Ball

=/

1259 68

kmt IJUmarhs

UPON THE

REMONSTRANCE
LATELY ADDRESSED TO THE
%xtl$mw8 antr $Lu;raI £Uaiw at ity<§'xotm of (Drforb.

A LETTER

ADDRESSED TO THE

REV. W. R. FREMANTLE, M.A.,
RECTOR 07 CLAYDON, BUCKS., AND RURAL DEAN,

FROM THE

REV. HENRY BULL, M.A.,
PERPETUAL CURATE OF LATHBURY, AND RURAL DEAN.

OXFORD and LONDON:
JOHN HENEY and JAMES PAEKEE.
18 59.

% fetter, tft.

My dear Fremantle,
There is, perhaps, some danger, in the present unhappy
state of affairs in the diocese, lest any attempt to stay the
alarm and misgivings existing among us may do harm rather
than good, provoking controversy instead of allaying it.
And this consideration has made me hesitate about adding
to the Letters and statements already in print relating to the
matter : still I feel bound, in justice to myself and those
who think with me, to offer some remarks upon the Re
monstrance which has been addressed to the Archdeacons
and Rural Deans, who presented the Address to the Bishop ;
and in putting those remarks into the shape of a letter to you,
I feel that I am guarding myself against the temptation to
indulge in bitterness, or unworthy cavil, or railing of any
kind; inasmuch as I am not likely to write anything that
will not be consonant with our old relation of friendship
and regard, or with that love of truth and fairness which I
believe is common to us both.
First, let me say that I give full credit to the authors and
subscribers to the document for a sincere zeal for the main
tenance ofthe faith as professed by the Church of England,
and I am willing to believe that this feeling has mainly in
fluenced them in taking this step. But it is evident, upon
the face of the Remonstrance, that it contains a kind of
impeachment of our conduct in signing the Address : there
is a tacit imputation that — through haste, possibly — we have
done injustice to the author of " Facts and Documents ;" it is
implied, in short, that though they, the Remonstrants, abstain
from pronouncing any judgment, we have pronounced an
unfair judgment, upon the pamphlet in question. I do not
exactly see how the persons who signed the Remonstrance
can say that they express no opinion upon the pamphlet.
It seems to me that, in making it the basis of their appeal

to the Church at large, they express a very decided one.
But let that pass. My sole object is to clear myself and
others from the charge of rash censure and injustice in put
ting forth the Address ; and at the same time, so far as I
may, to forward the cause of peace, and to abate strife and
disunion among us.
I. Let me address myself, without further preface, to the
question of the motives and reasons which influenced us in
proceeding as we did.
It is quite plain to me that the Remonstrants have failed
to perceive the real purport of our Address, — that was, I
must remark, simply to uphold the authority and character
of the Bishop, and to express our confidence in him at a
very trying conjuncture. A pamphlet had been issued,
purporting to be by a Senior Clergyman of the diocese,
which contained on the front of it a deliberate averment
that the diocese of Oxford was " in an alarming state," and
" the centre of a Romanizing movement in the country."
Certain statements and facts were adduced to prove this ;
and no candid person could deny, upon reading the pam
phlet, that these all pointed to and implied, with more or less
of relevancy, the sanction and personal advocacy of that
" movement" by the Bishop himself; a charge of course affect
ing his Lordship just in proportion to his known energy, and
incessant personal supervision of his diocese. If any doubt
could have been entertained on this score, viz. that the Bishop
himself, in the writer's judgment, was the head and front,
as it were, of the offending, it must have been put an end to
by the studious importation into the allegation of matters
foreign to the diocese, but with which it was attempted to
connect his Lordship. In a word, no person of common
understanding could for a moment doubt that the author of
the pamphlet believed, and desired that others should be
lieve, that the Bishop leans to and encourages the Romish
system of faith and practice.
Now this was an imputation of the gravest nature ; and I,
for one, from my knowledge, both of the general administra
tion of the diocese, and of the Bishop's own private senti
ments, had no hesitation in pronouncing it a most unjusti-

liable misrepresentation, one tending to hinder the due in
fluence of his high office, from the distrust it was fitted to
excite, and at the same time most unfair and ungenerous
towards himself.
Then came the question, what should be done ?
It was at best a very painful course to have thus to stig
matize an act of a brother clergyman ; and some might
have thought that the palpably inconsequential and illogical
nature of the pamphlet scarcely required any refutation;
but still, though wanting in argument to convince sound-
thinking persons, it was of a nature to fall in with and in
flame existing suspicions in the weak and unwary; and we
felt it our duty, therefore, to protest against it, — we felt
bound to meet the unfair and unjust statement with an
explicit denial. The single object of our Address (this I
beg you carefully to note) was to supply a corrective to the
mischief that was likely to be done by the incorrect and
unfair reasonings^of the pamphlet.
We called them "presumptuous calumnies" and "unjus
tifiable misrepresentations." You consider us to have had
no right to use these phrases. Here I must observe that it
is necessary, in dealing with covert insinuations, to use plain
language ; it was necessary, besides, to act at once ; we had
to keep in view the importance of a prompt and decisive
denial, in general, of the covert allegation that the Bishop
was in heart a traitor to the Church of which he is a chief
Pastor, and desirous of stealthily fostering Romanism in his
diocese. This was the "unjustifiable misrepresentation" against
which we hold it necessary to protest, the misrepresentation
and unjust charge pervading the whole brochure. But the
Remonstrants, on the other hand, maintain that there was
no misrepresentation ; and in order to establish their case,
challenge us to disprove certain facts stated by the Senior
Clergyman. We do not deny, we never thought of denying,
them ; but we say the inference drawn from these facts is
unjust; and I must remark that even facts, when pleaded
to a wrong issue, are virtual rii'urcpreseutatioiis.
I readily admit that I could have wished that one or two

6
of the words used had been changed for others less open to
the charge of harshness ; and I should regret if the phrase
' calumny' were held by the writer of the pamphlet to convey
necessarily a malicious and unchristian spirit on his part.
But harsh truths must clothe themselves in harsh words at
times; and lovers of charity need not shrink from holding
that a man who, through his prejudices or his fears, is led to
make rash and ill-considered assertions, (especially in the
case of a clergyman writing of his bishop,) may properly be
styled a calumniator ; in the sense, that is, of a person who
brings unjust and unfitting accusations against a brother.
Enough, I hope, has been said in vindication of myself and
others from the charge of having ourselves offended in like
manner against the author of the pamphlet.
II. I pass now to what I hold to be of far greater conse
quence than even the clearing ourselves from blame as indi
viduals in this matter, I mean the peace of the diocese and
the quieting of men's minds, and how best it may, under the
present circumstances, be promoted.
Looking to this, I confess I very much doubt the ex
pediency of the course you have adopted. Though such may
not have been the idea present to your minds, yet I greatly
fear that, inasmuch as our Address bears upon it the broad
and palpable character of an expression of confidence in the
Bishop, so yours, issued in opposition thereto, — a " counter
statement," as you style it, — must be accepted by the public
in general as the exact reverse of ours, in fact, as an expres
sion of non-confidence. Such I fear may be the popular
interpretation. Such may not have been at all your wish ;
still I cannot but lament that the Remonstrance should lie
open to such a construction. Let me repeat that I do not
in the least question the desire of the Remonstrants to bring
about concord and unity; and I for one am ready to join
in any protest against the practice and spirit of Rome, which
is not at variance with the great duty of maintaining peace
amongst ourselves.
The real hindrance to effecting this, the real mischief,
as I believe, existing in the diocese, is distrust of the Bishop.
Many things have contributed to this: it has sprung in

part, I believe, from very slight causes ; in no little degree,
certainly, from the unhappy circumstances of his family, to
which it is worse than ungenerous to allude, — a ground of
suspicion this, which, though it has no weight with reflecting
persons, is readily accepted by the unthinking and credulous
multitude; another cause has been the difficulty which a
bishop in these times has in repressing as promptly as he
might desire the errors and extravagancies of individual
clergy who love to follow their own fancies. This matter
has been clearly and convincingly stated by the Bishop
himself. But I leave a topic which I feel naturally a delicacy in
handling at all.
May not another cause be found in the natural jealousy
and dislike (the world can shew many such instances) of
superior talent and activity employed in a direction at all
counter to men's own views and prepossessions?
I invite you — the unhappy fact of such distrust on the part
of some persons being admitted — to examine carefully how
far the state of things in the diocese warrauts such a feeling?
What are the facts as we may note them? Is the diocese in
an alarming state, evidently verging to Rome, stamped with
the Romish mark ? What do we find?
In some parishes the clergyman, or a layman, disposed to
carry ritualism to an unwise extent ; in another, some need
less adjunct accompanying a procession ; some chancels more
highly decorated than accords with the simpler, and I be
lieve sounder, taste of many of us ; the practice of confession,
authorized and enjoined by our Reformed Church under
certain conditions, in a particular instance, it may be, ques
tionably exercised". These are the matters adduced to prove
that the faith is in danger. Now set against these exceptional
cases of unwise, it may be, but still allowable, practice, the
hundreds of parishes in the diocese where nothing is done,
nothing meets the eye, which is not in strict accordance
with the sober, rational, and scriptural standard which our
Church lias adopted. I can speak, of course, with most
* The five or six stone altnrs nlludcd to were, I believe, all placed in the
chancels before tin* judgment of the I'rivy Council was delivered.

8
certainty and confidence of my own neighbourhood; look
ing over my own Deanery, I can say with truth that I know
of nothing at all at variance with this pattern; and I believe
that many of my brother Rural Deans would bear similar
testimony. Is there, upon the whole, reasonable ground for alarm on
this score ?
Here the Remonstrants will probably adduce Cuddesdon
College. I will not shrink from the challenge. No doubt
this has strengthened the suspicions of which I spoke. I
am quite ready to avow that much has been admitted
there which I cannot approve; I always considered the
lavish adornments of the chapel unfitting, and I agree sub
stantially with the report of the Archdeacons, — perhaps I
go beyond them, in my estimate of the indiscretion shewn ;
but it is indiscretion simply, not unfaithfulness, which can
justly be charged against the authorities of the College.
There seems to have been an unwise compliance with the
fancies of the students themselves. But men well qualified
to judge have affirmed that the teaching and tone of the
College was sound and Catholic; and many throughout
the diocese bear testimony to the earnestness of mind and
simple desire to win souls evinced by those of the students
who have been appointed to officiate in it. Surely in judging
of an institution it is hardly fair to lay stress upon some few
adornments of the chapel, and other outward things, or
the title of a book, really good and valuable in itself, and
to pass over the real test of the system, the class of men
it produces. After all, with respect to the Bishop himself,
it ought to be kept in mind that, though a Superior is vir
tually responsible for, he is not always actually chargeable
with, what is done by his subordinates. At any rate, the
objectionable practices, when brought before him, were at
once inhibited ; nor, under a new administration of the Col
lege, is there any likelihood of their being revived.
But, leaving matters of open complaint, distrust seems to
attach to what most men would deem worthy of all commen
dation. While I write I have received a letter from certain
gentlemen at Reading, who appear to hold that zeal and activity

9
in a Bishop, and organization for carrying on the work of the
Ministry and of Education, may be evil=things, and "an
tagonistic to spiritual religion." I had always thought that
the Apostles were zealous men, and great organizers, and that
it is well to follow their example ; not that organization is
everything; but it is barely charitable, in my judgment, as
these gentlemen seem to do, to bring, by implication, against
the Bishop, and the many devoted Clergy and Laity who are
working in conjunction with him, the charge of being "un-
spiritual men, and having the form but not the power of
godliness." I feel assured that you do not share such sentiments as
these ; I am confident that you do not consider the Bishop
an adherent of Rome ; and really it argues a peculiar con
dition of mind,"something almost of hallucination, to induce
any impartial person to take up with such a notion.
I make full allowance for the jealousy excited by the pro
verbial arts and unscrupulousness of that corrupt Church,
which has of late years been gaining ground among us. No
one regards that Mystery of blended good and evil, permitted
for the trial of the faith, with deeper apprehension than my
self, and I desire to withstand it with all the energy I have.
I can honour the sensitiveness of the Protestant spirit, but
even this is blameable, if it prompt an unreasonable and
ungrounded distrust of our Diocesan.
People are apt to forget that this peculiar religious in
fection has been rife in the country ever since the Eman
cipation Act of 1829 gave a new status and development
to Romanism among us. Danger there has been ever since,
and danger there must be still; and I concur with the Re
monstrants as to the necessity and duty of watching, each
in his own sphere, against the insidious advances of that
corrupt and idolatrous system ; but I deny that the poison
operates in our own district solely or chiefly ; I cannot ad
mit, spite of the positive assertions to this effect, that the
Diocese of Oxford, or the University (whatever might have
been said of the latter some years back), is now " the centre
of the movement."
Again : ;ii thciv seems to be no sufficient ground for

10
attempting to fix this system upon the Diocese which he
governs, so to my mind the attempt to fasten it upon the
Bishop personally is without reasonable colour or pretext.
Consider the case for a moment.
There might exist in these times, I admit, ground for
reasonable apprehension, had we to do with a theological
writer, a man possessed of subtle mind and attractive style ;
who, having gained by his writings a hold upon the age,
might in the privacy of his study weave silently the meshes
of sophistical argument, and plausibly insinuate Romish
ideas and practices ; dropping here and there ambiguous
phrases, suggesting doubts of this and that Protestant maxim,
and placing before men's minds a specious and captivating
ideal of what the Church should and might be. Here might
be just reason for suspicion and alarm; we should have to
combat a stealthy, creeping agency, hard to detect or lay hold
of. But how different are the actual circumstances ! There
is all the difference between a concealed, shadowy Opinion,
and a present, most manifest Worker. Here we have a man
living always in the public eye ; from the nature of his office
constrained to ventilate and expose all his actions and mo
tives to general observation ; in the pulpit, in Parliament, at
public meetings, in the gatherings of friends and helpers of
his work, always expressing his sentiments openly, unpre
meditated often, upon the various matters, as they rise, per
taining to the doctrine and discipline of the Church. And I
ask, of the thousands of persons cognizant of his sentiments,
so promulgated continually, how many will come forward
and declare that they ever heard anything fall from the Bishop
that could be tortured even into sympathy with, or approval
of, the doctrines and practices of Rome ? I believe from my
heart that none such can be found ; aud if so, is it not misera
ble work that such a man should be constantly traduced,
his good evil spoken of, the heaviest accusation persisted in
with no solid foundation to rest on ; and that the Bishop's
constant, unwearied devotion of his high gifts to the dis
charge of his sacred office, his willing spending of himself
for the benefit of the flock and the glory of Christ, should
be looked upon by some as one great organized imposture ?

11
Even if certain of the Laity, who have not adequate means
of judging, suffer themselves to be haunted with this vain
imagination, we of the Clergy, who owe honest and dutiful
trust to an ecclesiastical Superior, ought to be very slow in
admitting such suspicions as these.
Till these suspicions are abated, I fear we cannot expect
that harmony of feeling and co-operation which the great
cause in which we are engaged demands as the main element
of success. It is but little weight that I can, individually,
throw into the scale, but you will give me credit at least for
honest aud independent action. I am not disposed to call
any man master : I have never hesitated, as my brethren
know, to express openly and decidedly, when I felt it right,
my dissent from the Bishop's views. His own kindness and
tolerance of honest difference of opinion has always invited
this from us all. There is little in me of the partisan ; and
it is not from any private feeling of attachment, or respect
merely, but from the calm conviction of the fact, that I deli
berately assert that I hold the suspicion of the Bishop's un
faithfulness to the interests of the Reformed Church utterly
groundless and unjustifiable.
The remedy is, to my mind, exceedingly simple : it is, that
the Alarmists cease to distrust their Bishop ; that they should
give him credit for those principles of action which he has at
various times avowed, — never more plainly aud distinctly
than in the Reply which he returned to our Address. Had
time been allowed for the careful weighing of that declara
tion ou his part, it might have been felt that there was little
need of any Remonstrance.
In conclusion, let me say that a principal object in my
writing to you will have been gained if this letter tends in
any degree to make us more of one mind. Though the
Clergy ofthe Diocese are now ranged, apparently, on different
sides, I am fain to believe that there is less actual disunion
than this circumstance might seem to indicate. I believe
that we all have at heart the true interests of that branch of
the Church of Christ in which we have been appointed to
labour : let us study in all ways unity of aclion as well as
unity of purpose.

12
You urge us, at the end of the Remonstrance, to discoun
tenance in our respective spheres " everything that savours of
Romanism, and is a departure from the spirit of the Reformed
and Protestant Church." In this I heartily concur; and I
believe that we have generally acted upon this principle^and
need no fresh encouragement to pursue it.
Even this, however, will not satisfy all objectors. To some
good men a cross seems a superstitious emblem ; they are
alarmed by a procession, though^ it be simply a matter of
orderly arrangement in preference to confusion ; anything
beyond bare walls in a church suggests[to them the necessary
absence of the spiritual mind. I must call this an unsound
and a morbid state of feeling, not in unison with the prac
tical good sense, if I may use the phrase, and sobriety of our
Church. Still it becomes us to deal tenderly with the scruples
of our weaker brethren, and any^desire needlessly to shock
such prejudices is greatly to be deprecated and^deplored.
Again I would express my cordial assent to this reason
able counsel from you ; on my part, I trust I may be allowed,
without presumption, to' express an earnest hope that the
Remonstrants (many of them highly respected, and enjoying
much influence with their flocks, from their character, and
zealous and earnest labours in the ministry,) would employ
that influence, so justly theirs, to disabuse the minds of the
laity of this unhappy distrust of the motives and actions of
their Bishop ; to bring them to believe that he is doing a work
for our Master above ; and that it is possible for persons,
while differing in their estimate of some of the accidents of
Christianity, and attaching more or less weight, respectively,
to outward and ceremonial matters, still with equal faith
fulness, and it may be with equal acceptance before God,
to hold the substance of the faith, and its Divine Head, our
common Saviour and Redeemer.
Believe me to be yours,
With great regard,
HENRY BULL.

^miuxityii

Reference having been made to the Cuddesdon College
in the foregoing remarks, it may be well that I should reply
to the charge brought against the Rural Deans by the Rev.
Mr. Twopeny in the pamphlet, " Some Remarks, &c.,"
with respect to what passed at their last meeting at the
Palace, when the subject of the management of the College
was discussed.
Perhaps I am hardly at liberty to touch upon the matter
at all; but, as in some way the confidential character of our
deliberations has so far been violated, it is but just towards
ourselves that the real facts should be made known.
I will state simply what passed, and I think you will
endorse my statement.
Some of the Rural Deans felt that a rather hard measure
of censure and obloquy had been dealt out to the Principal
of the College ; and lest he should thence be discouraged in
his work, it was proposed by them that we should express as
a body our belief of his attachment to the principles of the
Church of England, and of his fitness for the management of
the College.
It was, and it was not, a vote of confidence ; it was, so
far as it conveyed our belief that for the future necessary
caution and discretion in all matters would be exercised by
him ; it was not so, as implying, which Mr. Twopeny" seems
to suppose, a general opinion on our part that " the practices
in the College objected to were not of a nature to excite any
distrust."

14
I cannot say how many of my brethren may have been
inclined to make it an absolute vote of confidence; but I
fully believe that the great body of us accepted the proposal
as I have set it down, and as I did myself. Some dissented
from it altogether.
It will now be clear, I think, why the subsequent proposal
that this expression of our statements should be printed and
published was at once negatived. I do not recollect the con
sternation in our body, which the writer, at the suggestion of
his informant, describes; but it was certainly felt at once
that such a proceeding was foreign to our purpose, which
was simply a private friendly expression of trust and sym
pathy towards Mr. Pott, not at all a judgment, meant to
embrace the general question of the merits or demerits of
Cuddesdon College.
I trust that they who read this plain statement will not be
disposed to consider that the Rural Deans, " on a trying
occasion, were wanting in firmness and sincerity."

•HINTED BY MESSES. FABKER, COBMMABKiT, OXFOBD.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08561 4643

I