I first received a temporary discomfort about the 39 Articles from an irreligious young man, who had been my schoolfellow; who one day attacked the article which asserts that Christ carried “his flesh and bones” with him into heaven.  I was not moved by the physical absurdity which this youth mercilessly derided; and I repelled his objections as on impiety.  But I afterwards remembered the text, “Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God;” and it seemed to me as if the compiler had really gone a little too far.  If I had immediately then been called on to subscribe, I suppose it would have somewhat discomposed me; but as time went on, I forgot this small point, which was swallowed up by others more important.  Yet I believe that henceforth a greater disposition to criticize the Articles grew upon me.

The first novel opinion of any great importance that I actually embraced, so as to give roughness to my course, was that which many then called the Oriel heresy about Sunday.  Oriel College at this time contained many active and several original minds; and it was rumoured that one of the Fellows rejoiced in seeing his parishioners play at cricket on Sunday:  I do not know whether that was true, but so it was said.  Another of them preached an excellent sermon before the University, clearly showing that Sunday had nothing to do with the Sabbath, nor the Sabbath with us, and inculcating on its own ground a wise and devout use of the Sunday hours.  The evidently pious and sincere tone of this discourse impressed me, and I felt that I had no right to reject as profane and undeserving of examination the doctrine which it enforced.  Accordingly I entered into a thorough searching of the Scripture without bias, and was amazed to find how baseless was the tenet for which in fact I had endured a sort of martyrdom.  This, I believe, had a great effect in showing me how little right we have at any time to count on our opinions as final truth, however necessary they may just then be felt to our spiritual life.  I was also scandalized to find how little candour or discernment some Evangelical friends, with whom I communicated, displayed in discussing the subject.

In fact, this opened to me a large sphere of new thought.  In the investigation, I had learned, more distinctly than before, that the preceptive code of the Law was an essentially imperfect and temporary system, given “for the hardness of men’s hearts.”  I was thus prepared to enter into the Lectures on Prophecy, by another Oriel Fellow,—­Mr. Davison,—­in which he traces the successive improvements and developments of religious doctrine, from the patriarchal system onward.  I in consequence enjoyed with new zest the epistles of St. Paul, which I read as with fresh eyes; and now understood somewhat better his whole doctrine of “the Spirit,” the coming of which had brought the church out of her childish into a mature condition, and by establishing a higher law had abolished that of the letter.