of charity to question the sanity of any one who could gravely propound such an absurdity. But, in fact, the intention with which the Articles were drawn up is a point one has no business to inquire, as far as subscription is concerned. The business of the subscribing party is with the plain, natural, and grammatical meaning of the words, and with nothing else. By this the errors of Rome are condemned. Any attempt to make this fact appear doubtful, can have no other effect among honest men, than to cast a doubt on either the understanding or the candour of the person who ventures to make it. Mr. Ward, indeed, must concede this anti-Roman character and spirit of the Articles, else why resort to a non-natural method of subscription? But, the truth is, to subscribe any formulary or engagement in a nonnatural sense, is to subscribe it in no sense whatever. It is altogether and wholly to evade its meaning and obligation. And if such a mode of avoiding the consequences of subscription be tolerated, it must inevitably destroy all confidence between man and man, and render all subscriptions, and engagements of every sort, nugatory, and mere waste paper. If, indeed, the words of the formulary be ambiguous-if they are capable of more than one meaning, and it is impossible from the words of the formulary itself to determine absolutely which of these meanings the words in question should bear-then, by all means, let the subscriber have the benefit of the doubt: let him be at liberty to subscribe, in the sense which he believes to be the natural and grammatical sense of the words. In like manner the prima facie sense of the formulary, or of any word in it, may look one way, and yet this may not be the natural sense, much less is it necessarily the natural sense. The prima facie sense, on the contrary, may be the non-natural sense, and if so, it is not the meaning or sense of the words at all. And in such a case, the subscribing party is not left at liberty to choose between the prima facie sense and the natural sense; he is bound, on the contrary, to discard the prima facie sense altogether. Thus, for example, to a person unacquainted with the theological use of the term, the word “preventing," in the tenth Article, might seem to signify hindering; and to such a person this may be considered its prima facie sense; but it is not the natural sense of the word in that place, and, therefore, in such a sense the word could not be taken by the subscribing party. Again, on the other hand, the word "Hell," in the third Article, is fairly capable of two senses-either it may, in its prima facie sense, signify the place of the punishment of the wicked -or else, taking it in the sense which some suppose the word to signify in the passage of Scripture on which the Article is founded, it may signify the abode of the spirits of the righteous after death. The word may fairly bear either of these meanings in the Article, because either of these meanings may be the natural sense of the word there; and, consequently, the subscribing party may take it in whichever of these meanings appears to him to be the true one. Possibly he may be at liberty to understand it to include them both. But, if any one should deny that "Hell" in the Article means a place of any sort, or that "went down" signifies change of place, or that "went down into Hell" means anything more than being buried, he would plainly deny and

contradict the natural sense of the Article itself; and to subscribe it in any of these non-natural senses, is plainly to subscribe that Article in no sense of any sort or kind. It would do quite as well for a subscription to the second or fourth Article as to the third. It may, doubtless, be very interesting and instructive to elucidate the meaning of the words of this third Article-for example, by a reference to the history of the Apollinarians, and so an appeal may be made to the meaning and intention of the compilers. But, as far as subscription is concerned, such an inquiry or appeal must be wholly irrelevant, and, indeed, improper. To the subscribing party, the meaning of the words and the obligation of his subscription would remain the same, if it could be proved that the compilers were Apollinarians, and had some nonnatural way of understanding the Article themselves, so as to bend it into compliance with their heresy. The subscribing party has nothing to do with this. He cannot travel beyond the formulary itself in order to evade the force of the natural sense of the words. To subscribe it in any other sense, is, in effect, not to subscribe it at all: and calling such evasive and dishonest subscription-subscribing the words in a non-natural sense-is really only an acknowledgment that there is a departure from fair dealing in the transaction. And such a mode of subscription is a breach of faith, and a very serious one indeed; nor is it easy to comprehend how any one can hesitate to say so who disapproves of non-natural subscription, and feels it his duty to record his disapproval in any public way.

It may be painful to use a term which sounds harsh, and people may be unwilling to use a term to describe material guilt, which seems to imply almost necessarily formal guilt also. But he who professes to have subscribed any document in a non-natural sense is unquestionably guilty of a material breach of faith, and, by all the rules of human jurisprudence, he must be considered guilty of a formal breach of faith also, unless he is able to clear himself of the charge. And, as the material breach of faith consists in evading the natural meaning of subscription, it is no disproof of the charge of a formal breach of faith to allege the sophistical process of self-deception by which the guilty. person has reconciled the act to his own conscience, or even the confusion of intellect and dulness of moral perception which may go to extenuate his guilt at another tribunal. The peace and the existence of society demand that material guilt should be deemed formal guilt, until it has been proved to be not so-in many cases it must be punished even where it has. The man who stops one on the highway is a robber, even if it could be proved that he believes in a community of goods, and has taken to the road under the full persuasion that it is a lawful calling.

Plainly, he who receives subscription, as a security and condition, can take no cognizance of the private opinions and mental reservations of the subscriber. All he knows, or has any business to know, is his ostensible character-namely, that he is ostensibly and by profession, or even tacitly, such a character as is capable of being admitted to subscribe, and of enjoying the benefits to which subscription entitles him. For any man afterwards to declare that he has subscribed the

formulary and engagement in a sense incompatible with such a character is a breach of faith, and would be so if it could be proved that at the time of subscription he had no opinions at all. For example: no man can enjoy the advantages resulting from subscription to the Articles, except a believer in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The natural sense of the Articles he subscribes is the security he gives the church and the university of his soundness in the faith. And if, at the time he offered to subscribe, he was known to have been an impugner of that doctrine, he would not be competent to subscribe, except his subscription was given as security for his having formally renounced this heresy. Now, let any one suppose a man who had subscribed, by and, by to avow himself a champion of Socinianism; and to defend himself by saying, that he had subscribed in a non-natural sense-will any man living pretend that this man is not guilty of a breach of faith? And what would be thought or said of an advocate of such conduct, who should say " It is not fair to call this a breach of faith, because that implies an imputation on a man's moral character;" or, "We do not see any proof of breach of faith here, though he is avowing that he subscribed the Articles in a non-natural sense-for, though he is now a Socinian-yet when he subscribed he was an Arian or a Deist." Surely, the answer, and the only answer, to such incredible sophistry is-As far as a breach of faith is concerned, it is no matter what he was when he subscribed. It would be no matter, even if you could prove, that he subscribed before he had even read the Articles, or had any idea of what they were about. His subscription itself, and neither his opinions nor want of opinions, was the security he gave to a Trinitarian church-because the natural sense of the Articles is incompatible with any heresy which contradicts or explains away the doctrine of the Trinity. If he subscribed in any other than the natural sense, that does not prevent his advocacy of Socinianism being a breach of faith, and one of the grossest that can be imagined. And more than that if he could demonstrate that every one who had anything to do with compiling the Articles, from 1552 to 1571, was a Socinian, his own breach of faith would remain the same. Because his subscription was not to the private or public opinions of the compiler-or the opinions of any man that ever lived-but to the natural, plain, and grainmatical sense of the Articles he subscribed. If unable to subscribe them in their natural sense (that is, their only sense, for any other is not their sense), he never should have subscribed at all. No man who had correct notions of truth and honesty ever would. But, having once subscribed, to turn round and explain them away, and then defend himself by saying that he had subscribed in a non-natural sense, is not only to be guilty of a breach of faith, but to avow it. And the church must be in a very alarming state, indeed, when those who make such avowals can be tolerated in respectable society.

There can be no doubt, that if the condemnation of Mr. Ward's book had been framed so as to avoid charging him with breach of faith, the majority which condemned it would have been greatly increased. But what would have been gained to the church by such a condemnation? The formal declaration which has now been made by the university

that to subscribe the Articles in a non-natural sense is a breach of faith, is just the only thing which makes the late proceedings important-or, indeed, defensible. For Mr. Ward's rambling, incoherent rhapsody is so powerless, so utterly unworthy of serious attention, if only from his avowed ignorance of the practical working of the system he undertakes to recommend, that it is difficult to imagine anything which could have been less befitting the dignity of such a body as the Convocation of the university, than their assembling from all parts of the kingdom merely for the purpose of condemning such a production.

One is thankful to find from the names attached to Dr. Grant's amendment, that so many persons disapprove of Mr. Ward's book, who had not voted with the majority that condemned it. But the character of Mr. Ward's book is a matter of very secondary concern; the principle of subscription he has dared to advocate and avow is the point of real moment. It is a breach of faith. It is most important to the church that the university has distinctly affirmed it to be so. It would have been most important, even if that declaration had been carried merely by a majority of one: because, nothing can follow from such a principle of subscription being tolerated and connived at, but universal distrust and suspicion, and the annihilation of those high and honourable feelings, without which it is impossible to maintain charity and peace among mankind.

And the nature of the doctrines sought to be maintained under the shelter of a non-natural subscription is a question of but secondary concern also. No matter what party or school may presume to advocate such a mode of evading subscription, the attempt to corrupt the very fountains of truth and integrity in the church, should be met by the instant and indignant reprobation of every honest man in the community. And if the guides and guardians of youth were to make light of such a breach of faith, they must not be surprised at finding those who valued the moral principles of their children more than the acquirements and honours of a university, endeavour to provide them with instructors who had a deeper sense of the importance of integrity and truth.