ceedings were taken1, and the statute of May 5, 1836, which made it impossible for the existing Regius Professor of Divinity, Dr. Hampden, to take part in the proceedings, were duly read. Then the sermon was read through; and this was followed by some desultory conversation respecting the course to be pursued. The meeting then adjourned, that its members might more carefully consider the contents of the sermon; and the Six Doctors may be presumed to have spent the next day, the Festival of the Ascension, in this employment. A letter from Pusey to his mother, on this day, suggests, among other points, an estimate of his judges which is widely different from that of the ViceChancellor, but in close agreement with that of the University generally.

Ascension Day, 1843.

I wish, my dearest mother, you could see how perfectly calm I am about my affairs. I commit them to God and feel that they do not belong to me or affect me. In many respects, it is a very good thing that I am the person it falls upon. Some things are as adverse as possible, as that the Provost of Oriel and the Warden of Wadham are among the assistants of the Vice-Chancellor; yet Jelf does not think it hopeless since he has consented to be one. I trust in my friends' prayers and that God will defend His truth; for that only have I spoken. All my friends say that good must come out of it somehow. So I am quite at rest. It seems as if something very momentous was going on, but that I had nothing to do but to wait for it, and pray and abide, as I trust, under the shadow of His wings, and be at rest. Be not anxious, my dearest mother: all will be right.

Ever your very affectionate and dutiful son,

1 De Concionibus, Tit. xvi. § 11: "De offensionis et dissensionis materie in concionibus evitanda. 1. Statutum est quod si quis pro concione aliqua, intra Universitatem ejusve praecinctum habita, quicquam doctrinae vel disciplinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae publice receptae dissonum aut contrarium, aut publica auctoritate ad tempus vel aliter prohibitum protulerit, sive protulisse ab ipso Vice-Cancellario suspectus, vel ab alio aliquo rationabilem suspicionis causam afferente delatus fuerit; quod postulanti ViceCancellario sive ejus deputato concionis suae verum exemplar, eisdem terminis conscriptum, virtute juramenti

E. B. PUSEY.

tradet; vel, si praetendat se exemplar non habere, de iis de quibus suspectus vel delatus fuit directe virtute juramenti respondebit.

2. Deinde vero Vice-Cancellarius sive ejus deputatus, verbis sensuve eorum quae in quaestionem vocantur in medium prolatis et rite perpensis, adhibito consilio sex aliorum S. Theologiae Doctorum (quorum unus sit S. Theologiae Professor Regius, si concioni interfuerit), si quem criminis objecti reum invenerit, eum pro arbitrio vel a munere praedicandi intra praecinctum Universitatis suspendet, vel ad ea quae protulit recantandum adiget.'

Condemnation without a hearing.

317

On Saturday, May 27, the Six Doctors met again, each bringing with him a written judgment on the sermon. Jelf alone would say that 'with much that is objectionable, in tone and language, and tendency, there is nothing tangible which can be called "dissonum" to our Church's teaching; there is to my mind clearly nothing "contrarium." The other five condemned the sermon, some in the general terms which betrayed a fatal want of familiarity with the subject, and Dr. Faussett and Dr. Hawkins with some attempt to justify their conclusion by an examination of passages. The Provost of Oriel wound up his criticism of the sermon by stating that he was

'further of opinion that the preacher did not design to oppose the doctrine of the Church of England, but was led into erroneous views and expressions, partly by a pious desire to magnify the grace of God in the Holy Eucharist, and partly by an indiscreet adoption, in its literal sense, of the highly figurative, mystical, and incautious language of certain of the old Fathers.'

Upon this, says the Vice-Chancellor,

'when each of them had delivered separately his opinion upon the sermon, the greater number of them in writing, I proceeded to declare that I considered Dr. Pusey guilty of the charge made against him—namely, that he had preached certain things which were either dissonant from or contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England.'

What these 'things' were was never publicly stated, and apparently for the reason that the judges were not agreed on them, and that the vague hostility to the sermon in which they were agreed would not bear general dis

cussion.

In his letter of May 22, Pusey had requested the ViceChancellor to choose that course allowed by the statute, which permits the accused to answer for himself.' It was true that the statute did not provide in express terms that the author of a delated sermon should be heard in explanation or defence of his language, and the Vice-Chancellor appears to have considered this omission as a sufficient reason for not granting Pusey a hearing. The Vice-Chancellor would seem to have forgotten that all laws, not

excepting University Statutes, presuppose some general principles of justice; and that nothing is more contrariant to English notions of justice than that a man should be condemned unheard. It is a rule of natural reason, well expressed by Seneca in words already quoted, 'Qui statuit aliquid, parte inauditâ alterâ, aequum licet statuerit, haud aequus fuit,' and is fully recognized in our Common law. The rules, however, of the Canon law are, perhaps, still more to the purpose, since a sentence of suspension brings Pusey's case under its jurisdiction. Among many passages that might be quoted two will suffice: 'Caveant judices Ecclesiae, ne absente eo, cujus causa ventilatur, sententiam proferant, quia irrita erit.' 'Absens nemo judicetur : quia et Divinae et humanae leges hoc prohibent1.'

The Vice-Chancellor cannot have been altogether unmindful of these considerations; and it would have been easy for him, as well as his duty, to have acquainted himself with the previous practice of the University of granting a hearing to those who were thus accused. Between the date of the passing of the statute de Concionibus and 1640, four cases are mentioned by Antony Wood; in each of them the inculpated preacher appeared in person before the ViceChancellor. There were at least four other cases after the Restoration, in all of which the same practice appears to have been followed. Regardless, however, both of principle and precedent, regardless of his character and his learning, Pusey was condemned without a hearing.

The Court next proceeded to discuss the penalty to be inflicted. 'It became necessary,' says the Vice-Chancellor, 'to consider what description and what degree of punishment should be awarded to the offence; and this I thought it right that I should take time to consider. And so the meeting separated.' The statute provided that the ViceChancellor might deal with the offender in one of two ways, namely, eum pro arbitrio vel a munere praedicandi intra praecinctum Universitatis suspendet, vel ad ea quae protulit recantandum adiget.'

1 Corp. Jur. Can., ed. 1879, vol. i. pp. 530-4.

Recantation or Suspension?

319

The Vice-Chancellor, then, had to choose between recantation and suspension; and the Six Doctors were unable to agree. One of them who had opposed a sentence of suspension during the debate, felt constrained on the following day to communicate to the Vice-Chancellor his change of opinion to the severer course.

THE PROVOST OF ORIEL TO THE REV. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR. Oriel College, May 28, 1843.

MY DEAR VICE-Chancellor,

As I openly expressed an opinion yesterday against any suspension for preaching in Dr. P.'s case, I think I am bound in fairness to tell you that upon reconsideration, and looking to the probable intention of the statute and probable effects of passing over this (and if this, then all future cases of objectionable preaching) with reference to young hearers and young preachers and our duty towards them-I am greatly shaken in my opinion, and indeed incline towards the opinion of those who thought suspension necessary.

In so very difficult a question I think you will not consider this note as intrusive. Ever yours most truly,

The Rev. the Vice-Chancellor.

E. HAWKINS.

The Vice-Chancellor has left his own opinion on record.

'Of the two,' he writes, 'I considered recantation as the less severe; and before therefore I proceeded to inflict the other, I thought it right to endeavour, if possible, to bring about a recantation. And foreseeing that if I should summon Dr. Pusey before me for this purpose in the presence of those who had adjudicated upon the sermon, it might happen that he would refuse to recant, and thus an interview painful to all parties might be productive of no beneficial result, I determined upon endeavouring to ascertain privately whether or not it would be likely that he might be induced to recant the offensive doctrine. Hence it became necessary to draw out from the sermon certain propositions, by his assent to or dissent from which his readiness to recant might be tested. Now this was a task of which I felt the extreme difficulty and delicacy. The propositions, if framed by myself alone, might be objected to on various grounds. The form, the substance, the expressions used, the conclusions which would legitimately be arrived at, might have been altogether unsatisfactory—or might have satisfied some among my coadjutors, and have displeased others. In order therefore to lessen the probability of such disagreement, I at once resolved to consult the Provost of Oriel.'

The Vice-Chancellor then submitted to the Provost a proposed form of 'recantation,' to which Pusey might assent. It was, as might be expected, a less exact and more vulnerable document than would have been devised by the Provost himself, who accordingly drafted another. This took the strange form of 'objections' to the sermon. O. C., May 30, 1843.

MY DEAR V. C.,

I have endeavoured so to frame the above objections as to avoid as much as possible any positions not expressly stated in the Articles, and I still think it very important (considering that your statement will be sure to be printed) to avoid laying down anything like new articles of faith, which might, I fear, be considered to be the effect of the larger form you had drawn up, and which might open the way to endless controversy.

With Dr. Pusey immediately indeed I quite agree with you that you ought to have no controversy. But if (which from his note is scarcely conceivable, at least with respect to one of the objections) he should desire to disclaim the opinions imputed to him, then he should do so in the exact words which your objections give, as in the answer to No. I, and so, mutatis mutandis, to Nos. 2 and 3. And such disavowal should perhaps be communicated first to the six D.D.s. If you wish me to call upon you I will wait upon you at any hour you may appoint.

The Rev. the Vice-Chancellor.

Ever yours most truly,

E. HAWKINS.

P.S. I think it also important that you should mention to Dr. Pusey the fact of there being general objections over and above these special objections-so reserving to yourself full liberty to act as you may judge necessary after you shall have received Dr. P.'s answer, containing, possibly, some partial recantation. For we must think of what is due to the young men. And I, for my part, have gone through this task as a surgeon is obliged to do in an operation, as an abstract duty, not allowing myself to think of the suffering of the patient.

The Vice-Chancellor adopted this ingeniously constructed document, presumably as a test of Pusey's readiness to make a complete and unqualified recantation of whatever was held offensive in the sermon, so as to escape further consequences. Dr. Jelf was selected to open communications with a view to applying this test. It may be