scribing the Articles with the dark conviction that they are protesting against a Church, which they have been taught to believe is, and has been for ages, unscriptural, anti-Christian, idolatrous, and apostatical, and condemning in one fell swoop its practices and its doctrines, or by signing them in the thought that, though they may seem to be doing all this, and are considered by the great mass of members (perhaps by the rulers of their Church?) to do it, yet they in their heart intend it not, because it is possible to interpret these unCatholic Articles in a Catholic way, by explanations hardly thought of before, perhaps hardly contemplated by some of those who proclaim them, when they subscribed. We repeat, that we believe this to be a melancholy alternative proposed to future subscribers; and we lament that any should be placed in it, the more because we see a clear and straightforward way out of the dilemma, and, to our minds, the only one which will save many a youthful heart a pang of remorse; -to refuse subscription. This is a bold proposal; but we must not shrink from it. Let us, however, approach it cautiously.

The purport of Tract No. 90 we suppose our readers in general to be acquainted with. It is to prove, that the Thirty-nine Articles would be, or are, no bar to intercommunion, between the Church of England and at least the Western Church. Every clergyman of the former is obliged to subscribe the Articles, every one of the latter is pledged to the decisions of the Council of Trent. Ordinarily, these two standards of belief are considered incompatible one with the other; and it has not been understood that the subscriber of the Articles could hold the doctrines of the Synod. Mr. Newman endeavours to prove that the Articles had not in view the doctrines of Trent, in what they declared;-first, because they were drawn up anterior to the Council; secondly, because their very tenour and wording prove them directed against certain abuses prevalent in the Church, which the Council itself in part condemned, and in no part approved. This, we believe, is a fair statement of his view; and we are far from regretting that he has taken it. On the contrary, we rejoice at it, for many reasons.

First, because it is an additional proof of the growing feeling, otherwise perhaps more clearly expressed, that the isolation of the Anglican Church is by no means a consoling, still less a boastful circumstance.

VOL. XI.-NO. XXL

R

Secondly, because it indicates an earnest desire to smoothen, if not to remove, the obstacles to restored intercommunion.

Thirdly, because it takes blame for the present state of things, instead of only casting it, as has been the usual practice in treating on these subjects.

Fourthly, because it indicates a practical regard towards union with the proper quarter,-the West, or Rome,-rather than vaguer, perhaps chimerical projects, of gaining strength by an alliance with Russians, Greeks, or Syrian Nestorians.

Fifthly, because earnestness in all these respects is manifested in express proportion to the pains taken, and the ingenuity employed, to bring the articles into possible harmony with the definitions of Trent.

For these reasons and more, we are glad to see a man like Mr. Newman anxious to disclaim condemnation of our doctrines, and to accustom men to judge them compatible with what they themselves consider (however erroneously) as entitled to reverence. Against the many things which both he, and some of his followers in the controversy, say of us, and of our practices, we own that we are weary of complaining. We are speaking now of the tone and not of the substance; the latter is fair subject of debate, and may be touched upon later (so far at least as shall not trench upon individual pending controversies), but the other we begin to feel that we had best submit to without murmuring. We will say "strike, but listen:" there is, thank God, merit in humiliation under injustice (even when unintentional), and we will endeavour to acquire it: there is, on the other hand, danger of irritation, and of being tempted to retort, or answer harshly, if one dwells too earnestly upon such things. Moreover, we have so often protested and gained nothing, so gravely denied and not been allowed credit, so gently entreated and not prevailed, that we must make up our minds to endurance; and if we cannot render our humanity-being but flesh-callous to the stings or lashes directed against us, we will endeavour to protect it by "the shield of that charity," which "beareth all things, and endureth all things," while it "thinketh no evil."*

That Mr. Newman's view of subscription would be variously appreciated, he of course must have foreseen. To many in the Church it has been acceptable as a boon, relieving their minds of a painful burden.

1 Cor. xiii. 5, 7.

Mr. Ward, whom we quote with satisfaction, both as one who has suffered in consequence of his opinions, and as one whose tone and manner are more congenial to our feelings than many others, thus opens his first pamphlet.

"Acquiescing as I do in the general principles advocated in Tract 90, and deeply grateful to its author for bringing forward in it a view of our formularies, full of comfort to myself and many others with whom I am acquainted, I am induced to say a few words with regard to Mr. Wilson's recently published Letter; not as being unmindful of the great evils to which direct theological controversy, unless great care be used on both sides, is apt to lead, but still considering that in the present case a view of part of our Articles, new in great measure at least to the present generation, will hardly meet with general acceptance till after full and fair discussion, and that those who feel difficulties in that view have a fair claim on those who advocate it, that their objections shall at least be considered."

We

The novelty of the interpretation proposed by Mr. Newman is here acknowledged, as far as regards at least the present generation of subscribers; and the writer of these lines must have subscribed before that interpretation had appeared. Supposing him, therefore, to be placed in circumstances where resubscription would be required, we may justly conclude that the principles on which he would give it, would be different from those on which he first subscribed. put not this case personally: we mean to speak of any one to whom Mr. Newman's new view is a source of comfort. If we may be allowed to draw a still further conclusion, we may say that subscription under the other alternative would now be considered by such a person the reverse of comfortable. On the other hand, it is contended that the proposed construction of the articles does them violence, is incompatible with straight-forward honesty, and contradicts all received modes of interpreting such documents. They ought, therefore, to be taken in their more popular sense; as condemning, that is, not merely some abuses, real or pretended, in the Church of Rome, but the very doctrines which she teaches.

Now, if we have to speak upon this subject, we own that we are somewhat embarrassed by one consideration. If we express ourselves opposed to the first of these views, it may appear as though we wished to cast those who hold it back upon the latter. Nothing, surely, can be further from our minds; for subscription to the articles in their popular sense,

as involving condemnation of our doctrines, we detest and abhor, as condemnation of the true doctrines of God's Church: whereas in subscription under the interpretation, "new to the present generation," we must regret and blame what appears like connivance at such condemnation. Eleazar would not eat lawful meats when dressed up, so that the people might consider them as forbidden;* and we would not have reverend, and learned, and devoutly-minded men, subscribe unCatholic articles, before their people, so as to appear to the world to pledge themselves to uncatholic doctrines, because, in spite of this outward form, there is a secret overlaid meaning, which will allow the subscriber to understand them in a different sense, not necessarily condemnatory of Catholic doctrines.

Mr. Ward enters perhaps more fully than any other writer upon the question which here naturally meets the enquirer; where is the proper key for opening the true sense of the articles? where their authoritative explanation? When one person makes oath, or subscribes conditions, or formularies prescribed by another, the ordinary and obvious principle is, that they are taken or subscribed, "juxta animum imponentis," according to the meaning or mind of the party requiring the subscription or oath. In ordinary circumstances of this character, the main point is to discover what is the "animus" or meaning of the "imponens:" who this is usually appears at once. But, in the present case, it is by no means so. The difficulty lies in discovering who it is that enjoins subscription, with a right to be considered the "imponens." Mr. Ward proposes the following hypotheses, maintained by various parties. 1. Are the original framers, Cranmer and others?

2. Is the convocation of 1571?

3. Or that of 1662?

4. Is the State?

5. Is the existing Church represented by its actual bishops?

To all these claims Mr. Ward answers negatively.

1. It is not the first Reformers, because "as well might a committee of the House of Commons, who are employed to draw up a bill, be imagined to be the imponens' instead of the whole legislative body."—A Few more Words, p. 8.

2 Machab. vi. 25.

2. The convocation of 1571 has no more authority than any other: e. g. that of 1662.

3. Nor has this any; because what ceased to exist one hundred and fifty years ago, cannot be considered the present "imponens."

4. As to the State, Mr. Ward rather implies than expresses a denial, leaving this theory (once, to all appearance, held by Froude) to those who consider the Anglican Church Pro

testant.

5. Regarding the existing Church, he intimates perplexities and difficulties, whether it be understood that a person signing under this theory, pledge himself positively to whatever the actual bishops may happen to hold (Dr. Hey's shocking system), or that he merely bind himself to teach no interpretation of the articles, which the existing Church deems inadmissible.--p. 11.

We cannot help thinking, that after this exclusion of the framers, the past Church, the present Church, and the State; from the office of "imponens" of the Articles, when they are actually proposed to a candidate for orders, or any other state requiring subscription, most readers will feel perplexed as to what is assumed to hold that office: and we are tempted to indulge them in the opportunity of conjecturing, feeling pretty sure that they will not easily succeed. In fact, we believe that many will rather descend to particulars from the excluded generals, and suppose that the chancellor of the university into which subscription gives admission, or the bishop who confers orders, or who inducts into a benefice, may perhaps be considered the "imponens." But while any one, so inclined, indulges in these speculations, we may be allowed, not boastfully but thankfully, to contrast our position under similar circumstances. When a Catholic receives a professorship, or takes a degree, or is consecrated a bishop, and indeed on many other occasions, he recites the Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV. In this, after the Creed, he asserts his belief of the doctrines defined at Trent, the doctrines supposed to be not rejected by the Thirty-Nine Articles. Now, in order to subscribe this formulary "with comfort," we do not suppose that any Catholic, whether in France, Italy, England, or Germany, ever thought of inquiring or discussing who was the "imponens," whether the Fathers of the council, or the Pope whose name it bears, or the commission who drew it up, or the present Church, general or national, or the bishop who receives it, or any one else. And why?