Gmhf'ie\d

Mh

£5fc
\83fc &3

REFLECTIONS

A VISIT

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,

ON OCCASION OP

THE LATE PROCEEDINGS

AGAINST THE

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY,

LETTER TO THE RECTOR OF LINCOLN COLLEGE.

BY
E. W. GRINFIELD, M.A.

Amicus Socrates, amicus Plato, sed magis amicus Veritas.

LONDON:
B. FELLOWES, LUDGATE STREET;
OXFORD: J. H. PARKER, AND D. A. TALBOYS.
1836.

I'RlNTnt, unhMi-^Tv rr.r irn.r

TO THE

RECTOR OF LINCOLN COLLEGE,
8cc. $c.

My dear Sir,
The intimate friendship which has so
long subsisted between us, and the confidential
freedom with which we have been accustomed
to communicate our sentiments with each other,
encourage me to think that you will not be dis
pleased at my taking this method of laying before
the University and the public some brief observa
tions on that important subject which now engages
so much of their attention.
Scarcely had we begun to reside at the University,
ere we learned that there was one college which
aspired to a superiority of discipline and scholarship
over every other. Nor was this distinction confined
to the ordinary routine of the University studies.
It was supposed that an Oriel man possessed some
secret advantages of intellectual discipline, which

might enable him to think and reason on all topics
of science, literature, and theology, with a degree
of truth and originality that left every ordinary
competitor in the shade.
Far be it from me to deny that this preeminence
was, in some degree, earned by superior talent,
and felt and admitted by the general consent and
admiration of the University. Nor is it to be ques
tioned, that we owe much of the activity and excel
lence which is now diffused over the whole expanse,
to the fine taste and erudition which then so remark
ably distinguished the presiding members of that
polished Society.
But it is the lot of humanity, that superiority of
excellence is seldom unattended with some striking
evil or defect. Accordingly, it soon became appa
rent, that The Oriel theology was something different
in its forms and phraseology from that of the Uni
versity at large, and that when the excellent Eveleigh
departed, there was no Elisha found to take up his
mantle. Then it was a curious, inventive, and speculative
school in divinity arose amongst us. Logic was
cultivated to give new wings to Christian Theology,
and " Gorgons and Hydras and Chimaeras dire "
arose to surprise and alarm the believer in old and
antiquated orthodoxy. A wag of the college, it was
reported, actually chalked on his tutor's door —
" Nova Schola Theologize Speculative."

But this logic, though new and strange, was
founded in error and delusion. Whilst it affected
to be so accurate and precise, that no human lan
guage was sufficiently fine for its enunciation, it
could shake the foundations of all our knowledge
whether sacred or profane, and reduce " The Ana
logy " of Butler to a heap of ruins.
Then it was that Calvinists were to be confuted
by the force of etymology, and that our divinity
was to be explained, not by commentators, but by
lexicographers. Henceforth our creeds were to be
defended, not by appeals to Scripture, or by the
prescriptive force of Christian antiquity, not by
their intrinsic excellence, or their extrinsic evidence;
but by testing them in the modes and figures of a
disputatious logic, or weighing them in the balances
of political expediency.
How strange and grotesque were the tenets and
discoveries of the masters and disciples of this new
Academy ! Whilst one insisted on the human origin
of sacrifice, another descanted on the want of Scrip
ture evidence for the sanctification of the Christian
sabbath. It was discovered that the Christian clergy
had no claim to the title of priests, and that the best
mode of preparing our parishioners for death was
a denial of the doctrine of an intermediate state.
And thus it was they went on wrangling and
refining, but they met with no rebuke from the
Church or the University. Honours, academical

and ecclesiastical, were piled without number on
their advocates, and mitres and archmitres adorned
the brows of their excogitators.
If any man ventured to hint danger, or sound
alarm, he was sure to be hung up in the " British
Critic " of the day to deter others from following
his ill-fated example. A mark was set on his head
and a brand on his back, and he was denounced as
a traitor by those who now denounce Dr. Hampden
as a heretic.
Thus continued matters theological in our learned
University, and thus they would have continued to
the present day, if politics had not stepped in to
the rescue of our divinity. The rap of the dissenter
disturbed the snorings of the orthodox, and the
rumblings of the Reform Bill dissipated the slumbers
of Convocation.
Mark the consequence. — A man " adorned with
every virtue under heaven" — who had won the
highest honours of his college and the University —
who had been repeatedly selected as a public
examiner — chosen to preach the Bampton Lecture
— advanced to the chair of Moral Philosophy, and
to the headship of St. Mary Hall — the friend and
favourite pupil of Copleston and Whately — this
man is selected by the Ministry to support their
political principles, and advocate the cause of Uni
versity reform — he is placed in the chair of the Regius
Professorship — and then, forsooth, it is discovered

that he is a heretic ; though his writings had been
for many years before the public, and though the
very Sermons which are condemned were preached
before the University, and were published with its
sanction. Was ever tyranny and oppression, — aye, and
something worse, — was ever artifice and imposture
more plainly displayed ? Do you or I approve of
Dr. Hampden's theological sentiments, because we
voted against this triumph of wrong and injustice ?
No ! It is many years (1822) since I held up my
hand against them, as they were originally advocated
by Bishop Copleston, and Archbishop Whately.
But who ' then came to my support, of all those
worthies who are now so alarmed for the cause of
orthodoxy ? My vote for Dr. Hampden was given,
not for what I must still regard as the faults of his
school, and the errors of his creed; but against that
subterfuge and double dealing, which could dose at
St. Mary's over the opinions of the Bampton Lec
turer, and which could affect to be startled at them
when they became the opinions of the Regius
Professor. I never understood so well before that
curious expression of Virgil — " Auri sacra fames."
Let me not, however, be misunderstood. I
honour the zeal of the country clergy, who hurried
up to Oxford to support the side of orthodoxy.
I venerate that love for our Articles and Liturgy,
which they so signally manifested on that occasion ;

8
but it was impossible that you and I, who knew the
whole history of the case, could act in any other
way, than by giving our vote to Dr. Hampden.
Here was a man who had every University
honour heaped upon him, up to the time of his
appointment to the Professorship ; not a murmur
was heard against his divinity, though some might
not relish his politics,— and yet, as soon as the
Prime Minister places his hand upon him, he is
denounced as unworthy of confidence by those who
had hitherto given him their unbounded confidence !
As to the private and personal character of
Dr. Hampden, it is admitted and admired even by
his political antagonists ; but I have known him
almost from his youth, and can give testimony to
his worth, as a parish priest, and to his exemplary
conduct in every relation of society. With the
most curious and extensive erudition, he combines
the artlessness of a child and the purity of a primi
tive christian. His academical sojourn has not
deprived him of his simplicity as a country curate ;
and if I mistake not the man, he will have all the
reality, but none of the parade of a Regius Professor.
In his Inaugural Lecture, he has made a confes
sion of faith so earnest and simple, that it would
have been termed, " Methodistical," in the days of
Whitfield and Wesley, of Doctor Nowell, and "The
Shaver." And though I cannot but admit, that he
has fallen into many and grievous misstatements of

g
Christian doctrine in his Bampton Lecture, yet such
is the rectitude of his heart, the innocency of his
life, and his real and heartfelt attachment to the
gospel, that he may keep all his enemies at bay
with the apology of St. Austin — " Errare possum,
haereticum esse nolo."
And who are the men that have been foremost
in the University to urge on this clamour ? Are
they clear of all suspicion of error and false doctrine ?
Are not they publishing, from time to time, the most
papistical Tracts which have been heard of at
Oxford, since the days of Farmer and Obadiah
Walker ? Ye ghosts of Brett and Hicks, of John
son and Collier, retire to the shades of Corpus or
Christ Church, and whether at early orisons or
evening vespers, salute them with your Clementine
Liturgies, your prayers for the dead, your praises
of celibacy, your veneration of the Virgin, and
with all the relics of monastic superstition and
ascetic devotion.
No doubt this is a very fit and proper season for
teaching our young divines to bleat out apologies
for Romish errors, and to soften down the charac
teristics of the Protestant faith. No doubt this is
the proper time to cry up the more rigid observance
of saints' days and holidays, and to unchurch all
the Reformed, whether at home or abroad, who
have not the advantage of an episcopal polity.
" Dum vitant stulti vitia, in contraria currant."

10
If this be the best way to uphold the Church of
England, the opponents of Dr. Hampden may find
an able coadjutor in Dr. Wiseman, and may as well
transfer their talents to the pages of the Dublin
Quarterly Review. — Hoc Ithacus velit.
The truth is, that the Church and the University
are now brought into the utmost peril by the two
parties which are disturbing and ravaging the peace
of Oxford. On the one hand, is the cold and
heartless neology of the Oriel school, such as it
was when Archbishop King's picture theology was
recommended as " the basis of all sound divinity."
On the other, such as it is — the New Academy
for bringing up Papists in the garb of Protestants,
by enlisting all our sympathies for the olden times.
But I trust that it is too late to revive the reveries
of Whiston, — to vamp up the tatters of " the Apos
tolic Constitutions," — to fetter our christian liberties
with the Ancient Canons, or to interpret the
Eucharist in the language of the Mass book.
It is for you, my excellent friend, and for all the
Heads of Houses who voted with you, to show that
you are not disposed to yield to the extremes of
either party ; but that you will manfully uphold the
fixed, tried, and moderate sentiments of the English
Church. It is for you to maintain, in this great
emergency, that christian faith, which is alike
removed from the neology of Germany, and from
the superstitions of Rome. It is for you to guide

11
the ardent and promising youth entrusted to your
care, into the same paths which a Hooker, a Tillotson,
a Taylor, a Barrow, a Sherlock, have before trodden
with so much dignity and grace. May these, — the
ornaments of the English Church, — still direct the
studies, and superintend the pursuits of your divinity
schools. May these constitute the sacred Classics,
which, in subservience to the inspired volume, shall
still engage the morning and midnight hours of
your devoted students.
But I will not conclude this hasty epistle, without
once more adverting to what has so long appeared
to me to constitute the leading and fundamental
errors of The Oriel theology.
And first, As analogical reasoning forms the main
instrument of all theological science, it is of essential
importance to insist on its precision and reality, and
to ascertain its real and intrinsic value. To con
found such analogy, as the organ of moral or
religious truth, with the tropes of rhetoric, or the
plays of imagination, is no less than to pervert
theology into metaphor and poetry.
Its next source of error consists in attributing to
the use of figurative language a far greater influence
and effect on our moral and religious opinions,
than it can really possess ; and which, if it could
possess, would render all language the vehicle of
falsehood, rather than of truth. The Bible, which
abounds with figurative language, and which seldom

12
makes use of abstract terms, would then have only
filled our minds with errors and illusions.
A third source of error, much akin to the former,
results from an undue importance attached to the
origin and etymology of general terms, or to the
source from which they may be historically derived.
The Oriel logic delights to magnify these mites and
molehills, and then to represent them as monsters
and mountains.
But the great and pervading error which I fear,
infects the argument of the Bamptonian Lecture,
arises from attributing a very undue importance to
the Scholastic Theology, as the groundwork of our
present theological system. My excellent friend
has shown great diligence in his researches as an
antiquarian historian ; but as a divine, he has not
perhaps sufficiently ascertained the proportions of
scriptural truth which are blended with the errors of
the schoolman. To show that any doctrine is
scholastic in its form, or that it has come down to
us in the language of the middle ages, is not to show
that it is destitute of a far higher authority for its
support. The phraseology may be that of the
Angelic or Seraphic Doctor, whilst the doctrine is
that of Christ and his apostles.
To illustrate this position, let me advert to the
most sublime and mysterious topic which can
engage our thoughts. It was a favourite speculation
with Plato, and the schoolmen, that the highest

13
point of human excellence consists in our imitation
and resemblance of the Divine Being. This notion
has been ridiculed by Pope and Bolingbroke, as a
mere flight of Pantheistic mysticism. But what is
the fact, when it is examined by the Word of God ?
— Man is represented in the Bible, as originally
created in the image of his Maker, which image was
greatly injured and defaced by the fall. His
redemption by Jesus Christ, consists in rescuing him
from this state of degradation, and in restoring him
to his original purity and perfection. Hence our
Saviour is termed " the Second Adam." This resto
ration was accomplished by his taking our nature
upon himself — is carried on by our gradual sanctifi
cation through the Holy Spirit, and will be perfected
hereafter, when " this corruptible shall put on
incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immor
tality." For the sake of brevity I do not work out this
proposition, nor illustrate it by any reference to
Scripture ; but you may remember, perhaps, that in
my controversy with Bishop Copleston, not only the
Holy Scriptures, but the concurrent testimonies of
our most eminent English divines were adduced
to illustrate this sublime truth.
Or to take a lower example, yet one which is very
awful and profound, and on which we could have no
sufficient guide, without the authority of Revelation —
The agency of the Holy Spirit on the mind of man.

14
The schoolmen laid down many distinctions on
the subject of grace, some of which our reformers
rejected, while they retained others. They rejected
the terms of " condignity," and " congruity," as
being totally at variance with the doctrine of our
free pardon and justification for the sake of Jesus
Christ, as our Saviour and Redeemer. But they re
tained the distinctions of " preventing," " coope
rating," and " following" grace, as founded, not on
the authority of the schoolmen, but on the plain
and indisputable authority of Scripture.
Surely then, we should not content ourselves with
inquiring into the mere origin or etymology of the
terms; and still less should we suggest, that the
doctrines which are expressed by such terms have
no other authority than that of those who invented
them, or who used them for the purposes of their
scholastic disputes.
But it deserves the serious consideration of my
learned friend, whether the peculiar argument which
he has adopted in his Bampton Lecture is not, in
itself, historically incorrect, and built on the fallacy
which we used to term in our logic non causa pro
causd. It is not easy to conceive that Luther, or
his associates, were swayed by any undue predilecT
tion for the doctrines of the schoolmen, since it is
well known that he commenced the Reformation
with the most violent antipathy to Aristotle and the
scholastics, and that he based his success on the

15
demolition of their united authority. It will be
found, I think, on examination, that the generality
of those terms and distinctions, which the Professor
has attributed to Aquinas and the Doctors of the
middle ages, may be traced, so far as they have
been adopted by the Reformers, to the more ancient
and respectable authority of Augustin, Jerom,
Cyprian, and others of the early Fathers. Perhaps
nearly all that can be really ascribed to the scholastic
influence may be found in the Postils of Lyra.
But, to associate the doctrines of the Reformers
with the influence and authority of the schoolmen,
is to forget that the Reformation was, in a literary
view, a rebellion against the authority of Aristotle
and the scholastics ; whilst, in a religious aspect,
it was a renunciation of those unscriptural tenets,
and, more particularly, those Pelagian principles,
with which the Doctors of the middle ages had so
long contaminated the purity of the primitive
faith. Should then, my excellent friend, the Regius
Professor, hereafter pursue his inquiries on this inte
resting subject, I trust that he will favour the Church
with an investigation into the previous and far more
important question, viz. — " How far the theological
distinctions of the schoolmen are correct, or erro
neous, by bringing them to the test and standard
of Holy Scripture." He will thus make an ample
apology for any errors or mistakes into which he

16
may have inadvertently fallen ; and will confer on
the Church and the University a boon, which may
at once realize all the hopes and expectations of his
friends, and confound the malice of his enemies.
In the meantime, we may reflect on our votes for
Dr. Hampden with the most entire consciousness of
our integrity. His errors are those of his school and
college, which were inculcated and sanctioned by
men, who have since received the highest honours
of the Church. When I appealed to the University
against these principles, as advocated by Archbishop
Whately, and Bishop Copleston, I was met with
scorn and contumely — treated as an ignorant
alarmist, or as a wilful reviler. I have lived to see
these errors proclaimed and denounced ; but I have
not lived to think it just and equitable, that the
offence of the teacher should be attributed solely to
the pupil, or that opinions, which were applauded
in a Prelate, should be condemned and punished
in a Professor. With the highest esteem,
I am, dear Sir,
Yours, &c.
E, W. G.
Kensington, May 11, 1836.

R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD-STREET-HILL.