Oriel College - EH is not convinced that they are better judges of their own practical difficulties: 'You may perhaps take a calmer and better view of our circumstances from a distance'. WW is better qualified concerning ethical difficulties. 'But as to our subscribing according to the sense of the first publishers of the articles we did not refer to them exclusively but both to the original and the present Imponents as Waterland [Daniel Waterland?] does - but I assume that the sense of both is one and the same - and I imagine that this ought to be assumed unless the country is expressly declared. - I do not deny that a State may continue a Law in a sense different from that in which it was formed. You admit indeed that this scarcely applies to articles of faith...But in matters of fact I know of no change of sense as to the articles themselves. I suppose they are adopted by the Church of England now in the same sense in which the Church first issued them. Yet, considering the possibility of change of sense, it seems to me practically useful to lead the mind, in any such Declaration as we proposed, both to the consideration of the sense intended by the Church when she put forth the articles - which sense ought to be retained - and to the sense intended by the present Imponent - which sense ought specially to be observed by the persons who subscribe a Test - Tests, like oaths, being always to be taken in the sense of the actual Imponent'. With regard to the question, WW touches upon, respecting the Imponent, EH thinks 'the Church to be the Imponent originally and at present with respect to the members of the Church as such; but I should be glad to know your view as to the University being the actual immediate Imponent in our case. I imagine she is. Lawyers, I believe, doubt this; and therefore say we have no right, as the subordinate authority, to declare anything as to the meaning of articles imposed by the supreme authority. But in fact neither the Church, nor the State, obliges the university to subscription. It is purely the Act of the University - which has made it a law among us that all Tutors shall teach the 39 Articles' and all students subscribe to them at Matriculation and at Degrees. EH agrees with WW that 'our first business is with the actual language of the Articles themselves. I would collect, and do collect, the intention of the Imponent from the plain and obvious sense of the Articles - looking only to collateral aids to make out the sense where it is not plain and obvious; but still in the parts that are plain and in those which are obscure, seeking the intention of the Imponent'. Those persons they have to contend with would take any sense which the words could bear: 'they ask also how we are to know that the Church has not changed the sense in which she imposes the Articles. I think we ought to presume that her sense is what it has been', until the contrary is shown. Surely 'it is plain not less from the words of the articles themselves, than from the history, that they are, and were designed to be, opposed to Romish errors'. John Henry Newman's 'suggestions have been more than adopted and defended' by young Masters and Bachelors at Oxford: 'For to what purpose are our Articles if they are consistent with Romish errors?'.
