TO THE REVEREND THE VICE-CHANCELLOR.
Rev. Sir,
I take the liberty, with feelings of deep respect for yourself and the office which
you hold, to address a few words to you on the proceedings which have taken place
with regard to Dr. Pusey.
There is a point connected with them in which every Clergyman is deeply
interested who may be called upon to preach within the precincts of the University.
We have no means of discerning why the Board of Examiners have condemned the
Professor of Hebrew, and therefore, granting for the sake of argument that they are
right, no future Preacher can use their decisior^. as a beacon, and so avoid the
statements which have been prejudicial to him. It has always been understood that
the Statute in Tit. XVI. cap. 11. was intended to guard the interests of orthodoxy,
and prevent the intrusion of a false teacher into the pulpit of the University, but the
method which has been adopted in this case would seem to make a mere irutum
fulmen of the power. By the recent judgment no one is better instructed than before
as to what heterodoxy is or is not, for no principles have been vindicated and none
have been condemned. We know merely that a Preacher has been accused and
suspended, and for any thing that we can tell the same doctrine that he has delivered
may be delivered again in the same place with an utter unconsciousness on the part
of the preacher that he is committing an offence against sound teaching. Surely
such was not the intention of those who framed the Statute. The very title indeed,
" De materia offensionis evitanda" proves the reverse, for it would baffle the utmost
ingenuity to discover how to avoid offending when it is forbidden to discover in what
offence consists.
I observed that every Clergyman within the precincts of the University is
deeply interested in this matter, and lo each the adage may be applied — mea res
agitur paries cum proximus ardet — for no one can guard against those who strike
in the dark. Independently of this view of the question, which comes home
personally to all who may preach hereafter, surely the rules of plain dealing require
that publicity should be given to the reasons which have induced the Board to
condemn Dr. Pusey. When any censure is inflicted by Convocation it is the act of
a very numerous body. Several hundred persons, for example, acquiesced in the
Statute of 1836, regarding the Regius Professor of Divinity. In such a case, the
mere extent and variety of the mass from which the suffrages proceed is a guarantee
against any accusation of personality. But when the power of irresponsible
condemnation is placed in the hands of six individuals, several of whom are

understood to dissent in general from the person whom they are to judge, is it not
absolutely requisite that the utmost openness should attend whatever they do, were
it only for the sake of maintaining the character of the tribunal .? The opinions of
the Professor of Divinity were in 1836 specifically detailed in extracts from his
writings, printed in italic characters, and circulated all over the country. That
gentleman by this means knew well what he had to defend or excuse; and the
University wishes no more for Dr. Pusey.
I would ask very respectfully. Sir, and I trust there is no impropriety in my
doing so, what reason can the Members of the Board themselves allege for silence?
Either they have not found a cause for condemnation, or they have found one, yet
do not venture to announce it. It is impossible to suppose the former case, for to
take advantage of the Statute to condemn a person in whom they discover nothing
wrong would be malversation of judgment — and to conclude that the other suppo
sition is correct, would be to impute to them a fear of the consequences to their
own reputation, if the public and the Hebrew Professor were once in possession of
the reasons of their decision. This appears to be the dilemma in which they are
placed by keeping silence, and from which they could at once free themselves by a
specific mention of the matters in which they conceive Dr. Pusey to have been
guilty of erroneous teaching.
My apology for presuming to address you must be found in the state of
perplexity to which, as one of many Clergymen, I find myself reduced by the late
proceedings. It is needless to add, that I write entirely at my own suggestion, and
for the sake of making an endeavour to be released from the painful feeling of
insecurity which this silent condemnation must necessarily superinduce.
I remain. Rev. Sir, with much respect.
Your obliged and faithful Servant,
A BACHELOR OF DIVINITY.
Magdalen College, June 5, 1848.

BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 0201

«.

,* 'i<?!

i<t .."•'.