the whole 1335 days." (436). In this point we incline to the same opinion.

So that there are but few of the positions of the Duke of Manchester to which we do not cordially assent: our chief disagreement being with that principle which requires two commencements for these important periods of Daniel. The prin ciple, we say, for the practical doctrine is the same whether with the Duke of Manchester the time of the Gentiles is regarded as terminating in 1877, or, as we incline to think, 1847. The doctrine itself is the grand point, and not whether the termination be sooner or later. And we fully adopt the opinion contained in the following note, p. 422:

"It is scarcely necessary to remark that this expression does not denote the second advent of Messiah. I do not believe any chronological prophecy terminates upon that event; indeed it appears inconsistent with the duty of incessant watchfulness for his glorious appearing. He may come at that time, or he may come after, or he may come before."

Approving of the work so much as a whole, we have not been on the look out for points on which we might differ; nor have we undertaken the fruitless labour of extracting all the excellencies: this, after all, would have been impracticable—would give a very imperfect idea of the work itself and would not have superseded the necessity of its being consulted by all those who would thoroughly understand both the difficulties on the one hand, and the solutions which are proposed on the other. The subject is of great and growing importance, whether looked at in reference to the doctrines which are agitating the Church, or in reference to our drawing near to the end of the days whether as a question of doctrine or of time. The coming in of the times of the Gentiles was a time of trouble, of perplexity, of sifting and trying the faith of the Church; but the end of those times is by our Lord himself declared to be the great, the unprecedented tribulation. Only those who are strong in faith will endure to the end; by trials rightly borne the faith is strengthened; the Church shall be taught the blessedness of enduring temptation; for when she is tried she shall receive the crown of life. (James i. 12). And it is not by saying, lo, here is Christ! or, lo, he is there! It is not by forsaking the places, and abandoning the duties that God in his providence has assigned us, that we shall render ourselves acceptable in that day. It is by believing the things which Christ himself hath declared, and in this faith waiting for THE Day of His appearING, 299d

I

437

ART. VIII.—A Letter to the Editor of the "Oxford Herald.” Oxford. 1845.

IT is with great regret that we find ourselves obliged to bring under the notice of our readers the announcement of the formal submission of Mr. Ward to the Romish Church; not that we have any misgivings as to the effect to be produced upon the Church of England by his adoption of that course; but that we think that, although he has, from too great confidence in others, fallen into the grossest errors, he has throughout been actuated by the purest motives, and that he has not come to his resolution without feelings of sorrow that circumstances should compel him to leave the Church of which he has hitherto been a member. Totally as our views differ from his, we do not feel ourselves called upon to find fault with a resolution that the most hostile of his enemies must allow to be consistently adopted; nor do we think that we are bound to lose sight of his integrity in the condemnation of the principles he advocates. We therefore are not ashamed to express our regret at his secession, and we doubt not that many will give utterance to a like feeling, in generous acknowledgment of his many very amiable and estimable qualities.

The letter, which conveys the information of his intention of submitting to Rome, was addressed to a friend on the 13th of August, and was published at his own request in the Oxford Herald of the 30th of the same month. It goes very fully into the feelings which have led to his adoption of the course he announces, and is couched in a mildness of language which will surprise those who remember the intense energy of diction which characterized his former writings, and called down upon him the animadversion of the University. By some, not improbably, the subdued tone which has been preserved will be attributed to the circumstance of the letter being privately addressed, in the first instance, to a friend. But, if it was not drawn up, as many of such letters are, with a view to publica- tion, it certainly does not appear that its author intended that it should be confined to the perusal of him to whom it was addressed. By the author it was circulated "a week or two" before it was sent to the press, and by him also was it forwarded for publication. We do not, then, think that the alteration of tone was accidental, but intentional, and we believe that it will have the effect of procuring for Mr. Ward that calm consideration of his case which, under any other circumstances, would have been hopeless. We are aware that it has failed to produce this effect upon some; but it is surely unnecessary to say that bit

terness of expression is not the most appropriate weapon of theological controversy; and that, however its use may be accounted for in the instances alluded to, it is not likely to be generally adopted by those who may feel themselves called upon to take up the matter before us.

It is no easy thing for persons of strong opinions-especially of strong religious opinions-to submit silently to the voice of authority pronouncing the condemnation of their principles. They have so long been in the habit of looking upon themselves as right, that they cannot possibly conceive how an opposite opinion could be entertained of them. They are constantly supposing that there is something in their case that must have escaped notice, and lamenting the untowardness of the occurrence; and as constantly tempted to raise the question again under whatever pretext.

Mr. Oakeley is prepared to shape his course in deference to the clear voice of authority; but, at the same time, thinks it necessary to put out an explanation of his claim to hold, under the plea of an apology, to those friends who think he has wantonly damaged their cause by his proceedings. He purposes to show that, to say the least, his position was not, in the abstract, untenable; and he speaks of the suit in the Court of Arches as being "acknowledged on all hands to have no other than a partial subject-matter and a merely personal bearing." Mr. Ward, too, gives an explanation; not, indeed, so much of a retrospective as of a prospective character; more to show that he is not acting inconsistently in going to Rome than from any desire to justify his previous acts, or to find fault with that which has been done by others. He also speaks of the case in the Court of Arches, but treats it in a spirit widely different from that of Mr. Oakeley. He submits to the voice of authority without sneering at the decision come to on that occasion, and strengthens the decision arrived at then by a reference to another case that appears to him to dispose of the question. His language is as follows:

"If the bishops, speaking authoritatively, ex cathedra, be the official exponents of the mind of the Church of England, the point has been ruled against the Romanizers long ago; if (as I myself have always thought) the Ecclesiastical Courts hold that function, the doctrines I hold have been equally condemned. Not to lay stress here on the decision in Mr. Oakeley's case (though I must, for myself, consider that decision final, notwithstanding the absence of defence on Mr. Oakeley's part, if no one takes up the gauntlet, and challenges a fresh decision with the intention of making a formal defence; but not to lay stress on this decision) in the stone altar case-a case most energetically argued on both sides and most deliberately decided-the doctrine

of the mass was expressly condemned; and if that doctrine be not a most essential and vital part of Roman doctrine, what can be so considered?"(Letter in "Oxford Herald").

It is very plain, then, that Mr. Ward thinks the decision of Mr. Oakeley's case to be final to all who are not prepared to reopen the question by the submission of a fresh case to the Court of Arches, involving the same subject-matter, or who, after they shall have submitted such a case to the court, are not prepared to go through with it. But, as it was possible that his friend might look upon it with no more favour than Mr. Oakeley (who certainly can not be expected to be over-fond of it), he brings forth the other case to which he alludes, so as to put it beyond doubt that the voice of authority clearly excludes the claim in which he is interested; and every honest man will appreciate the candour of his avowal, whatever may be his opinion as to his theological principles; as every such person will see that he is honest, though he may have too much reason to think him mistaken. When he finds him plainly and unequivocally declaring that nothing which he had said constitutes any defence for remaining in his present position for that his defence was grounded on two main supports, and that both these supports have given way-he cannot but admit that Mr. Ward, far from sympathising with Mr. Oakeley, as to the "wisdom and duty of catching at straws," is determined to act in a straightforward way, and will treat him accordingly; and when he comes to see that Mr. Ward not only makes this avowal, but goes on to say, that, "in his own case, he thinks he was called upon either to look upon the Church of England as his teacher, or to unite himself to the communion of the Church of Rome, and not to devise theories under which he might look on one Church as his teacher, while he remained in communion with another," he will not only admit that Mr. Ward is, as he says, "by no means a man who is unwilling to retract an opinion merely because he had once expressed it," but, in his estimation of the manlinesss of the course adopted by that gentleman, wish that he could have freed himself more from the bias he has received, and have made up his mind, not only to give up his theory, but to remain in the Church of England.

Mr. Ward alleges that he formerly grounded his duty of remaining in the English Church on two principal circumstances: first, "that there is nothing to hinder any one in our Church, who may please, from holding all Roman doctrine; and secondly, that all those, without exception, who, being in doubt of the English Church's claims, have resolved on living a

stricter life in her communion, have found an ever increasing confidence in their position;" but that both these supports have given way; the one in the ecclesiastical courts, the other in the experience of the ascetics of his party; and because these supports have given way he must go over to Rome, where alone he can find rest in his present convictions. And, indeed, if it be absolutely necessary that he should entertain the feelings that he has hitherto indulged with regard to Roman doctrine, such, we must repeat, is the most consistent course. But we have already seen that Mr. Ward has found himself mistaken as to his theory; nay, that he admits that he had no right to devise any theory at all to reconcile his staying in our own Church with his listening to that of Rome; and we think that we may very fairly ask him, if his judgment was deficient so far as that, whether it may not be deficient in other respects, and follow up his question by the recommendation of farther enquiry, before his course be definitely taken.

It surely was not the Court of Arches that made his theory incorrect that court merely pronounced his claim untenable: the principle upon which it was founded was wrong antecedently to the decision of Mr. Oakeley's case, although it then only met with irresistible condemnation; and, if it was wrong, Mr. Ward must have arrived at his position through some illegitimate channel. Perhaps it is not too late for him to reconsider his case we are sure that it will bear it; nay, it is hardly possible to conceive a case which could more imperatively demand it.

We are of opinion, that, if he had examined the history of the Church about the time of the promulgation of the Articles, he could not, for a moment, have thought his theory admissible. He would have seen that the interpretations which had been put upon the Articles by his leaders were violently wrong, and so have avoided alike the assertion of the licence claimed in the first of the positions alluded to in his letter, and the unpleasant consequences which have resulted from it to himself; and we are of opinion, also, that a very little of the same accurate examination of the second position alluded to in his letter would have relieved him from misapprehension with regard to its principle, and the Church of England from the charge of breaking down under a holier practice.

Mr. Ward admits, in his "Ideal," (pp. 569-70) that those who are resolved to live a stricter life, in communion with the Church of England, "have resolved to load the ordinances of our Church, as it were, with a heavier weight: they have regarded the lowering aspect of things around as a call from God