ute, it was said, neither
enjoined nor implied publicity. To this day no one knows what were the
definite passages, what was the express or necessarily involved heresy
or contradiction of the formularies, on which the condemnation was
based; nor--except on the supposition of gross ignorance of English
divinity on the part of the judges--is it easy for a reader to put his
finger on the probably incriminated passages. To make the proceedings
still more unlike ordinary public justice, informal and private
communications were carried on between the judge and the accused, in
which the accused was bound to absolute silence, and forbidden to
consult his nearest friends.

And of the judges what can be said but that they were, with one
exception, the foremost and sternest opponents of all that was
identified with Dr. Pusey's name; and that one of them was the colleague
who had volunteered to accuse him? Dr. Faussett's share in the matter is
intelligible; hating the movement in all its parts, he struck with the
vehemence of a mediaeval zealot. But that men like Dr. Hawkins and Dr.
Ogilvie, one of them reputed to be a theologian, the other one of the
shrewdest and most cautious of men, and in ordinary matters one of the
most conscientious and fairest, should not have seen what justice, or at
least the show of justice, demanded, and what the refusal of that demand
would look like, and that they should have persuaded the Vice-Chancellor
to accept the entire responsibility of haughtily refusing it, is, even
to those who remember the excitement of those days, a subject of wonder.
The plea was actually put forth that such opportunities of defence of
his language and teaching as Dr. Pusey asked for would have led to the
"inconvenience" of an interminable debate, and confronting of texts and
authorities.[106] The fact, with Dr. Pusey as the accused person, is
likely enough; but in a criminal charge with a heavy penalty, it would
have been better for the reputation of the judges to have submitted to
the inconvenience.

It was a great injustice and a great blunder--a blunder, because the
gratuitous defiance of accepted rules of fairness neutralised whatever
there might seem to be of boldness and strength in the blow. They were
afraid to meet Dr. Pusey face to face. They were afraid to publish the
reasons of their condemnation. The effect on the University, both on
resident and non-resident members, was not to be misunderstood. The
Protes