GtriUvtK: ^ hh09 fx8 TWO LETTERS CONCERNING No. 90 IN THE SERIES CALLED THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. Privfedfor private distribution oiily. OXFORD, PBINTED BY W. BAXTER. MDCCCXLI. i/iuy,'u O^s^iu im ^s^. ADVERTISEMENT. These Letters are printed exactly as they were sent in manuscript by post, except only that the first writer's name is concealed and a single word in his Letter is omitted ; that the first section of the second Letter is altered so far as it freely mentioned the names of indi viduals which ought not without permission to appear in print ; and that the titles of Dr. and Mr. and the foot-notes throughout both Letters, and the Postscript to the second, have been added. The writer of the first Letter desires the following extract from another Letter, written by him on April 17, 1841, to be appended as a note : " I wrote it as 2l private, " friendly Letter, by no means at my leisure ; and I " believe I should have written differently, certainly with " much care and revision (not given, as it was), had I " entertained any idea of printing it. I do not meain " that I know of any opinion expressed in it, by which " I am not prepared to abide ; but I think many opinions, " if not all, might easily have been better supported. I " also lament the conduct, such as I referred to, of two " Clergymen, far too much to wish to publish it for the " animadversions of all men. Yet it may be very useful " {qv friends to the Church to have their attention drawn " to such sad cases." J. G, -, March 23, 184-1. My Dear Griffiths, I hope you will not be offended by, or the worse for, my writing you a Letter, which I am induced to do by many considerations. First, my strong interest in the matter ; next, our old friendship ; and, thirdly, the idea that you may possibly be disposed to attach more weight to any thing said by me, seeing that I am not a writer in the Tracts for the Times, nor in any other Tracts, and that I am and have been for several years in the care of a large Parish at a distance from Oxford. Whether I shall say any thing of any importance, is another question. Of course, I mean to do so. You will easily guess, that the part recently taken by you and three more in authority as Oxford Tutors, and the consequent expression of opinion by certain members (nescio quos) of the Hebdomadal Board, have given occasion to the thought of this Letter. I am not going to speak in detail for or against the indi vidual Tract 90 ; I never have seen it except in those parts which have been quoted in two Letters in the Morning Post of the I9th, which were published in con sequence of the Letter of the Four Tutors. I was very sorry to see your name at the foot of that Letter, and I suppose you must be convinced by Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf that you had very materially mistaken the scope and meaning of the Tract attacked. Whether every 6 statement of that Tract be defensible or not, I know not ; certainly I am not prepared to say that every statement of the former Tracts in the same series is true and judi cious. They were written of course by fallible men. But the general question involved (practically) in your oppo sition to this Tract, and in the (me judice, most ill- omened) opinion expressed by the Hebdomadal Board, is a most wide and serious one ; and the part taken by you and by the Board, viewed with regard to this general question, is (I am deeply convinced) a step in a movement most ruinous to the interests of the Church, most perilous to the eternal interests of that flock, over a portion of which (I humbly believe) the Holy Ghost has made me an overseer. It is impossible for me to look at the matter as a slight one. I think you do not know (pardon me for saying it) what you have been doing. I feel sure, you meant to do good. I therefore also feel that yon will excuse my expressing my earnest hope, that you will look at the matter more carefully, before you take another step in the same direction, inasmuch as I firmly am convinced that you would be helping the enemy unawares. Let me explain. The leading, prevailing doctrines put forth in the Tracts for the Times, so far as I know them (which is pretty well), I fully assent to, because, to the extent of what I have been able to read and understand, they are true, the doctrines of the Church in complete harmony with Scripture. Now it is against these, the main doctrines put forth in the Tracts for the Times, and not against any isolated Tract, that your attack is practically made. You may not intend it, I believe you do not intend it. But you are hailed as a champion (you may depend on it) by tiiose who do intend it. Your attack is spoken of, boasted of as a prelude to a general engagement on those points, most sacred points, maintained in the Tracts. Whether you meant it or not Is nothing to them, they have gained courage and strength from your arms and aid. There are theoretical opponents of the Tracts, as a whole, especially in Oxford, good and worthy men, I quite believe, who are far from being false to the Church. The general *^haracter of these opponents is widely different ; Infidels, Semi-infidels, Heretics, Schismatics, false Churchmen, and, alas ! Ministers who scruple not themselves to alter the Church Services ad libitum, and point-blank to contradict from the pulpit her express declarations, these all hail the Four Tutors as allies ; for them you fight ; and for them. If you succeed, you conquer. This Is my deliberate con viction, grounded, not on abstract theories, but on the hearing of my ears and the seeing of my eyes. I have heard but lately a Clergyman in a Visitation Sermon profess his total disbelief in the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, save only in the case of the few elect. He distinctly stated, as an opponent of the Tracts, that he used the words of the Church, but in their plain sense did not believe them. He thanks God that a child is re generate, and mounts the pulpit to say, " remember, in all probability that child is not regenerate." Another Clergyman also in a large neighbouring town (unless he is much belied), with equal strength denies the teaching of the Church, but with more consistency leaves out the words in the Service which go against him. Surely Davison is right, when he speaks of the " importunate perspicuity" of the words of the Baptismal Service. Yet how comes it to pass that the direct contradiction of such as these is held of slight moment ; but if a man of deep learning and piety venture to put a construction on the words of an Article, different from the common, but 8 at least disputable, be is to be reclaimed against, and denounced ? and for whom ? to please whom ?"practicaUy to help whom ? Why, the very men, who are themselves constantly and flagrantly transgressing the authority of the Church. " Non tulerira Gracchos, &c." Remember, I am very far from charging you with the opinions or the practices of either Dissenters or low and ultra-Calvinistic Churchmen ; I believe that you would oppose them, when set in array against you ; but that meanwhile unconsciously you aid them. If " the Tract 90" had contained, or does contain, any thing wrong ; answer it ; refute It by argument ; shew its danger. But when you publicly 'denounce it as one of a series, you are under stood and will be understood to denounce with it the rest of the series as a whole. And I repeat, that in so doing, your most numerous friends and applauders are the worst enemies of the Church, either in intention, or at least in fact, and that you minister arms and strength to their unholy or unhappy fury. But more than this, suppose you succeed, or rather that others, forcino- on their way where you have made a breach, succeed in what they are clearly aiming at ; suppose that not the Hebdomadal Board only, but also higher autho rities in the Church, were induced to denounce the doc trines of the Tracts ; what would be gained ? A sore loss indeed, 1 firmly believe; a heavy blow and discou ragement to the cause of vital religion. They are not few nor contemptible, who believe that the leading doc trines of the Tracts are true, and of paramount importance, especially for these times; we maintain (if I may mix myself with others, many of whom are so vastly my su periors), we maintain that these doctrines are not ours, but of the Church and of the Scripture, and therefore of God. Come what will, we dare not give them up or not profess tbem. You may by decrees (arbitrary and unjust, I should say) drive us out of the Church Established, but out of the Church of Christ, we trust, not. But do you wish for such a fearful schism ? do you wish to force It .'' Assuredly, I believe, not: but assuredly also I believe you have already taken a step In that direction ; but, I trust and pray, a step nevertheless which may lead to a very different result. I have felt ever since I was first ordained, or certainly for several years, that the preparation made at Oxford in point of theological teaching was very inadequate, not bad, not giving /aise teaching, but inadequate : and why ? because, chiefly, It took the explicit statements of the Thirty-nine Articles alone as the basis of teaching. The Thirty-nine Articles were written to meet one set of evils, and we have to grapple in our j)arishes with another; they opposed one developement of falsehood and error, and we find another. In this country for the most part — I know there are sad and extensive exceptions — ^but for the most part Giant Pope is dead as well as Giant Pagan ; but Giant Dissent is alive and strong. Those who drew up the Thirty-nine Articles, had they lived now, would surely, I think, have drawn up, not contrary, but different. Articles. Am I to be precluded by an arbitrary decree from doing in my measure, what they would have done ? Look at the case practically. I have a parish with 2100 people In It. Is there a Romanist teacher ? Not one. A Romanist place of worship ? Not one. A single Papist ? Yes, one single one, a stranger Irishwoman of no influence in the world. Am I to spend my time and breath in preaching against errors which no one of my hearers holds or comprehends ? But what am I to do .'' There is a sect of Baptists active, energetic, crossing my path, opposing the Church at every turn. There is a body 10 of Methodists upholding much truth In an unauthor ized and dangerous way. There are revUers of the use and authority of God's Church, and God's Ministers, and God's Sacraments. With these I have to contend ; and, If I err I err, but I plainly confess I know no other way of contending with them on grounds of truth but that, which is In accordance with the prevailing doctrines of those Tracts, on which you have headed an assault. I once In a sermon, preached before my Diocesan", very plainly stated most of these leading doctrines as being certainly true ; and I had the satisfaction of hearing him declare his acquiescence. Of course I do not mean that he sanctions every sentiment in every Tract, or every Tract in the series. Now manifestly, I think, what they, whom you have helped, are aiming at is this ; that the explicit statements of the Thirty-nine Articles should be made the sole basis of our teaching, and (further) one interpretation of those explicit statements to the exclusion of all other possible Interpretations. Against this attempt I for one protest most strongly. The Articles themselves protest against it. They refer to an authority superior to their own ; the authority of the Church, and the paramount authority of those Scriptures, which that Church has delivered to us. From this armoury, surely, we must draw the tried and keen wea pons which are most useful for our present need, although it be true that they consist of doctrines wot formally stated in the Articles, nay, such as in the eyes of some may seem, but not be, at variance with some expressions used in the Articles. The primary thing to be ascertained is, are the doctrines true? are they Catholic and Scriptural? If they are, the Articles do not condemn them. » The Bishop of Exeter. 11 But I have written enough, perhaps too much. I seldom write Letters at all, and scarcely ever remember writing one nearly so long, or nearly of such immense Interest as to the subject-matter of it. Nor have I time disposable to revise and correct as I could wish. Will you excuse on these grounds such imperfections as under these cir cumstances have probably occurred, not to mention that many would probably have occurred in any case. I chiefly wish to shew you, that there are practical men, and Clergymen, who must deeply regret the steps lately taken at Oxford, and must earnestly hope and pray that those steps will not lead to further and more disastrous, but not unlikely, consequences. Believe me to be, Very sincerely and truly your friend. Letherhead, April 5, 1841. My Dear I arrived here on Saturday for a very few days' rest, having been incessantly occupied since I received your Letter ; but I will no longer delay my answer, although the course of events may almost seem to make an answer unnecessary. Even Mr. Newman, however, has not thought it beneath him to defend himself and his coadjutors (in his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford) from a supposed charge of " wanton inconsiderateness :" much more then may I seek to justify my conduct in private to the only one of all my friends who has as yet sent me any remonstrance against It. Pray pardon me if any offensive or harsh expressions slip from my pen. 1. I will begin by remarking on the only passage in your Letter which seems to me not altogether straight forward, not quite like yourself; I mean the insinuation, approaching to a sneer, against either the number or the character of the members of the Hebdomadal Board who concurred in their resolution. You speak of " the part recently taken by" myself and three other Tutors, " and the consequent" [say rather subsequenfl " expression of opinion " by certain members {nescio quos) of the Hebdomadal " Board." Now the facts are these. On Friday, March 12, the Board resolved that they ought to censure the Tract in 14 some public and official way ; and this resolution was carried by nineteen against two. The two were * * » * * *. One of these two said, that there were certain parts of the Tract upon which he did not feel competent to pass an opinion, and therefore he voted against the censure. The other said, that probably no person present could feel more strongly than he did the mischievous tendency of this particular Tract, but he thought the Tracts upon the whole had done good, and he judged the censure inexpedient. Every other person who spoke condemned the Tract most strongly. No one, however, spoke as If he was moved to condemn it in consequence of our Letter. But there were only twenty-one persons then present out of the twenty-six. Three were absent from infirmity or Illness, and two by accident. Of the three, one is known to have expressed his opinion that the proceedings taken against the Tract were inexpedient, but I also know that he has expressed his opinion that the Tract itself was likely to be mischievous : the other two would certainly have been in the majority. Of the two who were absent by accident, one afterwards voted against the proceedings of the Board, alleging as his reason, that he should be as much ashamed of formally disavowing his concurrence with the principles of interpretation suggested in the Tract as of formally disavowing his agreement with any person who might chance to den}' that two and two make four : the other afterwards took occasion to express his deep sense of the dangerous tendency of the Tract, and his regret that from not knowing the course of the business of the Board he had not been present to give his vote on Friday. On that Friday a Committee was appointed to shape the censure, and they reported, to the Board on Monday 15 the 15th. Several questions then arose upon details, and divisions were had with various majorities. The first was about an adjournment, for Mr. Newman had informed the Provost of Oriel that the Author of the Tract, still not named, would publish an explanation of it in two or three days. The minority on this consisted of either three or four ; but even he who on Friday opposed the censure as inexpedient, maintained that the Board ought to do whatever It did at once. On the subsequent questions, which related chiefly or entirely to the wording of their resolution, I believe that both the members, who formed the minority on Friday, declined to vote. No other division touched the main question. All this I state confidently on the direct authority of ear-witnesses. And though it is only preliminary, I do not think it unimportant. 2. Your main position is, that " against the main " doctrines put forth In the Tracts for the Times, and " not against any isolated Tract, our attack is prac- " tically made ;" or as you state it elsewhere, " when " you publicly denounce it [No. 90.] as one of a series, " you are understood and tvill be understood to denounce " with it the rest of the series as a whole." To this I can only answer, that I cannot help it. If I conscientiously felt it to be my solemn duty to denounce a single Tract (and that I did feel this, and why I felt it, I will en deavour by and bye to shew when I speak of the Tract Itself), I could only denounce It as No. so and so of that series. Surely this is no fault of mine. The fault, If any, rests with that association of persons who have put forth the series of Tracts, dating them from Oxford, stating them to be written by Members of the University, and so obtaining at least, if not seeking, a general belief through out the country, that the whole series had at all events the 16 tacit sanction, if not of the whole University, at least of the great majority of its resident members ; putting them forth too anonymously (except, I believe, in a single instance), and this not merely as regards the authorship of the separate Tracts, but not proclaiming in a list the names of the associated authors ; and moreover (as appears from Mr. Perceval's recent Letter') not having any revision or censorship exercised either by the Editor or by the whole association over the writings of each individual author. You will observe, that our Letter neither expresses any opinion nor affirms any fact either of the whole series, or of any other Tract in the series except No. 90. Of that one Tract it expresses a guarded opinion in no violent language, and it subjoins our opinion that the Tract ought not to remain without an acknowledged author. Had Mr. Newman's name been signed to It in the first instance, people might have compared It with his other writings, and might have remembered " the sense " In which he uses certain words and phrases''," and his " frequent and recent protests against many things in " the Roman system'." [You will permit me to observe in passing, that bis remarks on this point, both in his Postscript to Dr. Jelf and In his Letter to the Bishop, and moreover the greater part of his Letter to Dr. Jelf, are totally irrelevant, so long as the Tract was not acknowledged by him.] But no name was given. The Tract came out unowned b)^ any one or more known individuals, and would have passed into the world with the reputed sanction of the University, from some one of whose members it proceeded. Nothing but the un- ' See the Irish Ecclesiastical Journal of January 26, or the Oxford Herald of January 30, 1841. ^ See Mr. Newman's Letter to ihe Bishop of Oxford, page 20. " See Mr. Newman's Postscript to Dr. Jelf, page 1. 17 certain criterion of style appeared as a mark to connect it even with any former Tract in the same series, with which it might have been compared, and its dangerous tendencies corrected ; and Mr. Perceval's Letter had taught us, that no person was responsible for any par ticular Tract but the unnamed Individual author. We felt that this ought not to be, and therefore we expressed our hope under our own signatures to the anonymous Editor that the awow^mows Author would declare him self. I am not concerned to defend the Resolution of the Hebdomadal Board, but I must say, that it has not, as you imply, " denounced the doctrines of the Tracts." It, like our Letter, complains only of No. 90 : but Its preamble goes further than our Letter, and affirms of the whole series of Tracts this sinjple fact, that they " are in " no way sanctioned by the University itself." Now If this statement Involve any condemnation of the series, such condemnation is Incidental not to the resolution of the Board, but to the circumstance that hitherto the series has unduly obtained the supposed sanction of the University. I will not conceal from you that I read this statement with joy and thankfulness, for I thought it most important for both the University and the Church that such sanction should be authoritatively disavowed. In connexion with your main position you say, that in our attack we are fighting the battle for " Infidels, Semi- " Infidels, Heretics, Schismatics, false Churchmen, and " unscrupulous and unworthy Ministers." You cannot grieve more than I shall, if this should be the result ; but I can only answer again, that I cannot help it. If I conscientiously felt It to be my duty to make the attack in the cause of truth, I could not be deterred from doing so by the Incidental evil of an apparent and momentary 18 advantage resulting to the cause of error. Again the fault is not mine ; it rests, If any where, with him who has put forth that which I conscientiously believe to be erroneous and most dangerous doctrine. And I refer you to Mr. Newman's Letter to the Bishop'' for a vindication of those who endeavour to do what they consider to be a substantial good even at the risk of some incidental evil, " striking a balance between gain and Joss, and " attempting to do the most good on the whole." No one Is more ready than I am to admit that my judgment may be wrong : but do not suppose that I acted without consideration ; do not think that I had not carefully studied the Tract, or that our Letter was hastily framed, or that I had not made my study of the one and my signature of the other the subject both of anxious meditation and of earnest prayer. You proceed to anticipate the possibility of a " fearful schism" in case " higher authorities in the Church" should " denounce the doctrines of the Tracts:" but on this point I shall not dwell, especially after what I have already said. " The [leading] doctrines of the Tracts""^ have not been denounced, and are not likely to be denounced, either by myself, or by the Hebdomadal Board, or by the Bishop of Oxford. If there be a need for any one (I am perfectly certain there can be no need for you) to quit " the Church Estabhshed," it is a need of his own finding ; but a heavy responsibility must rest with those who have placed it in his way, and who by partial and unguarded statements and vague suggestions and defective reasonings have unsettled his mind *. -3. In tlie latter part of your Letter, some of which would Mr. Ward also has replied to them in his Few Words, Sfc. at page 30, and in the note at page 42. 25 reader no answer would be sufficient. I joined therefore with three others in calling public attention to it, in order that the experienced might examine it for themselves, and that the inexperienced might be cautioned against rashly examining it at all. And it was my bounden duty so to do. For though my less happy lot is not cast, like yours, in the ministry of a parish, yet I too have persons, members of Christ's flock, committed in some sort to my charge: and all of them are persons of little experience. Over them the order of God's providence (to say the least) has made me in some sort an overseer. For the spiritual and eternal interests of them, and of the thousands whom they may hereafter influence, I must in some sort watch. For thmr sound instruction and right education, so far as they are under my care, I am in some sort responsible both here and hereafter. And when I read the Tract, these thoughts came crowding upon my mind. And so I acted, not without a deep sense of my responsibility, not without a dread of mischief contingent upon my act, not without weighing good against evil, not without consulting my equals and my superiors in years and judgment, not (as I said before) without anxious meditation and earnest prayer. And if I were to seek a justification of my act apart from my own settled conviction of its propriety, I should find one, first, in the subsequent proceedings of the Heb domadal Board and of the Bishop of Oxford; secondly, in the admissions made by Mr. Newman himself in his Letters to Dr. Jelf and the Bishop ; and thirdly, in the knowledge (for I do know) that the attention of the country would certainly have been called to the Tract by some of those who are the worst enemies both of the Church and of the State, in which case the same subsequent proceedings would no doubt have been taken, but with less credit to 26 the University, and with less benefit or with greater harm to the Church. 5. I will not detain you by commenting on the necessity alleged " for the Tract ; by enquiring who they are who are subjected " to the temptation of joining the Church of " Rome, or to the necessity of withdrawing from the " Church as established, or to the misery of subscribing " with doubt and hesitation ;" or by asking what course of teaching or study has already sent them so far " strag- " gling in the direction of Rome," that such an expedient as this is necessary to keep them within our own pale. I will not trouble you by declaring my belief in the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, or my grief at learning that Clergymen can be found who, reject either the words or the sense of the words which express that doctrine in our Baptismal Service. I, who am not an advocate of Tract No. 90, may well be shocked when a Clergyman professes that " he uses the words of the Church, but in their ^/a«« " sense does not believe them." Neither will I say a word about the Tracts in general, of which I have read very little indeed. But I will in conclusion earnestly and very affectionately intreat you not to speak of yourself as being, for I have no fear of your actually being, one of a party within the Church. Do not get into the habit of classing yourself with others as a section, however large and respectable, still only a section, of the Church in which you are an ordained Minister ; and of saying, " We maintain" such and such doctrines, " We dare not give them up or not " profess them." Have not I subscribed and declared my unfeigned assent to the same Articles with yourself? Have not I been admitted into the same holy Orders with yourself.? And shall I, any more than yourself, fail " See Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf, pages 27, 28, 29. 27 to maintain, or dare to give up, the doctrines of our common Church ? 1 know you do not think so ; but why speak as if you did.? The most offensive (and not the least mischievous) part of Mr. Newman's Tract is the last para graph of lts"Conclusion,"ln whichhe styles himself and others Catholics, denying by implication that they are Protestants, and opposes them to other members of the same Church, whom he calls Protestants, denying by Implication that they are Catholics. Is the sacred title of Catholic Christian to be denied to me, an humble but (I trust) a faithful member and minister of the same Church with himself, because I revere, more than he does, the memory of those men, who at the cost or risk of their lives rescued from Popish tyranny and purified from Popish corruption the Church in this land, to which we both belong ; or because, " till Rome be other than It is," I am constrained, like Mr. Newman himself", to " enter my protest" against her errors .'' I am sure you do not think so, and possibly he does not ; but why does he speak as If he did ? And as I would not have you speak as belonging to a party within the Church, much less would I have you speak as though such a party had cause to expect per secution, " arbitrary and unjust decrees," nay, expulsion even, from other members and ministers of the same Church. Such language has long been held by the writers in the Tracts for the Times, and people wondered what it meant, and thought that the writers were only courting the persecution which they seemed so ground- lessly to anticipate ; until Mr. Perceval's Letter the other day, and Mr. Newman's recent Letter to the Bishop of Oxford ", explained that they were all the while thinking of o See Mr. Newman's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, page 21 ; Postscript to Dr. Je(/; page 1. P At page 12. 28 certain dangers, which seemed to threaten us eight years ago, but which by God's mercy have nearly or quite passed away. Can you now seriously expect persecution or any " arbitrary decree" either from me or from any one else.? If there be a necessity (I cannot see that there is, but if there be) for any one to withdraw from the Church as established, it is, as I said before, a necessity of his own fnding, if not of his own seeking; a necessity not forced on him by others, but placed in his way either by his own undisciplined studies, or by the vague and unguarded teaching which he has chosen to follow. Were I disposed to recriminate, I could quote language, both spoken and written, which might shew that persecution and expulsion are quite as likely to proceed from some of those persons, with whom, as with a party, you have in words mixed yourself. But unless you are strangely altered since you left Oxford, I am confident that if God should see fit to send any sore trial upon us, and either of us should accordingly be constrained to quit the established Church, we shall both quit it together. If you have borne with me thus far, I would also intreat you not to defer too much to the authority of any individual or number of individuals, however eminent they may be for learning and piety and every other quality which should command our respect and esteem. Do not surrender the exercise of your own judgment. Distrust it, but do not forbear to use it. Judge, not by yourself, but for yourself. You confess, while you write your Letter, that you have not read the Tract which gives occasion for your writing. And I suspect that you have not read the Letter to Dr. Jelf, by which you " suppose I " must be convinced that I had very materially mistaken " the scope and meaning of that Tract." For if you had read it, or had read it with a free judgment, you would have seen that although the writer aMrms that we had 29 misunderstood the Tract, he only prwes that we had misunderstood himself; or rather that we should have misunderstood him, if we had supposed (what we could not possibly suppose) that he, the Reverend John Henry Newman, himself stood in need of those strange interpre tations and subtle distinctions, and himself adopted those suggested doctrines, which were so startling in the Tract, while it was still anonymous and unqualified by any explanation. These instances are only trifles, but it is by trifles that habits are formed, and I would fain hope that in more serious matters your practice is different. Let me, however, beseech you to bear in mind that you are an appointed teacher of others, and that it is your duty to obtain your information and to form your judgment by the help of ail the means which God has placed in your power ; employing each in its proper order and degree, the authority of friends among (not to the ex clusion of) the rest ; using all, but neither abusing nor neglecting any. This Letter is very much longer than yours, but answers for the most part are naturally the longer of the two, and I have found it Impossible to be concise on a subject of which my mind and my heart are full. In my note the other day I thanked you for your Letter, taking it " as a " token of the most Christian friendship." Let me hope that mine is conceived in the same spirit, and that you will continue to believe me to be still, My dear , Your sincerely attached friend, JOHN GRIFFITHS. 30 P.S. Since the above Letter was written, I have seen Dr. Hook's Letter to the Bishop of Rlpon, in which he has thought fit to speak of the resolution of the Hebdomadal Board as an act of " a usurped authority." It appears also from a Letter In the Oxford Herald of April 17, signed " M.A. Oxonlensis," that the Rev. Edward Churton has in some pubHshed Letter censured the resolution as " an unjust encroachment, &c." There has been too a report in London that " the Bishops thought the reso lution was an interference with their authority," but I have been quite unable to ascertain that this idea has been expressed or entertained by any one of their Lordships, Now I have already said that I am In no way concerned to defend the Board : but as their resolution was in my opinion most important for the welfare of the University, I will quote a little in order to explain and support it. The following Letter to the Editor of the Standard appeared in that paper on March 20, and is supposed to have been written by a person of some eminence here. " Sir, " As some of the correspondents of the morning papers seem at a loss to understand the nature of the official document lately issued at Oxford with the Vice-Chancellor's signature, it may be as well to make it known, that it is an authoritative decla ration of the executive of the University as to the meaning of the Statutes, and is intended as a notice to all the Tutors of Colleges and Public Examiners, by virtue of certain Statutes recited in the preamble, that if they adopt such modes of inter pretation of the Thirty-nine Articles as are suggested in No. 90 of the ' Tracts for the Times,' they will do so at their peril. " ACADEMICUS.'' The Statutes of the University direct the Vice-Chan cellor to take care to check the use of all books by which 31 unsound teaching may be spread, " ut libri, quibus male- sanse opiniones propagantur, cohibeantur." Tit XVII Sect. III. §. 2. They direct the Vice-Chancellor with the Proctors and the Heads of Houses, that is to say, the Hebdomadal Board, to institute inquiries and to form plans for the observance of the Statutes and Customs of the University : " de Statutis et Consuetudinibus Universitatis observandis inter se tractent, inquirant, et consilium ineant." Tit. XIII. In regard to the Thirty-nine Articles, they direct that every Tutor shall instruct his pupils in them, " maxima in rudimentls religionis et doctrinae Articulis in Synodo Londini anno 1562 editls," Tit. III. Sect. 2; that every student shall be publicly examined in them. Tit. IX. Sect. II. §. 3 : and that every candidate for a degree, having recently read them or heard them read, shall publicly subscribe them. Tit. IX. Sect. V. §. 3. And they provide that every Tutor, who fails in his duty, may be corrected at the discretion of the Vice- Chancellor : " quod in quis in aliquo praedictorum deli- querit, arbitrio Cancellarii vel Vice-Cancel larii coerceatur." Tit. III. Sect. 2. All these Statutes, except the one about examinations, formed part of the code of Archbishop Laud. Wadham College, April 2], 1841. BAXTER, PRINTEII, OXFOKB. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 08561 8628 ^\