The debate surrounding the ‘degradation’ (removal of degrees) of the Revd William George Ward by fellow graduates of Oxford University in February 1845 raised fundamental questions: Who teaches the true faith and on what authority? This chapter focuses upon two means of communication that came to the fore in response to the Ward case, which was more to do with theological beliefs and principles than liturgical practices: first, the almost daily exchange of private letters between key individuals, enabling anxieties to be expressed and party tactics worked out; and second, the printing of pamphlets, often in the form of open letters, which provided a means by which more fully developed arguments could be circulated rapidly. Once again, the communication revolution associated with the uniform penny post and the expansion of the railways changed the pace of events and of the exchange of ideas. Opposing sides in the battle for votes in the Ward case shared drafts of pamphlets by post, offered moral support to colleagues and vented strong emotions on ecclesiastical matters that meant the world to them.

I present several challenge cases to Knowledge Counter-Closure based on inference from a true-but-unknown premise and discuss their significance. I argue that Keith DeRose's attributor contextualism and Jason Stanley's interest-relative invariantism face problems preserving Knowledge Counter-Closure. I close the chapter by examining Branden Fitelson's argument for the possibility of knowledge from essential falsehood. I show that our examination of knowledge from true-but-unknown premises provides the resources to respond to Fitelson's arguments, and underwrite the view that knowledge from essential falsehood is not genuinely possible.