tion were dispersed, an address of thanks to the proctors was pretty numerously signed; among the signatures to which, were those of Mr. Gladstone, Judge Coleridge, Dr. Hook, Archdeacon Manning, and Sir W. Heathcote. A requisition to the Vice-Chancellor also received many signatures, requesting him that, as the university had, by the intervention of the proctors, been prevented from expressing an opinion on Tract 90, the matter might again, after the least possible delay, be submitted to convocation.' There are some points in Mr. Ward's defence, which, on account of the light they throw on the present state of principles and parties, require a few remarks; his defence, we mean, as contained not only in his oral vindication on the memorable 13th of February, but especially as it is exhibited in a more consecutive and logical manner in his 'Address to Members of Convocation,' published some time previously. And in the outset we wish to do full justice both to the talents which it displays, and the spirit which it breathes. Mr. Ward, though he has his weak points, is assuredly not an opponent to be despised; he has much logical acumen, united with great warmth of manner and force of expression; he has both courage and address, and generally manages to convert a defence into a vigorous attack. There also appears an openness which is above suspicion, and a remarkable sincerity, even in the evasion and duplicity which he practises and acknowledges. There is also manifested a far greater disposition than might have been expected, to tolerate the opinions of others, and to remain on terms of peace with all in the church, however opposite may be their views. But what this spirit, whereever it now exists, might become, if once the Romanizing party ruled the university, is matter of some apprehension. Popery full and rank becomes apparently lamb-like when its talons are cut, its fangs extracted, and its movements restricted by a chain; but with liberty and power to work out its will, it is ever to be feared. The violence and malignity with which the yet masked tractarians assailed Dr. Hampden, and the persevering agitation per fas et nefas by which they succeeded in raising a storm of persecution against him-much to the present regret of many who took part in it-together with the general character of their more recent movements, in and out of the university, show, in a manner which cannot be mistaken, what may be expected, should that body, of which Mr. Newman is the general and Mr. Ward the champion, ever obtain uncontrolled ascendency. The groundwork of Mr. Ward's defence is this, if he has done wrong in thus forcing the articles, or, as Mr. Oakeley would say, extorting them, to speak sentiments which they do not really mean, others are equally culpable with reference to the Prayer Book and its services. No man, he affirms, can subscribe to all the formulas in a natural sense, he has therefore done only what others do. But no recrimination, however just, can make wrong right. The moral quality of the action is the same, however many may participate in similar guilt. Such a plea may be valid against the infliction of punishment by those who are equally culpable; but it cannot give the character of rectitude to a violation of truth, nor justify a departure from honesty and good faith. Mr. Ward, with great adroitness and force, charges those who hold evangelical doctrine especially with inconsistency in blaming him; but he has undoubtedly, in some instances, both overstated and misstated their principles. He has looked at their tenets through a medium of his own, which has presented them to his mind discoloured and distorted. He has drawn from their sentiments inferences which they who hold them deny; he has charged on all, what may have been found ultra in any, and has made no discrimination where many differences exist. It has been alleged in reply, that there is an important difference between articles of faith and forms of devotion, that it is by the former that the latter are to be interpreted, and that the expressions in the offices and services of the church, are, according to the 6th Article, to be interpreted by a reference to the scripture as the primary rule. Whatever force there may be in such a reply, certainly there is a wide difference in the position of the evangelical and the Romanist, who both subscribe. By education perhaps, by habit, and by strong predilection, those who decidedly hold evangelical truth, have become so accustomed to regard as accordant with their views, modes of expression, which to others appear quite opposed to them, that they are seldom, probably, aware of discrepancy. Romanists, in subscribing the Articles, perceive and acknowledge how decidedly they are against them, at least in their natural sense; and it was not till the publication of the jesuitical expedient proposed in Tract 90, that they knew how to reconcile their subscription to protestant articles with the belief in popish doctrines. Those who are evangelical do not professedly 'evade' the natural meaning of expressions, divorce the dry wording' from their spirit, and put a 'non-natural' signification on them; they do not admit, that while the obvious meaning of catechism or prayer book is as plain as words can make it on the (un)evangelical side,' they designedly explain it away, and put on it an unnatural sense; they do not claim the right of holding doctrines which they do not teach; they do not declare that their faith, their love, their sympathies are with another church which the articles of their own church evidently condemn; there is no other ecclesiastical community which, while they enjoy the emoluments and advantages of the English church, they consider much nearer the scriptural truth, in which infallibility resides, from which it is a sin to separate, and to which the church of England, if she would listen to divine teaching, would return, seeking reconciliation with penitence for her long continued schism. There are then, we must, and we do cheerfully admit, notwithstanding the cleverness and ingenuity with which Mr. Ward has put the case, important particulars in which, while both make the same subscription, the evangelical portion of the church differ materially from the Romanists in their position; but still we must, in all fairness, say that Mr. Ward has pressed them with difficulties from which we see not how they can escape. We can have no wish to depreciate that portion of the established clergy with whose views of Christian doctrine we so nearly sympathize; but as parties unconnected with the litigants on either side, our verdict, given with impartiality, and after due deliberation, is, that they are not, and cannot be, entirely exonerated from the charges which Mr. Ward brings against them. If some of the 'formularies' are, as Mr. Newman acknowledges in his preface to Tract 90, 'ambiguous,' so that, while capable of another sense, each may fairly use them according to his own views, there are several parts of the church service and the catechism which cannot be taken in an evangelical sense without a very forced construction. A few instances briefly stated will be sufficient to show that we do not unadvisedly speak thus. Regeneration, according to the evangical doctrine, is a divine change wrought in the soul, by the Holy Spirit of God, by means of the truth of the gospel, and is evermore accompanied by repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ;' consequently, baptismal regeneration is regarded as an error unscriptural and dangerous. But to us it appears undeniable that baptismal regeneration is, in the most distinct manner, taught in the church formularies. So far Mr. Ward and the tractarians are right. The object in bringing the infant to baptism is stated to be that he may receive what by nature he cannot have; that he may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost.' The prayer requests God to' wash him and sanctify him with the Holy Ghost'-' that he, coming to the holy baptism, may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration.' And after the performance of the rite, the priest declares that this child is regenerate,' and thanks are presented that it hath pleased God to regenerate' the infant with his Holy Spirit.' As soon as the child can repeat his catechism, he is taught that in his baptism he was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.' When the child, now grown up into youth, receives the rite of confirmation, his regeneration is thus recognized by the high authority of the bishop: Almighty and everlasting God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants by water of the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them forgiveness of all their sins,' &c. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration may be denounced as unscriptural, second only to transubstantiation in its absurdity, and probably exceeding it in its mischievous tendency, but to deny that it is the teaching of the Prayer-book is to fly in the face of common sense, and to destroy the legitimate use of words. Passing by the visitation of the sick, which in its priestly absolution is as popish as any Romanist could wish, what can be said of the burial service? The evangelical minister believes that those only who die in the Lord' are blessed; that, without a renewed heart and a living faith in Christ, there is no hope of salvation. But when the infidel, the drunkard, the prostitute is placed in the grave, is not the priest obliged to declare that it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of the dear departed brother or sister, whose body is therefore committed to the ground in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life;' and to pronounce over him or her the blessing of those who die in the Lord'? There cannot possibly be any ambiguity here, as, after speaking of the happiness of the souls of the faithful whose departed spirits are with the Lord, it is added, 'We give Thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased Thee to deliver this our brother (or sister) out of the miseries of this sinful world.' How can these expressions be reconciled with evangelical belief? Must not Mr. Ward's mode of interpretation be here, to a certain extent, applied? Must not the plain meaning be ' evaded' or 'explained away,' and a sense put on the words, divorced from their spirit, altogether 'non-natural?' And leaving those who profess evangelical truth, what party is there, of any principle or of no principle, that can entirely escape the sweeping condemnation of Mr. Ward? How can the liberal school subscribe their approbation to the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed? How can the Sabellians, or quasi Sabellians, and we are informed there are many-or the Arians of various shades, subscribe to its definitions? How can the numerous class of men who preach morality as the ground, in whole or in part, of our acceptance with God, sign the Article on justification by faith only? How can the rigid Calvinists of the school of Romaine, or that of Dr. Hawker, subscribe the thirty-first Article, or the decided Arminian, subscribe the seventeenth? Neither the Articles nor the Prayer-book will accord with the faith of some; and of those who feel perfect freedom in the one, many work in bondage' in the other. We believe Mr. Ward was not far from the mark, when he said that the spirit of the teaching furnished by the Prayer-book is not only different from, but absolutely contradictory to that of the Articles; and that 'a great deal might be said on this point-that all heads of colleges, fellows, and clergymen of the church of England, had, as he felt sure they must have done, subscribed in a non-natural sense.' If anything had been wanting to prove, in the most convincing manner, how completely subscription to articles and creeds has failed of its object, that deficiency has, we think, by the recent controversies, been amply supplied. Where is that consent touching true religion, and that avoiding of diversities of opinions,' which, in the royal 'declaration' of 'the supreme governor of the church of England,' constituted the very end for which these Articles were framed, and subscription to them. demanded? In vain, by the Act of Uniformity, were two thousand of the most valuable and conscientious ministers ejected from their livings; what uniformity has been secured which is not hollow, insincere, deceptive?-a name without a thing; a sign without what is signified; a mere semblance of union externally exhibited, while, except where the apathy of spiritual death prevails, all is discord and disagreement. Opposite sentiments and irreconcileable antipathies still, as in every past period, prevail. And it is truly lamentable to consider what is the present condition of a church which has sacrificed with such profusion the property, the liberties, the lives of the holiest of men, to the idol of uniformity. Is it not now-and we speak it not with pleasure, we indulge in no unholy triumph-is it not now convulsed, divided, distracted with contentions; and besides embodying in its members and its clergy almost every form of doctrine orthodox and heterodox, with all the intermediate gradations, are there not parties of the most opposite sentiments ranged under their respective banners, waging with each other an internecine war? Are the universities, those nurseries of the clergy, and as we are told, the conservators of sound theology, harmonious in their teaching? Are the bishops, who claim to be the representatives of the apostles, agreed? Are the doc. trines taught through one diocese consentaneous? Is the same gospel generally preached in the different pulpits of the same town? Is not the church of England at the present moment a kingdom divided against itself? Among all the controversies of the different, bodies of evangelical nonconformists with each other, which, with all the evils connected with the warm discussion of those points on which conscientious men differ, exhibit a large amount of life, and health, and freedom, place a check in the peculiarities of each, and keep alive a spirit of enquiry, is there anything so lamentable as the strifes and conflicts now raging in the English church? |