the sermon, explaining his sentiments at greater length with reference to the passage which was the most likely to be misconstrued; and he both prefaced his copy of the sermon, and accompanied it throughout, with parallel passages from older divines and from the fathers, intended to justify the expressions which he had employed.

But the judgment upon the sermon was only the first stage of the proceedings. The Vice-Chancellor having now to consider the question as it respected the writer, could not forget that a writer's meaning might be misapprehended, or his expressions admit of qualification or correction; and even if in themselves censurable, might be no proof that the author entertained "unsound opinions." For the purpose of preventing such misapprehensions, therefore, he entered into communication with Dr. Pusey, in the interval between the delivery of the judgment upon the sermon (May 27) and the sentence issuing against the preacher (June 2).

It is true, the Vice-Chancellor, who is as kind as he is upright, did not desire the writer to wait upon him, nor did he call upon the writer, nor did he consider it his duty to enter into controversy with the preacher concerning points of doctrine, and did not in this sense hear him; but he sent to Dr. Pusey, by his most intimate friend, written papers, stating the specific objections taken to his discourse, and giving him opportunity to disclaim any meaning improperly attached to his expressions, and to declare his adherence to those parts of our Articles and formularies with which, under such_imputed meanings, his expressions had appeared to be at variance. Dr. Pusey replied to these communications at some length, but the papers not having proved satisfactory to him, and his answers having failed to satisfy the Vice-Chancellor, the result was made known to the assessors, and the sentence issued.

It is deeply to be regretted that these communications proved abortive. But I trust that the account of the proceedings in this painful case, which I have now laid before your lordship, will not be altogether unsatisfactory to your mind and sense of justice. Little did those who censured our conduct, and misconstrued our silenee, enter into our real feelings. It is sufficiently painful to any thinking man to be obliged to pass censure upon another, much more to condemn an individual with whom, as in this instance, all the judges were associated in friendly intercourse, and whom several regarded with cordial affection. We were quite incapable of doing him intentional injustice. And assuming, as I am obliged to do, the correctness of our verdict (which is not the point in question, and will not again, I hope, become a subject of useless and hurtful controversy), we trust that our proceedings were substantially just. It is superfluous to add, that an expression of a more favourable construction of our conduct by your lordship would be a gratification to us; and, in truth, we think ourselves entitled to it. But your lordship will not, I hope, be surprised, or regard us as wanting in courtesy or respect, if, considering the weight of your censure, or apparent censure, and the publicity which it has acquired, we should think it right to make this letter also public.

I am, my dear lord,

Your lordship's most faithful servant,
EDWARD HAWKINS.

P.S. I am authorized by the late Vice-Chancellor, and such of his assessors as are now in Oxford, to say that they approve of this letter, and wish that it should be published.

The Lord Bishop of Exeter, &c.

TO THE REV. THE PROVOST OF ORIEL COLLEGE.

Bishopstowe, Jan. 3, 1845.

MY DEAR SIR,-I have rarely been more surprised than by perusing your letter of the 31st ult., which I have this day received. It had not before oc

"

curred to me that any one could construe my letter to Mr. Marsh Phillips, as containing strictures on the conduct of the late Vice-Chancellor and his assessors, in the judgment upon Dr. Pusey's sermon;" for I not only used the words cited by you, that "the authorities in Oxford had exercised the power belonging to them according to the conscientious judgment of those who had to exercise it," but I also added, that "I did not presume to question the justice or wisdom of that judgment."

My adverse observations were most explicitly limited to the principles of the law which you had to administer; and even of that law I said that it must not be judged of without recollecting the " very special duties of caution and jealousy" which belonged to "an university as such."

You say, "possibly your Lordship did not mean to cast any reflections on our conduct." I answer that until I read your letter I should have judged it impossible that any person could see in what I had said the slightest indication of such an intention.

You add, "But the public, I fear, will interpret your words otherwise." I answer, that I have too much respect for the understanding of the public to participate in your fear. If, however, you still think otherwise, I should not have the slightest objection to your publishing your letter, together with this my answer; nor should I inquire whether you are, or are not, entitled, as you assume, to any expression of my "more favourable construction of your conduct," were it not for the other matter in your letter.

For I protest against the injustice of your making an unnecessary defence against an unreal charge ascribed to me, to be the vehicle of those disclosures of the particulars of the conduct of the late Vice-Chancellor and his assessors towards Dr. Pusey which have hitherto (for whatever reason) been withholden.

Of those particulars I will only say, that while they do not in the slightest degree reconcile me to the principle of the law of the university, as a rule for myself in administering the discipline of my diocese, I gladly recognise in them that spirit of kindness, candour, and equity, which, whether required by the academic law or not, I should always expect to find actuating the late ViceChancellor and his assessors in administering it.

You will do me the justice of recollecting, that I am not now for the first time distinguishing between that law and its administrators. In answer to a letter from the committee (of which I believe you were a member) for conducting the election of the present Vice-Chancellor in October last, I expressed my regret that an indispensable engagement (a confirmation fixed on the day of the election) would prevent me from making a journey to Oxford for the mere purpose of recording, by my vote, my sense of the injustice of the opposition to Dr. Symons, because he had, in Dr. Pusey's case, couscientiously performed a painful duty which was forced upon him.

I am, my dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

H. EXETER. P.S.-If you persist in the purpose of publishing your letter to me, which for the reason I have given I think highly improper, I request that this my answer be published with it.

If my memory does not deceive me (and I really have not opportunity or leisure to ascertain the point), a memorial to the late Vice-Chancellor, subscribed by Mr. Justice Coleridge and many others, in the last year proceeded on those very grounds which you seem to imagine were first put forward by me in my letter to Mr. March Phillips.

TO THE LORD BISHOP OF Exeter, &c.

Oriel College, Jan. 4, 1845. MY DEAR LORD,-I lose no time in expressing my regret that the expres sions to which I referred in your lordship's letter to Mr. March Phillips should

have been misunderstood. Had your objections been supposed to relate only to the statute, I should not have taken the liberty of replying to them, it is very possible that the statute might be altered with advantage.

Let me also apologise for having already printed my letter of December 31st, without previous communication with your lordship; which, indeed, was not contemplated when I began the letter, but was judged advisable by those with whom I had acted, as well as by myself, when your observations had already occasioned, as we had reason to believe, a revival of the old objections, directed not against the principle of the statute, but against its administrators, against our "construction of the statute," and our proceedings under it. Your lordship's letter of the 3rd inst. shall now, according to your desire, be published without delay, together with this apology.

But allow me to return my thanks for your kind expressions respecting the late Vice-Chancellor and his assessors: and to mention, that not having been a member of the committee to which you refer (having been absent, indeed, from Oxford whilst it was sitting), although I had heard with much pleasure of your lordship's wish to record your vote in favour of the Chancellor's nomination of Dr. Symons, I had not seen your letter to the committee, and was not aware of the sentiments which it expressed.

Let me repeat my regret that I should appear to have needlessly occupied your lordship's time and attention, and my great satisfaction that there is no room for trespassing upon them again-no occasion, indeed, I would willingly hope, for any future recurrence to the painful subject of our correspondence. I am, my dear Lord,

Your Lordship's faithful and obedient servant,

EDWARD HAWKINS,

CHURCH MATTERS.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY'S PASTORAL LETTER. THE letter which his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury has addressed to the clergy and laity of his province, has (as might have been expected) been received in a very different spirit by different parties. Those who are desirous of peace, have found in it such recommendations to forbearance, to consideration for the scruples and consciences of others, and to abstinence from needless change and innovation, as have made them thankful that the Providence of God should have placed in the highest dignity of our church, at such an eventful crisis, a prelate of so much wisdom and meekness. And, there can be no doubt, the great majority of the respectable laity, as well as of the clergy, have read this document with unmingled satisfaction. There was, in truth, no reason to apprehend the contrary. Men have begun to tire of a controversy, which never at any time involved questions of real moment or concern. The only questions, which sensible men felt to be of importance, were, the obligation of the rubric on the consciences of the clergy, and the degree of connexion between the use of the offertory, or the surplice in preaching, and the peculiar tenets of Mr. Newman's party. Certain it is, that vast numbers of laymen, of real earnestness and deep attachment to VOL. XXVII.-February, 1815.

P

the church, have more or less openly resisted these changes, who have been all along ready to acknowledge, that the things in themselves were indifferent, and not worth contending about. True, they have a dislike to change in divine worship, simply because it is change, and without any examination of the grounds on which the change is proposed to be introduced. And repugnance to changes and innovations in the divine service is not a feeling to be despised or disregarded. In itself it is plainly right, and deserving of respect. But, though the lay members of the church have this dislike to unnecessary deviations from what they have been accustomed to, there is no reason to suppose that either of the alterations in dispute would have been very strenuously resisted, if at all, had they been made some twenty years ago. In most instances, it may be doubted whether the change would have excited much attention. The laity would have concluded that the alterations must be right and proper, or else respectable and zealous clergymen would not have made them. If a bishop had recommended the change, few, if any, would have ever thought of making any question. This has not at all been sufficiently considered by the parties engaged in the late unhappy disputes. But the truth is, and it is vain to disguise it, these alterations have, somehow or another, become associated, and even identified, in the minds of the laity, with the Romanizing tendencies and designs of Mr. Newman's party. And, whether this association of ideas be just or not, as long as it continues to exist, it would be wholly vain and fruitless for any one who desired the confidence of the flock intrusted to his care to attempt to introduce them. Whether a clergyman is absolutely bound, in conscience and by his vows, to make these changes, come what may, is another question, and a serious one but for any one who does not believe himself to lie under so stringent an obligation, the act of introducing a change, at a time when his doing anything of the sort will inevitably destroy the confidence of his parishioners in his attachment to the church of England and the English Reformation, is an act plainly irreconcileable with his duty. Those who have been led to fear, lest possibly their abstaining from introducing these changes may have involved a neglect of duty and disregard of conscience, cannot but have felt the archbishop's letter a most timely relief; setting forth, as it so clearly does, both the uncertainty of the rubric on the questions in dispute, and the general principle which this uncertainty involves. For no justification can be given for departing from long established usage, to the unsettling of men's minds by disputes, unedifying, and therefore mischievous, except the clear and unquestionable meaning of the law the clergy are bound to obey, and the rubric they have promised to conform to. So high an authority having now spoken to the fact of the meaning of the rubric being uncertain upon the disputed points, it may seem presumptuous to say anything that would appear as if corroboration could be needed. But this much the writer trusts may be said without impropriety, that a more attentive study of the rubric, and of the history of the church of England in connexion with liturgical questions, would lead those who have hithertò spoken positively and

dogmatically, as if there could be no difficulty in the matter, to distrust the accuracy of their judgment. And this moderation of tone in the Primate's letter cannot, under these circumstances, but lead to the happiest results; softening asperities, checking the use of harsh and positive language, justifying those who are thankful to feel at liberty to maintain peace and unity by complying with the wishes and even the prejudices of their parishioners, and putting a stop, among all who value the respect of their brethren in the ministry, to any further innovations.

Of course the accents of peace can never be very gratifying to those whose hearts are set on war. The Times, which, having done everything it could to promote these changes and innovations until within these few weeks, has latterly (if the world be not misinformed, from no other cause than to gratify some private pique of a person connected with the paper), turned right about, and is now exposing itself to the contempt and abhorrence of all sensible and right-minded persons, by the outrageous insolence with which it is commenting on the Primate's letter. To such a writer the tone and spirit of the pastoral letter is simply unintelligible. Without any conception of the influence which the meekness of wisdom gives to authority and exalted station among gentlemen and Christians,— totally and absolutely ignorant of the difficulties which surround the explanation of these rubrics, The Times, has utterly forgotten that the Primate, in as far as he was addressing the clergy, was addressing a body of gentlemen and scholars, from whom an expression of a wish from such a source was sure to meet affectionate respect and deference. The Times seems to think, that the Primate should have threatened the clergy with the treadmill; and have recommended the laity to brow-beat and over-awe their pastors into submission. And yet there may be other reasons for abstaining from such threats and advices, besides their being unnecessary. But unnecessary they are: The Times will find it so. All its wicked attempts to turn into ridicule one whom no good man had ever named with disrespect, will recoil on its own head. People-intelligent, reflecting men of business,-who for a time were led astray by The Times in its crusade against authority, have been shocked by its late extravagances and tergiversations. They have begun to recollect-The Times has driven them to recollect it- that only a few weeks ago The Times was maligning and insulting the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, for some very mild censure which his lordship had passed on Mr. Newman's party, and was holding up to admiration "by way of contrast"-the Bishop of Exeter-yes, the Bishop of Exeter-the very Bishop who, if he has escaped being hooted or stoned in the streets of his cathedral city, it is not owing to the remissness of that amiable personage-" Our own Reporter," whom The Times employs to goad the ignorant mob to acts of violence. Quiet and respectable men remember this. They cannot forget it. Neither can

*The young clergyman will find Mr. Robertson's most useful work afford him much assistance in his inquiries.