"Balliol College, Feb. 13th, 1845. "Mr. Vice-Chancellor,-I entertain so much respect for the authority of the House of Convocation, when acting within its legitimate province, that I think a statement of the reasons which lead me to consider my position in the university morally unaffected by what has passed to day, is due to you, and to all who have been instrumental in promoting the censure voted against me. Of course I am not now referring to the act of degradation, the validity of which will be the subject of legal decision. I refer to the former of the two resolutions passed in Convocation-a resolution which, as it in effect pronounces certain theological propositions published by me (and to which I firmly adhere) inconsistent with the Thirty-nine Articles, might seem at first sight to impose upon me the obligation of voluntary retirement from all those rights and privileges within the university for which subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles is a qualification. Could I be satisfied that Convocation is the true imponens of the articles upon members of the university, so as to be capable of authoritatively determining the sense in which they ought to be subscribed, I should not be disposed to inquire how far subscription is necessarily to be considered a continuing act, nor should I hold myself at liberty to subscribe any longer in the sense which Convocation has repudiated. I should in that case at once relinquish my position in the university. "But I think it will be obvious to every one, that my duty under such circumstances must depend essentially upon the question-whether Convocation is the true imposer and the competent interpreter of subscription, or not? If not, it is plainly beyond the power of Convocation, either by the general condemnation of any particular modes of interpreting the Articles, or by the express condemnation of that sense in which I myself subscribe, to acquire any moral authority over my conduct in this respect. "If Convocation cannot rule affirmatively the sense in which members of the University shall subscribe, it necessarily follows that Convocation cannot rule negatively the sense in which members of the University shall not subscribe. Now, it is well known that the question, whether Convocation is legally capable of requiring members of the University to declare that they subscribe the Articles in a particular sense, has lately been the subject of consideration by legal authorities; and it has been held by those authorities (nor, as far as I know, has it been disputed by others) that the Articles are imposed, and the sense of subscription determined, by the law of the land; and that the judges of the ecclesiastical courts alone have the power authoritatively to declare that sense, while the Supreme Legislature alone has the power of altering or adding to it. Under these circumstances, great and sincere as is my respect for the House of Convocation, I cannot feel that any obligation whatever is laid upon me, in consequence of the events of this day, to act for the future upon any different view of subscription to the Articles from that on which I have hitherto acted, and which is expressed in my works and pamphlets. 66 "I remain, Mr. Vice-Chancellor, "WILLIAM GEORGE WARD." Mr. Oakeley's publication is as follows: "Balliol College, Oxford, Feb. 14. "Mr. Vice-Chancellor,-The vote of Convocation upon the two Propositions submitted to it at the meeting of yesterday, seems to make it imperative that I should address a few words to you with the view of clearing my position in the University. I am anxious, then, to draw your attention to the following passage in the preface to a pamphlet which I forwarded to you about six weeks ago, and which you acknowledged by return of post, with that courtesy and kindness which I have ever experienced at your hands : "I have no wish to remain a member of the University, or a minister of the Church of England, under false colours. I claim the right which has already been asserted in another quarter, of holding (as distinct from teaching) all Roman doctrines, and that notwithstanding my subscription to the Thirtynine Articles. ("Subject of Tract 90, Historically Examined," &c., preface, page 13.) In a tract which I have put out during the last fortnight, I have stated that these words were published,' with the fullest deliberation.'* I appropriated and repeated them in that tract; and here, with the same deliberation and distinctness, I again appropriate and repeat them. A statement on the subject of subscription, tantamount in substance to the above, is made, as I need hardly say, in the course of the extracts from The Ideal of a Christian Church,' upon which Convocation yesterday expressed an opinion; and, as it must also be unnecessary for me to observe, it is to this statement that I refer in the above passage, when I speak of the right which I claim having been already asserted in another quarter.' This right having been apparently called in question by the vote of yesterday, it seems to me quite necessary, with a view to the defence of my own position, that I should publicly state in what light I regard that vote. I consider it, then, as expressing a certain opinion upon a series of extracts from a particular work, comprehending a variety of statements, my agreement with which I am in no way called upon either to affirm or deny, except in the single instance relating to the question of subscription to the Articles, in which I have already declared, that I take precisely the same view of the case with Mr. Ward. Had the censure of Mr. Ward been limited to the single point of his statement upon the subject of subscription to the Articles, the case, as far as this part of my argument is concerned, might have been otherwise. But as this statement is only involved in a common condemnation with a variety of others, it is impossible, as I conceive, to determine whether, in the minds of the proposers and ratifiers of the measure, all the extracts are considered to be at variance with the good faith of the author's subscription, or only some of them, and if some only, then which in particular of the whole number? I consider, therefore, that Convocation, in expressing an opinion upon these passages, has by no means necessarily made any declaration with respect to the question of subscription in particular, so as to affect those who, like myself, while appropriating Mr. Ward's view of subscription, do not appropriate (nor yet disclaim) other sentiments expressed in the selected passages. But if, in the judgment of the Board over which you preside, and of the House of Convocation, I have rendered myself personally liable to penalty by the declarations above cited, I am anxious not to shelter myself' (as I say in my pamphlet) under the cover of supposed differences, as to this matter of subscription, from others who have been directly assailed.' (Preface, p. 12.) If, on the other hand, I am allowed, after this plain and public declaration of my sentiments, to retain my place in the University, I shall regard such acquiesence as equivalent to an admission, on the part of the academical authorities, that my own subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles is not at variance with good faith.' "But I am here arguing upon the assumption that the House of Convocation has a power to determine in what sense members of the University shall or shall not subscribe the Articles. I wish it, therefore, to be distinctly understood, that my argument, so far, has been purely one ad homines. I reserve to myself the power of disputing, if necessary, and at the proper time, any such claim on the part of Convocation. I consider myself to receive the Articles at the hands of the University, solely as an organ and representative of the Church "A Few Words to Members of Convocation on Mr. Ward's Case." VOL. XXVII.-March, 1845. Y of England; and inasmuch as the Church of England has nowhere declared against the sense in which I claim to subscribe them, I accept them under no other limitations than those which are imposed by my own conscientious belief of their grammatical meaning, and the intention with which they were at first put out, and are now proposed to me, by the church of which I am a member. "It is necessarily difficult, as I am sure you will perceive, to word a document of this nature so explicitly as its very purpose requires, without the appearance of presumption as well as disrespect. I assure you, that I would gladly have embraced a different alternative, had any one presented itself, which seems to be equally consistent with duty, both to the University and to myself. But I am deeply and deliberately satisfied that the course of frankness, whatever present inconveniences or misconstructions it may entail, is at once the kindest and the fairest towards all parties, as it is undoubtedly also that which is most agreeable to my own feelings; and I hope that this course will at least have the effect of clearing from the very suspicion of insincerity those assurances of personal respect towards yourself with which I am most conscientiously able to accompany it. "I have the honour to be, Mr. Vice-Chancellor, "Your faithful, humble servant, "The Rev. the Vice-Chancellor, &c." "FREDERICK OAKELEY, "Senior Fellow of Balliol College. The following is the Latin protest put in by Mr. Ward at the close of his speech yesterday : "PROTESTATIO GULIELMI GEORGII WARD, MAGISTRI ARTIUM, ET PRESBYTERI IN ECCLESIA ANGLICANA, CONTRA SENTENTIAM QUOndam DeGRADATIONIS IN VENERABILI DOMO CONVOCATIONIS UNIVERSITATIS OXONIENSIS DIE TREDECIMO Februarii, a.d. MDCCCXLV., propo SITAM VEL PROPONENDAM. Ego, Gulielmus Georgius Ward, Magister Artium, publicè et solemniter per hoc instrumentum protestor, nullam esse omninò in Venerabili hâc Domo Convocationis vim, auctoritatem, aut potestatem, judicandi vel decernendi, degradationis causâ, utrum necne ego dictus Gulielmus Georgius Ward, in libro cui titulus est, The Ideal of a Christian Church considered in Comparison with existing Practice,' quidquam Articulis Fidei et Religionis, in Synodo Londini habitâ A.D. MDLXII. editis et confirmatis, dissonum aut contrarium protulerim vel admiserim: porrò nullam esse omninò in Venerabili hâc Domo vim, auctoritatem, aut potestatem, me propter ullam hujusmodi causam vel prætextum gradu meo Magistri Artium, vel gradu meo Baccalaurei Artium, privandi. Item, si (quod absit) contigerit, ut per Vice-Cancellarium Procuratores et majorem partem Magistrorum Regentium et non Regentium in Degradationis legem vel sententiam contra me sciscendam, sive decretum pronunciendum, hodie consentiatur, protestor, et per instrumentum hoc publicum in Domo Convocationis a me recitatum, omnes qui hodie adsunt certiores facio, me legem istam vel sententiam sive decretum, et degradationem, pro injustâ, irritâ, vacuâ, et planè nullâ, semper habiturum, et quocunque possim modo jure et legitimè eversurum. "Datum et recitatum per me in Domo Convocationis die tredecimo mensis Februarii, A.D. MDCCCXLV. "GULIELMUS GEORGIUS WARD." THE LATE CONVOCATION AT OXFORD. (From the Morning Post.) THE subjoined declaration of nearly one hundred members of Convocation is a satisfactory proof that those who refused to affirm the vague and indefinite proposition of the Oxford hebdomadal board are not, therefore, to be classed among the favourers of Mr. Ward's popish or paradoxical views. Had the Heads of Houses been satisfied with calling upon Convocation to condemn the selected passages, and to inflict a statutable penalty upon the author, they might have carried their proposition by an almost unanimous vote; but they chose to denounce his "good faith," and to demand a sentence which, even if legal, is one of unexampled severity. The consequence has been that, instead of obtaining the concurrence of the great body of churchmen, who, steadfast in their attachment to their own communion, have no thought of "suing humbly at the feet of Rome for pardon," they have given rise to the groundless notion that hundreds of clergymen entertain quite opposite views on certain important articles of faith. A large but unscrupulous party, anxious rather to injure a particular class of churchmen than to protect the church itself from scandal, proclaims, through its appropriate organ, the Standard, that the 386 who voted against the extra-judicial proceedings of Convocation are Romanists. The names which we now publish are the answer to this wanton and false charge; and they suffice, moreover, to shew that there is no inconsiderable number of Masters of Arts who will neither be terrified by popular clamour, nor tempted by their own cordial disapproval of Romish or Romanizing views, to affirm untenable propositions or mock the forms of justice. DECLARATION. Oxford, February 13th. The undersigned members of Convocation desire to express their concurrence in the following amendment, which was this day tendered in Convocation : "That the passages now read from the book entitled The Ideal of a Christian Church considered, are worthy of grave censure, but that Convocation declines to express any opinion upon the good faith of the author, or to exercise the functions of an ecclesiastical tribunal by pronouncing judgment upon the nature or degree of his offence." A. Grant, D.C.L. New college. Stephen R. Glynne, M. A. Christ Church. Henry Smith, M. A. Queen's college. Thomas Henry Haddan, M. A. Exeter college. George E. Deacon, M. A. Corpus Christi college. A. B. Mesham, B.D. Corpus Christi college. T. C. Curties, B.D. St. John's college. Reginald E. Copleston, M. A. Exeter college. Richard Boyse, M. A. Christ Church. T. K. Leighton, M.A. All Souls' college. W. D. Jackson, M. A. St. John's college. J. H. Scudamore Burr, M. A. Christ Church. James S. Hodson, M.A. Merton college. Robert Browne, M. A. Pembroke college. |