0 o n k i n

Tt

Ml-

D7

A DEFENCE

VOTING AGAINST THE PROPOSITIONS TO BE
SUBMITTED TO CONVOCATION
ON FEB. 13, 1845.

W. P. DONKIN, M.A.,
SAVILIAN PROFESSOR OP ASTRONOMY.

OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKER:
LONDON, KIVINGTONS.
M DCCC XLV.

OXFORD :
PRINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON.

A DEFENCE,

I publish my opinions on the questions which now agitate
the University, not because I think any one wishes to know
them ; still less to defend myself as if I were responsible to
any one for any vote which I may give in Convocation. But
for the sake of protesting as publicly as possible on behalf of
myself and others, against proceedings which I consider to be
not merely unwholesome and unnecessary for these times, but
mischievous, and dangerous to the University, the Church,
and the country.
It can hardly be necessary to dwell upon the fact that the
decision of Convocation, whatever it may be, upon the three
propositions to be brought before it ; whether it be considered
as judicial, legislative, or executive, or a mixture of all three,
can affect only the discipline, and not the doctrine of either
the University or the Church. That the religious belief of
any single individual should be seriously affected by a decree
of Convocation, will hardly be expected by any one in this
nineteenth century ; and we may assume that the most ardent
country clergyman who comes up to Oxford on the 13th inst.
will not imagine that he is attending a Council invested with
any power of determination in matters of faith.
What Convocation actually will determine, or attempt to
determine, is not what belief is true, but simply, what belief
may, or rather what may not, be openly professed by members
of the University, without incurring certain penalties. For it is
to be especially observed, that neither Convocation, nor any
human authority whatever, has or can have power to deter
mine what belief may be conscientiously and honestly held by
a man, in respect of any declaration which he may have sub
scribed. The legislator who attempts to do this will assuredly

meet with the same kind of success as the philosopher who
attempts to bridge over the gulf between the fyatvopevov and
the voovfievov. Assuming then the disciplinal character of
the proposed measures, let us examine them briefly under
this point of view.
Now it is, of course, the discipline of the University, and
not of the Church, which is sought to be enforced or im
proved. For the Church has its own judicial and executive
powers, and these are not appealed to. Let it then be ob
served, that should the two propositions respecting Mr. Ward
be affirmed, Convocation will have asserted that the Univer
sity, in demanding subscription of its members, does not
leave it to their own consciences to decide whether they can
subscribe honestly ; and also that it will have assumed and
exercised the power of deciding by a mere vote that certain
published opinions render their author liable to academical
penalties. With respect to the principle of Academical Subscription
thus established, whatever else may be said of it, it is un
questionably new, and liable to applications of which it is
impossible to foresee the character or define the extent.
Much might be said upon this point, but I am more anxious
to dwell upon the evils of deciding a judicial question by the
vote of a large assembly, in which deliberation and examina
tion are morally and physically impossible. Surely, if there
be any one principle in political science elementary and
indubitable, and confirmed by all experience, it is that no
good government can subsist without law, and that law is
useless or worse, unless administered by regularly constituted
courts according to fixed rules.
Now let it be observed that I am not defending Mr. Ward,
or his book, (of which I have read very little,) or his principle
of subscription, nor am I attacking them. What I maintain
is, that the proposed degradation will be simply a tyrannical
act of arbitrary power. In fact it bears this character on the
face of it. Mr. Ward is not alleged to have offended against
any statute; but certain passages published by him, are
alleged to be apparently inconsistent with his good faith in
making a certain declaration and subscribing the Articles.
In a mere club or voluntary association, such a proceeding

might be expedient or necessary; but that it should be
adopted in a corporation possessing a regular body of statutes,
and a regular court of justice, and able to appeal, should its own
resources prove insufficient, to the regular ecclesiastical and
civil laws of the country, would surely have been incredible
beforehand, but for the example of the somewhat similar pro
ceedings in the case of Dr. Hampden. And we should have
expected that the questions addressed by the Hebdomadal
Board to their legal advisers, would have for their object, not
to ascertain whether the House of Convocation has the power
of degradation in this case, but to discover what mode of pro
ceeding would be most in accordance with recognised forms
of justice, and tend most to a settlement of the important
practical questions arising out of the present circumstances of
the Church.
What has been said on this point seems to receive a
striking illustration from the fact, that the question of degrada
tion will, in all probability, be regularly argued, and finally
decided elsewhere.
These are some of the grounds upon which I, and I believe,
others, who with myself strongly disapprove of the modes of
interpretation adopted by Mr. Ward, nevertheless intend to
vote against the proposed measures. I say some of the grounds,
because I have endeavoured to confine myself strictly in all
that precedes to the realities of the question — omitting all
matters of mere form, whether in words or things. I have
not, for example, alluded to any supposed legal difficulties, nor
have I criticised the wording of the propositions under con
sideration ; not that I consider objections drawn from such
sources unimportant, but they have been sufficiently insisted
on by others, and there are undoubtedly substantial questions
at issue which demand an examination disembarrassed of any
thing like mere technicalities.
With respect to the proposed Censure of the 90th number
of the Tracts for the Times— it is difficult to understand its
object, or to foresee its effect. I shall only mention some of
the most obvious considerations suggested by it.
The preamble states, that "it is the declared purpose of
this University to maintain and inculcate the true Faith of
the Gospel." Upon which, the first reflection which must

occur to any one reviewing the modern history of the Uni
versity, can hardly fail to be that its most remarkable efforts
in this direction, have taken the line of persecution.
We have, first, the expulsion of six Undergraduates from
St. Edmund Hall, for holding prayer meetings ; then, after a
long interval, the proceedings against Dr. Hampden; after
that, the censure of Mr. Newman, followed by the suspen
sion of Dr. Pusey; next, the proposed degradation of
Mr. Ward ; and last of all, a renewed attack upon Mr. New
man's opinions, published four years ago.
Whether the University has during this period been de
claring its purpose of maintaining the truth of the Gospel, by
constant vigilance in the moral and religious training of its
junior members, by exercising a conscientious discretion in
the recommendation of candidates for Holy Orders, and by
defending, in the fair field of argument, such doctrines of the
English Church as have been from time to time perverted or
denied, are questions deserving of a more serious consideration
than they seem in these times to receive. Has the University
been careful to use such power as it possesses, of removing all
those amongst its members who are notoriously exercising a
corrupting influence upon their companions by the example
of habitual idleness, extravagance, or immorality ? Has it
ever attempted in good earnest to combat the great and
growing evil of the expenses of undergraduates ? If it be in
any considerable degree neglecting such duties as these, can
it, without hypocrisy, pretend to have at heart the maintenance
of the truth of the Gospel? Again, let us turn our attention
to the state of the country at large. Has the University in
any active way encouraged the preaching of the Gospel to
the poor? Has it suggested anything towards enlightening
the Heathenism of our large towns? Has it set itself to
oppose the actual adversaries of the Christian faith on their
own ground of philosophy, philology, or physical science ?
Has it undertaken any really important or difficult theological
question, practical or theoretical? Has it encouraged real
earnest moral or religious activity of any kind ?
But let us pass over these questions and look at the mea
sure itself, which, like the others, must be taken to be of a
disciplinal character, for of course it cannot be intended as

an authoritative determination of doctrine. Now, not to
mention the absurdity of calling upon Convocation to criticise
any book whatever, and especially a book published so long
ago, the only intelligible meaning of the proposition seems
to be, that it is an indirect attempt to define the sense
in which members of the University may subscribe the
Articles, and to settle questions which have hitherto been
left to the consciences of individuals ; and on this ground,
even if there were no others, I should vote against it.
But I refrain from dwelling any longer on the objections to
a measure in defence of which it is really difficult to imagine
what single plea can be alleged ; and, in conclusion, I would
earnestly call upon all members of the University who have any
influence in its government, to consider seriously, calmly, and
honestly, what are the real evils which at present threaten the
prosperity of the University, the Church, and the nation ; and
what are the corresponding duties which the University owes
to the nation, the Church, and itself: and then to say, whether
the assembling together of a multitude of men to spend their
energies of body and mind in tumultuously enunciating an
abstract proposition, or angrily attacking an individual who
happens to be prominent, or relentlessly pursuing into his
retirement another who has long ceased to be so — whether
such a proceeding be a movement tending to, or tending from,
the application of a real remedy. Is it seriously contended
that the crying evil in the University is dishonest subscription,
or that the cloud which hangs over the future prospects of
England owes its darkness to a Romanizing Theology ? Is
it the duty of the University to be perpetually yielding to
external pressure and popular clamour? Or is it not rather its
duty to repel every such attempt to divert it from its proper
ends ; to leave questions, with which it has no real concern,
to be decided by just and final authority ; and to employ its
own energies in the removal of those evils from which every
one engaged, whether as teacher or taught, in the education
of the place, is daily suffering ?

OXFORD : PRINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 0706