argument, which is Mr. Ward's first ground of defence, and may be disposed to suspect that there may be something in it. The ignotum often creates an idea of the mirificum. Again; many of our readers may never have seen Mr. Goulburn's Reply, and we are sure that a short notice of it will be interesting and grati fying to them.

So we will first show, in a few words, what is the value of this historical argument, which these two acute reasoners consider sufficient to excuse a course of procedure, which is, prima facie, neither more nor less than dishonest. Mr. Oakeley goes through the history of the English Church, from the reign of Elizabeth to the present time, to prove that the Articles were intended by their framers to include persons who hold the entire cycle of Romish doctrine.

Now, when we repeat to ourselves the language which some of these Articles hold, in which express mention is made of certain Roman doctrines, only to declare them unsound and unscriptural, we cannot help feeling that Mr. Oakeley has taken in hand a hard task; with such direct and overwhelming evidence against him, in the plain and grammatical sense of the Articles, he must produce some very striking testimony, before we can believe that the mind of the framers of them was directly opposed to this sense;—or that where they say, "The Church of Rome hath erred," they intended to accommodate those who maintain that the Church of Rome hath not erred, and cannot err. We repeat that, to our minds, and we must believe to his, the prima facie case is rather against him. We can scarcely think otherwise, than that the most zealous Protestant would be content with such a protest against the infallibility of Rome; and all sincere Romanists would look upon it (at first sight) as a denial of the truth.

But Mr. Oakeley is a well-read and sagacious man-perhaps he has discovered some secrets in the history of the Reformation which have escaped our notice; there may be hidden meanings in the plain tale, which Strype, and Burnet, and Collier, each in his own style, have handed down to us, which will throw quite a new light on these apparently obvious and natural statements of doctrine. For instance, he may be able to show that the feelings of the leading divines, at the revision of 1562, had a strong bias in favour of the popish party in England; or, at least, that, either from friendliness, or ignorance of the difference between the doctrines, they were prepared to use any artifice for the convenience of their Romanist neighbours. Or, again, he may have discovered that, in the preparation of these Articles, and in the alterations proposed, Parker, and Jewell, and Grindal, privately took the

advice and assistance of eminent Romanists, and weighed words and expressions with them, and learnt beforehand from them how far they might go in condemning Rome, without frightening them

away.

Either of these lines of argument Mr. Oakeley might have taken, and might thus have lowered the character of our Reformers, without at all convincing us of the honesty of his subscription. And either of these lines he would have taken, but that unfortunately there is not a single fact in history that gives a shadow of support to such statements. Can we fancy, for example, any feeling towards the Romanists, except abhorrence of their doctrines and practices, in Jewell-the man who had sat by Cranmer's side, at his examination at Oxford, who had been Martyr's assistant at Strasburg for three years, and then, for three more, the friend of Bullinger at Zurich-the author of the Apology? And as to any private understanding with members of the Roman Church, the suspicion has never been hinted against any one of the bishops who assisted in revising the Articles.

Well, then, Mr. Oakeley might show that a large number of Roman Catholics did subscribe the Articles, and always have done so—and that without losing their character among their brethren; and if he could show this, we would gladly admit the conclusion, that two present fellows of Balliol are as honest as a large number of Roman Catholics. And, in truth, this is the course that Mr. Oakeley professes to take, and quotes Strype to prove the fact. We have nothing to say on a matter of fact; let us take Strype, and compare the text with the quotation: "It further appears,' says Mr. Oakeley, p. 30, "that many members of the lower house of convocation, who were Roman Catholics, subscribed the Articles upon the revision in 1562." In a note, he says, "Strype (Ann. ch. 28), gives their names, and among them we find that of the celebrated (?) John Bridgewater (called in Latin Aqua pontanus), who, in 1582, published the treatise called Concertatio Eccl. Cath., &c.,' being an account of the sufferings of English Roman Catholics in the time of Elizabeth."

Now turn we to Strype, and we read a list of the members of the lower house, who signed the Articles on that occasion. He proceeds to give the names of three classes of persons-the last being the papists who signed. "Those," he says, "of this synod, that were in place and dignity under Queen Mary, were Thomas White (who is mentioned in a letter of Bishop Grindal's, writ soon after this synod to the secretary, as a great papist, and yet at the synod; and I find that Gregory Martin of Rheims wrote, anno 1575, to one Dr. T. White, warden of New College, who, I con

clude was this our White, reproving him for 'following the world, or dissembling in religion against his conscience and knowledge.') Andrew Perne, Francis Mallet,. . . . Cottrell, Turnbull, and divers others." Then begins a new paragraph, thus

"Let me make a brief note or two of a few more members of this synod, as I might of many more of them were this a place for it. John Bridgwater was rector of Lincoln College, in Oxford, and after divers years went over sea, and took several young men along with him, and turned papist. Thomas Cole was at Geneva, &c." Then follows a list of eleven other persons, all decided Protestants; therefore, is the statement of Mr. Oakeley that Strype reckons Bridgwater among those who signed, being Roman Catholics at the time, TRUE or FALSE? We may grant him the case of Thomas White, and wish him joy of his leader and companion.

And we do assure our readers that this is all the direct evidence that Mr. Oakeley brings. His case depends on this one extract. For the passages from Heylin and Fuller, regarding the treatment of Romanists, namely, that the Articles were not forced upon them, only goes to show what none ever doubted, that Protestantism is more tolerant than Popery. Even so Strype remarks, that when Feckenham, in Mary's reign, was sent to convert Cheke, as Cheke had been sent without success to Feckenham in Edward's, "he was furnished with one great argument to use to Cheke, which Cheke had not to use to Feckenham, viz., compliance or death."

The rest of Mr. Oakeley's tract, on which Mr. Ward leans so confidently, is filled up with an account of the notorious Santa Clara, and his endeavour, in 1634, to effect the same object as the author of Tract 90, and the anonymous writer of an "Essay towards Catholic Communion," published in 1715. We cannot forbear giving Dr. Waterland's account of the person who first made this creditable attempt, particularly as it may serve for a description of his imitators in the two following centuries. He dismisses him thus, "When Franciscus a Santa Clara took upon him to reconcile our articles to Popery, what did he else, but play the Jesuit and render himself ridiculous?" Here again we grant Mr. Oakeley all that he can demand from this part of his argument, namely, that neither he nor Mr. Newman can claim the merit of originality, however they may of boldness and subtilty. Mr. Oakeley then presents the public with extracts from the writings of Bishop Andrewes, Thorndike, Montague, and one or two others, which prove clearly enough that those writers entertained views on certain points approximating to the doctrines of the Roman church, which we believe was very generally understood

before. But that they knowingly and deliberately signed the articles in a non-natural sense, Mr. Oakeley does not attempt to prove, nor does he quote any one passage in which they recommend fraudulent subscription.

The case of Bishop Goodman was adduced in the first edition as bearing very much on the question; but as the character of this witness suffered a good deal on investigation, the evidence is withdrawn in the second edition, "as wholly immaterial to the question." Mr. Oakeley concludes with the story of Bishop Mountague, and shows that certain Puritans accused him (for this is all) of holding Popish views, as other Puritans had accused Hooker before; but it appears that a committee of five bishops acquitted him of the charge, to which, of course, he pleaded not guilty. To what purpose is this story told? Even if this bishop had held all Romish doctrine, and signed the articles too, it would still remain to be proved that an honest man could do so. King Charles may make a bishop, but an "honest man 's above his might." And there is grave historical evidence, as Mr. Goulburn remarks in his postscript, that Mountague was not an honest man.

This is the historical argument put forth by Mr. Oakeley, and this is one of the grounds on which his friend Mr. Ward (Preface to Address, p. iv.) founds his right to subscribe the Articles in a nonnatural sense. The other ground, and that with which the body of his address is occupied, is simply this,-He maintains that as men of all opinions subscribe the thirty-nine Articles, and as the natural sense of these can be but one, it follows that all parties must, in some particular or other, subscribe in a non-natural sense. And to bring this view of the case nearer home to his readers, he divides members of convocation into three classes, whom he terms evangelicals, low-churchmen, and high-churchmen, and endeavours to show to each class separately, that "every one who now subscribes our formularies is compelled to attach a most violent and strained meaning to several among their number." And first he addresses himself to the evangelical section of the Church, under which name he designates those, whose "fundamental principles are the two following:-1. That justified persons may in all ordinary cases know themselves to be justified,-and 2. That the characteristic mark of the justified is an undivided trust for salvation in the merits of Christ's atonement." Without staying to find fault with this statement of the doctrine of "evangelicals," Mr. Goulburn has undertaken to reply to this part of Mr. Ward's address the other two portions of it, those, namely, addressed to low-churchmen or liberals, and high-churchmen respectively, have not, as far as we know, received any answer.

Before we take notice of the particular argument of Mr. Ward, we must remark generally, that although the sense of the Articles all together and each by itself is but one, it does not by any means follow that men who subscribe them in different senses are subscribing non-naturally, i. e. dishonestly. A man may read them wrongly and understand them wrongly, yet if to the best of his knowledge or judgment, he subscribes them in their natural sense, he cannot be found fault with. But this, by Mr. Ward's confession, is not his case.

The main difficulty which the Address presents to the evangelical party is the declaration, that there is nothing contrary to the word of God in the Prayer-book. As for the Articles, Mr. Ward conceives very justly that the evangelicals will have less difficulty there than he finds himself:

"According to your view," he says, "nominal Christians are divided into two classes, those who know themselves to be in a state of justification, and those who, as yet at least, are not in that state. This is the very fundamental principle of your theology, and you feel it to be such. Now do consider, I beseech you, if this were really the doctrine of the Prayer-book, how plainly, how unmistakeably it must be written on every page?"

Mr. Goulburn replies :—

"Professing Christians are indeed divided into two classes, those who are justified and those who are not; and we earnestly contend that all our services assume that those who use them belong to the former class. For it may be asked, what other assumption could a ritual make? Could it assume people to be outcasts from God's favour, unforgiven, unaccepted? Nay, it must surely contemplate real Christians. Could it then propose two distinct services, or two distinct modifications of the same service, on distinct assumptions? Nay, for the Lord' only 'knoweth them that are his.' To proceed upon any plan which would oblige man to define them, would surely be the extreme of presumption, and attended with endless difficulties.'

'Where then,' says Mr. Ward, 'is your favourite doctrine of justification by faith? We answer, it is an assumption couched under the whole Prayerbook, that they who use it are justified by faith. That the justified should not dwell upon their justification in their prayers, but reach forth to those things which are before, is surely in no wise unintelligible or non-natural."

We consider this an admirable and undeniable statement of the truth, with respect to our Liturgy, and every Liturgy that ever was composed. From the time that our blessed Master taught his disciples to pray, "Our Father," and added, that whatever they should ask in his name, he would give it to them, the only assumption on which a form of prayer could be made for a Church is, that they who joined in it were the adopted children of God in Christ. It is nothing to the purpose to say, that the vast majority of ordinary congregations are not truly in this state; for it may be alleged with equal truth, that many a nominal Christian was addressed as one of a Church, by St. Paul, as being "translated into the king