other man. The action of such a power might have placed me personally in a situation of distress and difficulty, but it could not have advanced in the least degree the settlement of those questions which I had challenged my opponents to bring to a judicial issue. Its censures would have been, in my view (as in the view of my advisers), not less extrajudicial than those of any private individual. For these reasons I thought it proper to withhold a formal admission of the authorship of my work until I should be acquainted with the use intended to be made of that admission, and the whole course of proceeding which it might be purposed to adopt against me, using this technical advantage as my safeguard against the adoption of a process which was not unprecedented, which I did not believe to be legitimate, and by which I should have been excluded from the right of self-defence.

"I now make the admission, because the intended mode of proceeding has now been disclosed, and it appears to be one which will at least give me the opportunity of defending myself before those who are to be my judges. I am not conceding that the proposed appeal to convocation gives me the opportunity of obtaining that calm, deliberate, and dispassionate consideration of my arguments to which, in strict equity, I am entitled; but still, I am informed of the charge brought against me, and I have practically the power of pleading my cause before those who are to be my judges. And this course I intend at once to take. I am actively preparing a pamphlet, the object of which will be to enforce the position (which I most confidently believe to be unassailable) that my subscription to our formularies is as perfectly consistent with "good faith," as the subscription of any single member of our church. And I am most anxious to join issue solely on the merits of the case. If convocation has authority, by the constitution of the university, to deprive a Master of Arts of his degrees for entertaining the sentiments in my book, I desire to interpose no obstacle upon any question of form. Whereas, then, I apprehend that it is no less necessary for convocation than for any legal tribunal to have before it some regular proofs of the facts upon which a penal measure against any member of the university is proposed to be founded, my purpose in writing this letter is to supply that proof. But, in so doing, of course I reserve to myself the right of taking, at the proper time, and in the proper place, all objections which may exist to the exercise of such an authority by convocation.

"I avow myself, then, the author of the work entitled, "The Ideal of a Christian Church Considered;" and I most fully take on myself the responsibility of the passages selected from that work for the judgment of convocation, as expressing sentiments which had by no means been taken up hastily and at random, but which had long been entertained by me, and of which my conviction grows more firm and undoubting every day I live.

"I remain, Mr. Vice-Chancellor, your faithful servant,

"W. G. WARD."

Dec. 14.-Meeting of the Hebdomadal Board.-At a meeting of the Board of Heads of Houses and Proctors, held yesterday, it was agreed to submit three propositions to convocation, on the 13th of February next, at one o'clock. The object proposed is-first, to censure the mode of subscription to the articles advocated in "The Ideal of a Christian Church;" secondly, to deprive the author of his degrees in the university, should he decline to make his submission; and thirdly, to obtain security, in future, for the articles being subscribed in the sense of the parties imposing the same.

AN unsuccessful attempt having been made to obtain some in-college decision against Mr. Ward and his book, the subject, at the suggestion of the Master of Balliol, has been taken up by the heads of houses, who have appointed a committee, consisting, it is understood, of the late and present Vice-Chancellor, the provost of Oriel, Drs. Cardwell and Cramer, and (which is especially to be

remarked), the Master of Balliol himself: thus carefully excluding from the constitution of this preliminary tribunal all but Mr. Ward's notorious opponents. It has transpired that the Hebdomadal Board are bent upon an extreme measure, if practicable; but, partly from the reluctance to submit the matter to convocation, (with uncertainty of the issue,) partly from misgivings as to their own independent competency to a decisive step, they are supposed to be in a quandary, (i. e., in the condition of the "poor cat i' th' adage,") and the probability is, either that they will content themselves with some high sounding, but ineffective" Resolution," or, that they will overshoot their mark, and ensure Mr. Ward (whom we suspect they will find a "tough customer") a victory in a court of law.

Meanwhile, Dr. Symons has justified expectation, by vetoing the names of Dr. Moberly (!), Mr. H. Wilberforce, and Mr. E. Churton, as select preachers, and proposing in their stead a list of names, which, in their turn, have been vetoed by the proctors. Where is all this to end?— English Churchman.

To the Editor of the Oxford Herald.

SIR,-In the Morning Post of last Monday is a letter with the signature "Orielensis," which has also appeared, I believe, in the Globe newspaper. From its statements, it might be inferred that the Vice-Chancellor, at the suggestion of the Master of Balliol College, had nominated a board of six doctors, under the statute of Heresy, to "sit in judgment" on Mr. Ward's recent work, "The Ideal of a Christian Church."

Other statements, involving the unjustifiable mention of the names of several heads of colleges, and other respectable members of convocation, (including Dr. Moberly, of Winchester College, and the late Vice-Chancellor,) occur in the same communication, which I need not further notice than to designate them as incorrect, and wholly unauthorized.

The foundation of the principal rumour is doubtless the fact that, on the motion of the Dean of Christ Church, the Hebdomadal Board has appointed a select committee for the purpose of examining Mr. Ward's book, and the fact, also, that certain communications have been made to the Hebdomadal Board on the subject of that book, by several members of the Episcopal Bench.

It is stated by "Orielensis" that this select committee is " composed entirely of Mr. Ward's enemies." I perceive, also, that the English Churchman adopts the same error, and even declares that on this committee are "the late and present Vice-Chancellors." It happens that the present Vice-Chancellor could not be, and the late Vice-Chancellor is not a member of this committee. It is composed of gentlemen, not one of whom can fairly be accused of being among "Mr. Ward's notorious opponents." I subjoin the list: The Dean of Christ Church, the Warden of New College, the Principal of New Inn Hall, the Principal of Alban Hall, the Master of University College, and the Provost of Oriel College.

The latter part of the letter signed "Orielensis," (which, like the rest, is adopted by the English Churchman) refers to the appointment of select preachers, and intimates that the Vice-Chancellor had vetoed the nomination of Dr. Moberly and others. I am assured that this is an inaccurate statement. No such power of rejecting the list of select preachers is attached to the office of the Vice-Chancellor or proctors, except in convocation.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

A MASTER OF ARTS.

LETTER FROM DR. PUSEY ON THE PROPOSED THEOLOGICAL TEST AT OXFORD.

(From the English Churchman.)

[The following important document has been handed to us for publication :] 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

54

immediately affected or intended by this 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 I. 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 remain, 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 This shifting of ground consent of divines;" they do not in any other case. would indeed (were not so much at stake) be somewhat curious; 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 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 test 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 not trust my interpretation. When, then, "certum atque indubitatum they require that the signature should be opinionum mearum signum," it is plain that they mean something more than what 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.

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

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. E. B. PUSEY.

Ever yours, affectionately,

Christ Church, Advent, Ember Week, 1844.-Tuesday.

DOCUMENTS.

CAMBRIDGE CAMDEN SOCIETY.

ONE of the most interesting and important meetings ever held by this society took place on Thursday evening, Nov. 7. The President took the chair at half-past seven, and the balloting for new members having been gone through, thirty-four were elected, and amongst these the following clergymen : -Rev. Dr. Hawtrey, Head Master of Eton; Rev. H. Alford, Wymeswold, Loughborough; Rev. W. F. Addison, Alderley, Macclesfield; Rev. C. R. Bradley, Ash, Canterbury; Rev. W. H. Beauchamp, Christ's College, Cambridge; Rev. W. Brockett, Bromfield, Maidstone; Rev. J. Frome, Leigh Vicarage, Manchester; Rev. Augustus Granville, Piccadilly, London; Rev. C. Reade, Ticehurst; Rev. P. V. Robinson, St. John's College, Cambridge; Rev. F. H. S. Say, Broughing, Ware; Rev. C. Wardroper, Upleaden. Amongst the laymen elected was Earl Somers.

Mr. F. A. Paley read a list of donations since the last meeting, and thanks were given to the donors, after which

The Rev. B. Webb, honorary secretary, read the report of the committee, which, amongst other things, congratulated the society on the steady increase of its members and extension of its operations. It also stated that it had sent models of church drawings to the colonies and the United States, subscribed 10. towards the restoration of St. Mary, Wymeswold, Leicestershire, and that it was contemplated by the committee to increase the society's library, with which view they had subscribed to the proposed series of Architectural Parallels, to the Treatise on Byzantine Architecture, and to Mr. Potter's Monastic Ruins of Yorkshire. The report also set forth that the third volume of the "Ecclesiologist" had been brought to a close-that the publication was not to be continued in the name of the society-and that although the committee might not object to its being carried on by any members of the society, yet "care will be taken that the society shall not be compromised to the views expressed in it." The report then stated that thanks were due to the Lord Viscount Clive for his lordship's present of Mr. Gally Knight's "Architecture of Italy" to the society; and lastly, it announced that a new architectural

association had been successfully established under the auspices of the Lord Bishop of Peterborough in the archdeaconry of Northampton.

During the reading of a most interesting paper on architectural drawing, considered as the handmaid to the study of "Ecclesiology," Mr. Wordsworth, the poet, who is also an honorary member of the society, entered the room on the arm of the master of Trinity College, with whom he is at present on a visit. Immediately all the members rose, and remained standing, until the president, who had also risen to receive him, conducted the venerable laureate to a seat, and resumed the chair. The reading of Mr. Freeman's paper was then continued, on the subject of which Mr. Elliott, of St. John's, made some eloquent remarks.

The president then addressed the members on the affairs and prosperity of the society. He particularly dwelt on the future management of the Ecclesiologist, for which the society was not to be held responsible, and in no respect to be compromised by its faults or eccentricities. The president then proceeded to detail the exertions of the society in sending church drawings and models to the United States, New Zealand, New Holland, &c., and entered upon the case of the Round Church, which had already judiciously decided in favour of the churchwardens and the parishioners, and which was yet to come before the Court of Arches. The president animadverted on a personal attack which had been made upon him as connected with the society, in a circular entitled, "An Appeal to the Protestant Public," and which had been distributed with malicious industry through the district + with which he was ecclesiastically connected. If those who attacked his motives had first exhibited the good manners and Christian charity to ask himself relative to them they might have been satisfied. The president next adverted to a letter which, no doubt, they had seen, written by that distinguished foreigner, the Count De Montalembert, of whom he should be very sorry ever to speak but with respect, and who had been an honorary member of the society, having been elected on account of the zeal he had manifested in rescuing and restoring the architectural monuments of his country, at the same time and under the same impulses in which the society was similarly engaged in this. That letter had been published, it did not appear whether with the writer's permission or not, in a Roman-catholic review, and an argument greedily derived from it, both by Romanists and by those who wished to involve the society in the charge of Romanising, to the effect that it had no right to employ itself in the restoration of chalices and church ornaments, without going over to the Romancatholic faith. This kind of argument would equally tell against those who restored churches, or the Prayer Book, or even the Bible, or anything else which the English church has in common with the church Catholic. He considered this incident one of the most fortunate things that had lately happened to the society; as there could not easily be found a better argument for those who desired to get credit for being what, if he knew the society, its members were, faithful and dutiful members of the church in which they had been dedicated to God, for being, in fact, neither Papists nor Puritans, than to be, as they now were, repudiated both by Puritans and Papists. The rest of the letter in question, now in his possession, was not published in the Dublin Review. Had it been so, it would have told a different and triumphant story. The president lastly adverted with great delicacy, and in very happy terms, to the distinguished honorary member present, Mr. Wordsworth. He was one

This case, which created considerable excitement in the neighbourhood of Cambridge at the time, was, not long since, tried before the Bishop of Ely's Office, who decided against the Rev. Mr. Falkner, the promoter of the charge of idolatry, &c., against the stone altar in the Round Church at Cambridge, to the restoration of which, under the auspices of the Camden Society, it will be recollected, her Majesty subscribed liberally shortly after her visit to the University.

†The President (Mr. Thorpe) is Archdeacon of Bristol.