempting to fulfil them to the letter, the Professor
cannot remove that, or be a party to any new construction
of them in order to its removal. He cannot go to the

20
letter of the Statutes and then dispense with the letter,
where it happens to be inconvenient. Nor does the Pro
fessor concede the right which Mr. Macmullen assumes
for himself of appointing the Theses, and the order of
disputation, &c.
Indeed, as Mr. Macmullen resorts to the letter of the
Statutes, not simply for the maintenance of the Statutes,
but for the purpose of avoiding particular Theses, which,
he avows, are distasteful to him, (though the Professor can
not understand how the given Theses can be distasteful to
any Minister of the Church of England,) it becomes the
obvious duty of the Professor to see, for his part, that the
appeal to the Statutes be not used for the same purpose,
but that it be a real appeal, and be strictly followed out.

No. XX.

C.C.C. Dec. 6, 1842.

Mr. Macmullen presents his compliments to the Regius
Professor of Divinity, and cannot help expressing both
his surprise and regret that the Professor does not think it
is for him to " suggest any interpretation of the Statutes
respecting the B.D. Degree," notwithstanding the assurance
Mr. Macmullen has given the Professor, " that it is his wish
to comply in all points where it is practicable to do so with
the Statutes which prescribe the requisites for the B.D.
Degree." As it is, however, Mr. Macmullen has no alter
native but to venture his interpretation of the Statutes
against that of the Professor, whatever it may chance to
be, and accordingly Mr. Macmullen intends to present
himself to perform his Exercise on Thursday the 1 5th
instant, at two o'clock, of which he will take care to convey
formal notice to the Regius Professor,

21

No. XXI.
Ch. Ch. Dec. 7, 1842.
The Regius Professor of Divinity presents his compli
ments to Mr. Macmullen, and informs him, that for the
reasons before stated, he objects to the issuing of such a
notice as that proposed by Mr. Macmullen for the 15th
instant, and that he will not sanction by his attendance
and authority so irregular a proceeding.
No. XXIT.
St. John's College, Dec. 14, 1843.
Sir,
As I understand it to be your intention, unless prohi
bited by competent authority, to present yourself in the
Divinity School to-morrow as Respondent to the Thesis
which you have published in the University with a view
to a compliance with the Statutes relating to the Degree
of B.D. I take upon me for various reasons to request that
you will forego your intention, and that you will recognise
in this Letter sufficient authority for doing so.
I remain. Sir, your very faithful Servant,
P. WYNTER, Vice-Chancellor.
The Rev. R. G. Macmullen.
No. XXIIL
To the Rev. the Vice-Chancellor and the Board of Heads
of Houses and Proctors. Feb. 4, 1843.
I, R. G. Macmullen, M.A. Fellow of C.C.C. desire
respectfully to submit to the Hebdomadal Board a state
ment of the circumstances by which I am hindered by the
Regius Professor of Divinily,from proceeding to my Degree
of B.D. in obedience to the Statutes of my College. In

22
Act Term of last year, following what I thought to be the
ordinary practice, and what I supposed to be enjoined by
the Statutes, I applied to the Regius Professor for the
subjects for my Exercises. Those which he sent were as
follows ;
" 1. The Church of England does not teach, nor can it
be proved from Scripture, that any change takes place In
the Elements at Consecration in the Lord's Supper."
" 2. It is a mode of expression calculated to give erro
neous views of Divine Revelation, to speak of ' Scripture
and Catholic Tradition' as joint authorities in the matter
of Christian doctrine."
The Professor at the same time gave me notice that he
should " require copies of these Exercises to be delivered
to him after I had read them." As I felt that I could not
write upon these Subjects, and especially the first of them as
Respondent, and as I had in the mean time acquired some
information as to the requirements of the Statutes, and the
history of the present practice with regard to the Exercises
for the B.D. Degree, I requested permission from the
Regius Professor to choose other Subjects ; and under the
impression that it would be more respectful towards him,
and as an assurance to him that I was entirely willing to
subscribe to any definitions of the Church of England as
to the points which he had proposed to me to write upon,
1 named the second clause in the 28th Article, and the
leading proposition of the 6th.
" 1. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance
of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be
proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words
of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and
hath given occasion to many superstitions," (as bearing on
the first of his propositions.)
" 2. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to
salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may

23
be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that
it should be believed as an Article of the faith, or be
thought requisite or necessary to salvation," (as beaiing on
the second.)
To this proposal the Regius Professor refused to
accede, and on my directing his attention to the Statutes
which regulate the order of the Disputations for the
Degree of B.D. he declined entering upon that question
at all as being irrelevant to my case. When however
subsequently, during the last Term, on being referred back
as I understood to the Statutes by your Board, I had
endeavoured to ascertain as well as I was able what the
literal interpretation of the Statutes was, and had given the
Regius Professor notice that it was my wish to be governed
by it, and that accordingly I hoped he would be good
enough to preside in the Divinity School, whilst I re
sponded in a Thesis in Larin, with Opponents whom I had
procured to dispute with me, the Regius Professor informed
me that he was willing to recur to the letter of the
Statutes, but that he did not think that my view of them
was a con-ect one; nor have I been since able to induce
him to tell me what his interpretation of them is, or m
what particulars my view of them is erroneous, although
I have professed to him my willingness, or rather my
earnest desire, to act upon the Statutes in all points where
it is practicable so to do. I was prevented from performing
the Exercise of which I gave public notice last Term, in
consequence of an Injunction from the Vice-Chancellor,
to the effect that I must not present myself in the Divinity
School to read my Exercise, when the Regius Professor
had notified his intention of not being present. These
are the plain facts of the case, as briefly as I can state
them. I abstain for many and obvious reasons from
making any comments upon the conduct of the Regius
Professor towards me, as also from arguing upon the

24
Statutes which concern and must determine my case.
I deem it more respectful towards the Board of Heads of
Houses and Proctors to leave the consideration of the
Statutes to them. I will only therefore add, that unless an
authoritative decision be interposed between the Professor
and myself, and some formal interpretation of the Statutes
which shall be binding equally upon us both shall be
established, I see no probability of my obtaining my
Degree of B.D. which the Statutes of my College make
an indispensable condition to the retaining my Fellowship
after a prescribed time, and to which certain Collegiate
privileges are annexed, from which I now am and have
for some months already been excluded by the circum
stances I have above detailed. 1 do not presume to point
out to the Board in what way they can best assist me in
the difficulty in which I am placed, most consistently
with the Statutes and established usages of the University;
but inasmuch as not only my own individual interests are
very seriously involved in this matter, but the privileges of
a large body of the Members of Convocation, and the
rights of several Colleges are interfered with by the claim
which the Regius Professor makes of imposing the Subjects
for the B.D. Exercises on all Candidates for that Degree,
I hope I shall not be considered as making an unrea
sonable request of the Board, when I respectfully beg
that this my appeal may be taken into consideration by
them as speedily as possible: and I beg to subscribe
myself. Your obedient and very humble Servant,
R. G. Macmullen, Fellow of C. C. C.
No. XXIV.
At a Meeting of the Board of Heads of Houses and
Proctors, holden in the Delegates' Room, Monday, February

25
6, 1848: A Letter from Mr. Macmullen of Corpus Christi
College having been laid before the Board by the Vice-
Chancellor ; Resolved, That in the opinion of the Board,
Mr. Macmullen having requested the Regius Professor in
Divinity to give him the Theses for disputation, ought to
write upon the Theses that have been given to him.
Philip Bliss, Registrar.

The Vice-Chancellor having thus issued his Inhibition
against disputing in the Divinity School, except before the
Regius Professor as Moderator, and the Regius Professor
having refused to act as Moderator, and the Hebdomadal
Board having declined to undertake the settlement of the
question according to the requirement of the Statutes,
a suit was instituted against the Professor in the University
Court, in order to oblige him to moderate. The action,
on an appeal from the Assessor's judgment, terminated in
the decision of the Delegates, " that there were no allega
tions on the face of the libel on which any legal duty is
grounded for the breach whereof an action on the case for
damages would lie." In consequence of this decision a
second application was made to the Vice-Chancellor to
withdraw his Inhibition, in order that the Exercises might
be performed before some other Moderator, in the follow
ing Letter.
No. XXV. March 15, 1844.
Rev. Sir,
I had intended to have communicated with you on the
subject of the following Letter at the beginning of the
present Term, but 1 was unwilling to do any thing which

26
could possibly embarrass the proceedings of those who had
it in contemplation to propose to Convocation a new
Statute on the suWect of the Divinity Degrees. As it
appears, however, that any such Statute is at all events for
the present abandoned, and the time when I am absolutely
required to proceed to my Degree of B.D., on pain of
losing my Fellowship, is drawing so very near, I trust I
shall be excused for making application to you without
further delay.
The decision of the Delegates of Congregation then, in
the action which I instituted against Dr. Hampden, com
pels me, though with great reluctance, to renew the
correspondence which I formerly had with you on the
subject of my Degree. You will probably remember, that
the opinion of Counsel which I submitted to you before
the action was commenced, intimated considerable doubts
as to the correctness of the view under which you had
inhibited me from disputing, except in the presence of the
Regius Professor ; and that I therefore requested you to
withdraw the inhibition. On your declining to do so, the
alternative of an action, grounded on the supposed right
of the Professor to moderate, was resorted to, but in the
argument on appeal it was strongly denied by Dr. Hamp
den's Counsel that such a custom could constitute any
legal obligation on the Professor, and failing the obligation,
it seems impossible to allow the existence of the right.
From the judgment of the Delegates it is much to be
regretted that no explicit decision on this point can be
elicited, but as it supplied the main ground of objection
urged by the opposite Counsel, it must be assumed that
ihe judgment was, in part at least, framed upon an ac
knowledgment of the soundness of their arguments.
Under these circumstances I considered myself reHeved
from the necessity of maintaining any further a position
which was originally adopted out of deference to your

27
views, and which, in the abstract, I certainly have no wish
to establish as part of the University laws.
It remains therefore that I should now again request
you to allow me to follow such forms of disputation as
I may be advised are most consonant to the Statutes, and
for that purpose to withdraw the inhibition under which
you have placed me. By adopting this course you will
enable me to apply for my Grace to Congregation, and
should I have mistaken the Law, that Body will have it in
it's power to reject my application.
If this course should still seem to you inconvenient,
I must own that I shall consider myself at liberty to
question the legal validity of the inhibition more directly
than I formerly thought myself entitled to do; nor indeed
can I see that any other mode of protecting my just rights
from the interference of the Regius Professor will be open
to me, unless you should be yourself prepared to exercise
that power which is vested in the Vice-Chancellor under
the Statutes (Tit. xvii. sect. 3. §. 2.) by declaring in terms,
which shall be binding upon both parties, what are the
requisites for a due performance of these Exercises.
&c. &c. &c.
Believe me to be. Rev. Sir,
Your obedient humble Servant,
R. G. Macju'll^x.

This application also was rejected, and thus no alter
native was left but to accept, under protest, the original
Theses which the Regius Professor had imposed. The
Exercises were accordingly read in the Divinity School
on Thursday the 18th, and Friday the 18th of April.
After the reading of the first Exercise, the Professor

28
pronounced the words " Non sufficit pro forma." The
Grace of the College having been granted in order to sup
plicate for the Degree, four successive supplications have
been made for the Grace of the House of Congregation,
which have been refused by the Vice-Chancellor.
May 25, 1844.

EAXTEU, PRIMTEft, OXFl>ltD,

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03720 5847