תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

Had we space, we might say something on such obvious points as the unfairness of this proceeding now ; if the Heads of Houses had thought it right to interfere with this standard of interpretation, this ought to have been done in 1811. Can it be that they

Before the question “ Placetne, &c.” is put, the Vice-Chancellor will give Mr. Ward an opportunity of answering to the charge of having published such passages so inconsistent as aforesaid.

If this Proposition is affirmed, the following Proposition will be submitted to the Hlouse :That the said William George Ward has disentitled himself to the rights and privileges con

veyed by the said Degrees, and is hereby degraded from the said Degrees of B.A. and

M.A. respectively. Before the question “ Placetne, &c.” is put, the Vice-Chancellor will give Mr. Ward an opportunity of stating any grounds he may have for showing that he should not be degraded.

In the same CoNVOCATION the following altered form of Statute, which will be promulgated in Congregation on Monday, the 10th day of February next, at ten o'clock, will be submitted to the House.

TITULUS XVII.

SECT. III. $ 2. De Auctoritate et Officio Vice- Cancellarii. 1. After the words, '-- Et ut Hæreticos, Schismaticos, et quoscunque alios minus recte de fide Catholica, et 'Doctrina vel Disciplina Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, sentientes, procul a finibus Universitatis amandandos curet.

• Quem in finem, quo quisque modo erga Doctrinam vel Disciplinam Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ affectus sit, Subscriptionis criterio explorandi ipsi jus ac potestas esto'it will be proposed to insert the following :

Quoniam vero Articulos illos Fidei et Religionis, in quibus male-sanæ opiniones, et præsertim Romanensium errores, reprehenduntur, ita nonnuli perperam interpretati sunt, ut erroribus istis rix aut ne vix quidem adversari videantur, nemini posthac, qui coram Vice-Cancellario, utpote minus recte de Doctrina vel Disciplina Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ sentiens, conveniatur, Articulis subscribere fas sit, nisi prius Declarationi subscripserit sub hac forma:

Ego A. B. Articulis Pidei et Religionis, necnon tribus Articulis in Canone xXXVI°. comprehensis subscripturus, profiteor, fide mea data huic Universitati, me Articulis istis omnibus et singulis eo sensu subscripturum, in quo eos ex animo credo et primitus editos esse, et nunc mihi ab Universitate propositos tanquam opinionum inearum certum ac indubitatum signum.

Also in the next sentence of the existing Statute, beginning . Quod si quis S. Ordi• nibus initiatus,' before the words .subscribere a Vice-Cancellario requisitus,' to insert the following words,

una cum Declaratione supra-recitata 2. It will also be proposed in the said sentence to omit the words 'S. Ordinibus . initiatus.'

Shonld these alterations be approved, that part of the Statute Tit. XVII. Sect. III. § 2. De Auctoritate et Officio Vice-Cancellarii, which will be affected by them, will stand as follows:

Et ut Hæreticos, Schismaticos, et quoscunque alios minus recte de fide Catholica et Doctrina vel Disciplina Écclesiæ Anglicanæ, sentientes, procul a finibus Universitatis amandandos

Quem in finem, quo quisque modo erga Doctrinam vel Disciplinam Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ affectus sit, Subscriptionis criterio explorandi ipsi jus ac potestas esto. Quoniam vero Articulos illos Fidei et Religionis, in quibus male-sanæ opiniones, et præsertim Romanensium errores, reprehenduntur, ita nonnulli perperam interpretati sunt, ut erroribus istis vix aut ne vix quidem adversari videantur, nemini posthac, qui coram Vice-Cancellario, utpote minus recte de Doctrina vel Disciplina Ecclesiae Anglicanæ sentiens, conveniatur, Articulis subscribere fas sat, nisi prius Declarationi subscripserit sub hac forma:

Ego A. B. Articulis Fidei et Religionis necnon tribus Articulis in Canonc XXXVI°. comprehensis subscripturus, profiteor, fide mea data huic Universitati, me Articulis istis omnibus et singulis eo sensu subscripturum, in quo eos ex animo credo et primitus editos esse, et nunc mihi ab Universitate propositos tanquam opinionum mearum certum ac indubitatum signum.

Quod si quis (sive Præfectus Domus cujusvis, sive alius quis) Articulis Fidei et Religionis, a Synodo Londini A.D. 1562, editi et confirmatis; necnon tribus Articulis comprehensis Canone xxxvro. Libri Constitutionum ac Canonum Ecclesiasticorum, editi in Synodo Londini ccepta A.D. 1603. una cum Declaratione supra-recitata, subscribere a Vice-Cancellario requisitus ter abnuerit seu recusaverit, ipso facto ab Universitate exterminetur et banniatur. Delegute's Room, Dec. 13, 1844.

B. P. SYMONS, Vice-Chancellor. NO. XLVII.- N.S.

curet.

N

have waited only till Tractarianism got unpopular? Mr. Ward, on this matter, has said no more than No.90. But we are obliged to confine ourselves to the new Test: we say nothing of Mr. Ward : that he is about to defend himself is reason enough for our neutrality; but the amended statute does concern us.

It is a vital question to every member of Convocation, and of the Church too. The Hebdomadal Board, for the first time since the Reformation, seeks to close that which has always been open : to limit and to bind that which has been hitherto left free. Seeks, we say, for we shall see that after all it fails in its object. But the object is the serious matter.

Again, mark the inconsistency of the Hebdomadal Board. Consistent only in inconsistency, the Heads of Houses have but a single virtue, that of submitting to the majestic popular voice: inflexible as a rock against right, in the shape of Convocation, they reserve all their suavity for the legitimate influence of might in the intelligible shape of Premiers, and Expediency, and the Spirit of the Age. Of the present Heads of Colleges and Halls, sixteen held office in 1835, i.e. two-thirds of the existing Hebdomadal Board: then Liberalism was the religious fashion; then Drs. Hampden and Hawkins were liberals; then they were for admitting Dissenters to the University; then 'avowing themselves favourable to the removal of all tests,' (Hampden's Observations, p. 35,) they actually proposed to Convocation the substitution of a Declaration for Subscription, because 'articles are unsuited to the present state of theological opinion, and might be improved in accordance with the advances made in other scientific methods,' ibid. p. 42;-because 'articles are fatally adverse to all theological improvement,ibid. p. 22 ;because adherence to them is no less incongruous and injurious to Religion, than in a society of physicians to make the maxims of Hippocrates and Galen the unalterable basis of their profession,' ibid. p. 22. Then, we repeat, Dr. Hampden was a Liberal, and wrote a pamphlet against the Articles; and the proposal to dispense with the Articles followed upon his publication. Now Dr. Hampden acts evangelical, and reads lectures upon the Articles ; and this very same board of Heads of Houses—two-thirds of whom held the same office in 1835,--obedient to the same influence, now find that 'anti-tractarianism’ is the last phase of fashionable Protestantism. They follow, once more, the changeful popular howl; and they actually have the astounding audacity, in 1845, to venture to make the little finger of a new Test thicker than the loins of the old Subscription, that subscription of which, in 1835, they could not bear the intolerable oppression. To suit the latitudinarianism of 1835, they could have trampled on every article, from 1 to 39,—to suit the equally fatal bigotry of 1845, they cannot endure even the most evanescent shade or difference of possible thought, though in the interpretation of a single clause

in a single article. ( fickle fortune's wheel !—'the principles of the Reformation' in 1835 were unscientific, and adverse to theological growth; now a Cranmer's very commas are sacred. Calvin burning Servetus is the only illustration which occurs to us of the melancholy standard of Christian morality which has, during the last decade of years, influenced the Hebdomadal Board.

But the subject is too solemn and serious for an argumentum ad hominem, however tempting and irresistible the occasion. The Test has graver faults than being a mere trick of retaliation and inconsistent spitefulness, on the part of its originators: it shares, in common with many reforms of the day, the character of being proposed either in ignorance, or defiance of the deep hidden principles which were, we believe, held by those who enacted the statute of subscription, which this additional declaration seeks practically to supersede; but it has viciousness peculiarly and characteristically its own. It sets up as the standard of interpretation a double measure ; the belief of the compilers of the Articles, and the animus of the University as the imponens.

We say then distinctly that the belief of the compilers of the Articles was not held as the legitimate exponent of the sense of the Articles by such writers as we are about to quote.

ARCHBISHOP LAUD. “ The Commons, in pursuance of their opposition against the growing Arminian faction, on the 28th of January, 1628, (but eleven days after the forementioned proclamation concerning Mountague's book, and prohibiting books against it,) passed this notable vote in Parliament, after a large debate ; which the Archbishop in his endorsement on it, styles, The Challenge of the Lower House in matters of Religion. An Order made by the Lower House of Parliament the 28th of

January, 1628. We the Commons now assembled in Parliament, do claim, profess, ' and avow for truth, the sense of the Articles of Religion, which were ' established in Parliament the thirteenth year of Queen Elizabeth, which

by the public acts of the Church of England, and the general and 'current exposition of the writers of our Church have been delivered ' unto us; and we reject the sense of the Jesuits, Arminians, and all others wherein they do differ from us.'

To which challenge of theirs this pragmatical bishop then returned this bold and peremptory answer, written with his own hand, produced, attested by Master Prynne, and read at the Lords' bar in evidence against him.

'1. The public acts of the Church in matters of doctrine are canons • and acts of councils, as well for expounding as determining ; the acts

of the High Commission are not in this sense public acts of the • Church ; nor the meeting of few or more bishops, extra concilium, ' unless they be by lawful authority called to that work, and their ' decision approved by the Church.

“2. The current exposition of writers is a strong probable argument, é de sensu canonis Ecclesiæ, vel articuli, yet but probable : the current

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

6

6

'exposition of the Fathers themselves hath sometimes missed sensum Ecclesiæ.

6. It seems against the King's declaration, 1. That says, we shall ' take the general meaning of the Articles ; this act restrains them to 'consent of writers. 2. That says, the Article shall not be drawn aside • any way, but that we shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense; • this act ties to consent of writers, which may, and perhaps do, go

against the literal sense ; for here is no exception. So we shall be ' perplexed, and our consent required to things contrary.

7. All consent in all ages, as far as I have observed, to an Article or Canon, is to itself, as it is laid down in the body of it, and if it bear more senses than one, it is lawful for any man to choose what sense his ' judgment directs him to, so that it be a sense, secundum analogiam fidei,

and that he hold it peaceably without distracting the Church, and this 'till the Church which made the Article, determine a sense. And the

wisdom of the Church hath been in all ages, or the most, to require consent to articles in general as much as may be, because that is the way of unity; and the Church in high points requiring assent to particulars, hath been rent. As de transubstantiatione, &c.' So he in · affront of the Commons."--Prynne's Canterburie's Doome, pp. 163, 164.

This is the incident referred to by Dr. Pusey's letter in the English Churchman, given below, * in a quotation from Heylyn, * MY DEAR

-, You ask me what I should do in case this new Test, to be proposed to Convocation, should pass. I would say at once, that others, not so immediately affected or intended by tbis Test as I am, need not, I should think, make up their minds yet. I plainly have no choice; it is not meant that I should take it, nor can 1. You will not mistake me; I sign the Articles as I ever have since I have known what Catholic Antiquity is (to which our Church guides us) in their "literal grammatical sense,” determined, where it is ambiguous, by “the faith of the whole Church" (as good Bishop Ken says)“ before East and West were divided.” It is to me quite plain that in so doing I am following the guidance of our Church.

The proposed Test restrains that liberty which Archbishop Laud won for us. Hitherto High and Low Church have been comprised under the same Articles. And I have felt that in these sad confusions of our Church, things must so retain, until, by the mercy of Almighty God, we be brought more nearly into one mind. But as long as this is so, the Articles cannot be, (which the new Test requires) “ certum atque indubitatum opinionum signum." How can they be any“ certain and indubitable token of opinion ” when they can be signed by myself and - ? This new Test requires that they should be: one then of the two parties who have hitherto signed them must be excluded. We know that those who framed the Test are opposed to such as myself. It is clear then who are henceforth excluded. The Test is indeed at once miserably vague and stringent; vague enough to tempt people to take it, too stringent in its conclusion to enable me to take it with a good conscience. Beginning and end do harmonize, if it be regarded as a revival of the Puritan " Anti-Declaration " that the Articles should be interpreted according to “ the consent of divines ;” they do not in any other case. This shifting of ground would indeed (were not so much at stake) be somewhat curions ; how those who speak so much of “fallible men” would require us now to be bound in the interpretation of the Articles by the private judgment of the Reformers (it being assumed, for convenience sake, that Cranmer, Ridley, and Hooper,* agreed among themselves), instead of Archbishop Laud's broader and truer rule, "according to the analogy of the faith.” It would indeed be well, if all who have urged on this test, could sign the 1st and 8th Articles, in the same sense as Cranmer and Jewell. Well, indeed, would it be for our Church, if all could sign

* Vide Heylyn's Life of Laud, pp. 178, 182.

who himself speaking of the imposition of the Articles in Elizabeth's reign, says, in words which are barely quotable:

Heylyn. (Life of Laud, p. 182.) “Some ministers of the Church, so stiffly wedded to their old mumsimus of the mass, and some as furiously prosecuting their new sumpsimus of inconformity, it was thought fit that between those contending parties the doctrine of the Church should be kept inviolate.”

Heylyn. (Hist. Quinquart. Part ii. ch. ix. p. 34.) “In what sense we ought to understand the Book of Articles, hath been made a question. Some take the Articles in the literal and

grammatical sense, which is the fairest and most approved way of interpretation. ... Others there are, of which his late Majesty complained, who draw the Articles aside and put their own sense,' &c. ... The true English Protestants (whom for distinction sake we may call confessionists) accommodate, though they do not captivate, their own sense to the sense of

the 27th in the same sense as all the Reformers, except perhaps Hooper. One could have wished that before this Test had been proposed to us, the board who accepted it and proposed it to us, had thought of ascertaining among themselves whether they themselves all took all and singular of the Articles in one and the same sense. And yet while they enjoy this latitude, how can the signature of the Articles be any certain and indubitable token of people's opinions ?

However, this is matter for others; my concern is with myself. I have too much reason to know that my own signature of the Articles would not satisfy some of those from whom this s'est emanates, since, when a year and a half ago, I declared repeatedly (as I then stated) that I accepted and would subscribe ex animo, every statement of our Formularies on the solemn subject upon which I preached, that offer was rejected; and this on the very ground (I subsequently learnt) that they did pot trust my interpretation. When, then, they require that the signature should be "certum atque indubitatum opinionum mearum signum,” it is plain that they mean something more than wbat I offered, and they refused to accept.

The Articles I now sign in the way in which from Archbishop Laud's time they have been proposed by the Church : this Test I should have to receive not from the Church, but from the University, in the sense in which it is proposed to me by them. Could I then ever so much satisfy myself that I could take the Test according to any general meaning of the words, I must know from past experience that I should not take it in the sense in which it was proposed to me. I could not then take it without a feeling of dishonesty.

You will imagine that I feel the responsibility of making such a declaration, knowing, as I must, that in case, in the present state of excitement, the statute should pass, younger men, whom it might involve in various difficulties, might be influenced by my example. I know, too, of course, that some will be the more anxious to press the Test, in hopes that my refusal to take it may end in my removal from this place. Whether it would or no I know not. But whatever be the result, it seems to me the straightforward course. It is best in cases of great moment, that people should know the effect of what they are doing.

I am ashamed to write so much about myself, but I cannot explain myself in few words. What is my case, would, probably, be that of others. It has often been painful to witness the apparent want of seriousness in people when things far more serious than office, or home, or even one's allotted duties in God's vineyard have been at stake. But people can feel more readily what it is to lose office and home, and the associations of the greater part of life. It will be a great gain, if what is done is done with deep earnestness. For myself, I cheerfully commit all things into His hands, Who ordereth all things well, and from Whom I deserve nothing. Ever yours, affectionately,

E. B. Pusey. Christ Church, Advent, Ember Week, 1844.— Tuesday. NO. XLVII.-N.S.

0

« הקודםהמשך »