תמונות בעמוד


Art. VI.-1. Considerations on the New Religious Test. A Cir

cular. Oxford: Baxter. 2. The Proposed Degradation and Declaration. Considered in a

Letter addressed to the Rer. the Master of Balliol College. By GEORGE MOBERLEY, D. C. L., Ilead Master of Winchester College, and formerly Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College. London:

Rivingtons. 3. An Earnest Appeal to the Members of the Oxford Conrocation,

on the proposed Assumption of Ecclesiastical Powers by the Unitersity. By HENRY ARTHUR WOODGATE, B. D., Rector of Belbroughton, late Fellow and Tutor of St. John's College.

London: Burns. 4. Headle of Consideration on the Case of Mr. Ward. By the Rev.

Jorin KEBLE, M. A., lute Fellow of Oriel College. London:

Parker and Rivingtons. 5. Reasons for Voting against the Measures to be proposed in Con

tocation at Oxford, on February 13, 1815. London: Burns. 6. The Proposed O.xford Statute. A Letter in the British Church

man.By M. A., of Magdalen College, Oxford. 7. Mr. Ward and the New Test; or, Plain Reasons why those

who censure Mr. Ward should not Vote for the New Statute,

which limits the Thirty-nine Articles. 8. Obserrations on the Propositions to be submitted to Convocation,

on February 13. Oxford: Baxter. 9. The Month of January, Oxford. By WILLIAM WINSTANLEY

HULL, M. A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, late Fellow

of Brazenose College. London: Seeleys. 10. A Letter to the Members of the Venerable House of Convocation

in the University of Oxford. By RICHARD CLARKE SEWELL, D. C. L., Barrister-at-Lau, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.

London : Richards. 11. Some Observations on the Jurisdiction of the Ilouse of Conro

cation. By Joux P. NORMAN, M. A, of the Inner Temple,

Speciul Plealer. Oxford: Vincent. 12. A Letter from Mr. PALMER, of Worcester, to the Churchman's

Newspaper, in Justification of the New Test. 13. The Unicersity, the Church, and the New Test. A Letter to

the Lord Bishop of Chichester. By the Rer. J. GARBETT, Prebendary of Chichester, and Professor of Poetry in the University of Oxford. London: Hatchard.

14. Case as to the Proposed Degradation and Declaration in the

Statute of February 13. Submitted to Sir J. Dodson, Knight, Queen's Adcocate ; and R. Bethell, Esq., Queen's Counsel; with their Opinion on its decided Ilegality. Accompanied with Notes on the History and Nature of Academical Degrees, and on the History of Subscription in the University of Oxford. Oxford:

Macpherson. London: Pickering. 15. A Letter to the Hebdomadal Board on Mr. Ward's Case, and

the New Test. By the Reo. William BRUDENELL BARTER, Rector of Burghclere and Highclere, and late Fellow of Oriel

College, Oxford. London: Burns. 16. A Letter to the Rev. the Vice-Chancellor of the Unirersity of

Oxford, on the Measures intended to be proposed to Concocation on the 13th of February. By A. C. Tait, D. C. L., Head Master of Rugby School, late Fellow of Balliol College. Edin

burgh: Blackwood. 17. The New Statute and Mr. Ward. A Letter to a Non-resident

Member of Concocation. By the Rev. FREDERIC D. MAURICE, Chaplain of Guy's Hospital, and Professor of English Literature

in King's College, London. London: Parker; and Rivingtons. 12. Thoughts on the Rule of Conscientious Subscription, on the

Purpose of the Thirty-nine Articles, and on our present Perils from the Romish System. In a Second Letter to a Non-resident Member of Convocation. By the Rev. FREDERIC D. MAURICE.

London: Parker; and Rivingtons. 19. The Subject of Tract XC. Historically considered, &c. Second

Edition. With a Preface relating to the Measure, about to be submitted to the Oxford Convocation. By the Rev. F. OAKELEY,

M. A., Fellow of Balliol College. London: Toovey. 20. An Address to Members of Conrocation in Protest against the

Proposed Statute. By the Rev. W. G. WARD, M. A., Fellow

of Balliol College. London: Toovey. 21. A Reply to some Part of Mr. Ward's Defence, justifying cer

tain Parties in recording their Votes against him. By the Reo. E. M. GOULBURN, M. A., Fellow and Tutor of Merton College,

Perpetual Curate of Holywell. Oxford: Graham. 22. The Oxford Crisis. A Word to the Wise. By a Member of

Magdalen College, Oxford. London: Ridgway. 23. A Defence of Voting against the Propositions to be submitted

to Concocation on February 13, 1845. By W.F. DONKIN, M. A., Sarilian Professor of Astronomy. London: Parker.

24. Reasons for Voting upon the Third Question to be proposed in

Concocation on the 13th instant. By ROBERT Hussey, B. D., Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History. London: Parker;

and Rivingtons. 25. A Short Appeal to Members of Contocation upon the proposed

Censure of No. XC. By FREDERIC ROGERS, Fellow of Oriel.

London : Burns. 26. The proposed Decree on the Subject of No. XC. Oxford:

Baxter. 27. A Letter in the Timesof February. By J. R. HOPE, Esq. 28. A Letter to the Bishop of Oxford. By the Rer. C. P. EDEN. 29. Some Answer to the Question, How did you Vote on the 13th?”

in a Letter a Friend. By a Junior 11. A., one of the 386.

Oxford: Graham. 30. A Letter to the Vice-Chancellor (February 13). By the Reo.

W. G. WARD. 31. A Letter to the Vice-Chancellor (February 14). By the Rer.

F. OAKELEY. 32. A Letter to the Lord Bishop of London, on a Subject connected

with the recent Proceedings at Oxford. By the Rer. F. OAKELEY. 33. Various Papers and Circulars.

The prefixed list of pamphlets and papers is a sufficient memento, if any were wanted, of the important and rousing character of those attempts of which the University of Oxford has, during the last three months, been the stage. The proposal for the abolition of subscription to the Articles in 1834, and the censure of Dr. Hampden in 1836, each called forth its body of pamphlets : the Hebdomadal Board's declaration against No. XC. in 1841, the Hampden question revived of 1842, the suspension of Dr. Pusey in 1843, and the Theological Statute of 1844, all produced their demonstrations: but the commencement of the year 1845 has exhibited a vigour in this department, extraordinary even for Oxford. The promulgation of the New Test, and the measures against Mr. Ward, produced a rapid and copious stream from the press, which no former occasion has equalled. The collective issue of six weeks gives nearly a pamphlet or paper per diem, and the pile continued to swell up to the very day of Convocation. The withdrawal of the Test stopped the line of comments in that direction; but the sudden substitution of the attack on No. XC. for the withdrawn measure, was responded to instantaneously, and the emergency was met in eight or nine pamphlets or papers in the course of the week. It is a remarkable circumstance, that nearly all these demonstrations are on one side. We do not mention this in any spirit of boasting, but we say that it ought to be observed as a fact. It is a very striking and significant fact. Time after time have the Hebdomadal Board issued their legislative propositions; and there has been plenty of writing against them, and hardly any at all for them. The proposition, whatever it may be, comes forth, and it is answered by a dozen pens. Answer upon answer speaks,-the proposition is dumb: it says nothing; it stands quite still, and is answered. The Hebdomadal Board rest upon the strength of that prescriptive weight that attaches to all Boards and Corporations of long standing as such, and which the institution has entirely independent of its members. Undoubtedly this is a source of strength which the Board has, and of real strength, too, so long as it lasts. But that is the point. Prescriptive weight is no eternal, immoveable piece of property. It does not support itself; it wants support from the expression of surrounding opinion, and, if it does not get it, it declines. The authority of that Board and that Corporation totters, whose members think the fact, that they see their own faces round a table, a pledge of absolute strength and perpetual duration. The expression of opinion outside of them has its effect. Each tide of publications undermines some old stay, effaces some old impression, affixes a colour, creates a point of view. A mass of opinion expressed in type has force. It is far from being the only element of influence, but it is one, and a very important one. It cannot absolutely make no difference to a side whether it has it or not. Consequences of some sort or other flow from it. And when that opinion is not the opinion of one school, or one party only, but a gathering from all quarters,—when one person for one reason, another for another, but nearly the whole of the writing world, for some reason or other, objects and censures, the symptom is still more unfavourable. A Board may repose upon an old prestige, and may, and doubtless will, be supported by it, so long as that prestige last. But the inevitable tendency of such demonstrations as these is to undermine its prestige. It is a fact, that the Hebdomadal Board are hardly represented in this department, and, with the exception of Mr. Garbett, we know of no regular champions that they have. And now to our subject.

It is undeniable, that the occurrences of the last few months have placed the Oxford Hebdomadal Board in a particular position, and a very formal, fixed, and definite one towards the Catholic movement in our Church. It has long taken its side; indeed, it has had no new position to assume; its line has been clear from the first; but the last half year has fully matured, completed, and manifested it. It is a remark that any reader of history must make, that every movement, religious or political, that takes place in the world, finds the opposition to it, sooner or later, centering in some one particular spot. The movement creates vague sensations at first, hurried fears and sharp disgusts; but these feelings are scattered over a surface, and break out unconnectedly and casually. One person objects here, another there; the feeling spreads over a large field enough, and a broad diffused animus expresses itself as it can.

This continues for some time, and the opposition goes on more as irregular appetency, than as actual force. It has no centre, no ehannel, no form, or body. It acts by disjointed efforts and ebullitions, and speaks through scattered mouths, and beats the air. But, by degrees, this opposition grows into shape, and comes to a point. Some knot, that there happens to be somewhere amid the loose mass, affords a beginning to concentration, and acts as a nucleus. It does not much signify what the knot is, so long as there is one. It does for a centre. Persons, here and there, begin to consider themselves represented by it, and to attach themselves and their influence to it. It attracts attention, and its operations are watched. People ask one another what this knot is doing, and a sort of tacit consent points to it as the agent and executive in the cause. In the course of a few years, the antagonistic feeling, from being a rambling and diffused one, has found a local habitation, and we look round, after an interval, and find that a particular Board, or knot of some sort, is occupying a regular post, and considered to be carrying on matters against the opponent. A regular movement, of whatever kind, is sure to evoke, sooner or later, its regular antagonist; and of the Catholic movement in this country, the Oxford movement, or whatever name we give it, the formal antagonist that has been evoked is the Oxford Hebdomadal Board. Whether or not their functions in the matter will pass, as time goes on, into higher hands, and some future stage in the struggle elicit some even more formidable centre of opposition, we do

not now inquire. We are speaking of the time present. The Hebdomadal Board is the first nucleus which the chances of things have brought into action against our Church-revival. It has assumed a definite position, and the Church cause knows who its present antagonist is.

The proceedings that have recently taken place, we say, have brought out and consummated this feature in the Oxford Hebdomadal Board. A signal, formal, and mature theological antagonism is certainly given, when one side tries openly to expel the other by a Test. This boundary has been crossed. This overt act has been taken. The stage of mere controversy is over. The Hebdomadal Board stand in the very ultimate atti

« הקודםהמשך »