Keble

H

:7

K2

HEADS OF CONSIDERATION,
tyc. fyc.

HEADS OF CONSIDERATION

CASE OF MR. WARD.

BY THE
REV. JOHN KEBLE, M. A.,
LATE FELLOW OP ORIEL COLLEGE.

OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKER;
LONDON, RIVINGTONS.
MDCCOXLV.

OXFORD ; PBINTED BY I. SHBlMPIOJf.

HEADS OP CONSIDERATION,
Cj-C.

There appear to be three questions which Members of
Convocation have to answer for themselves, in order to
determine what course they should take in respect both of
the charge and sentence, to be proposed on the 13th of
February. 1. "Is it expedient to entertain the question at all?"
2. "Is Mr. Ward proved guilty of that which he is
charged with, by the passages alleged in the
charge ?"
3. " Supposing him guilty, is it legal, or otherwise de
sirable, to affirm the sentence of degradation ?"
To some, perhaps, an additional question may occur,
between the second and third as here stated ; viz. " Is he
proved guilty by other passages, or by the general tenor of
his acknowledged writings?" But this question, I appre
hend, is excluded by the wording of the charge itself:
" That the passages now read are utterly inconsistent with
the Articles," &c. It is true that the special passages are
not mentioned in the proposed vote of degradation itself : we
are simply called on to affirm, that " the said W. G. Ward

has disentitled himself to the rights and privileges conveyed
by his degrees." But this second proposition must stand on
the first, else it will be a sentence without specification of
crime. And the first proposition again must stand on the
alleged passages: for it were against all rules of judicial
equity to bring in a verdict of guilty, not on the evidence
adduced by the prosecutor, but on other supposed evidence,
confined to our own breasts, and therefore impossible to be
met and answered by the defendant. Plainly it will be our
duty (as judges say to jurymen) to dismiss from our minds
all extraneous matter, all that has not been both alleged
and proved by those who prefer the charge. Should any
Member of Convocation vote for Mr. Ward's degradation,
upon any other ground than the very passages cited against
him, he will be committing the same injustice, of which a
jury would be guilty, who should convict a prisoner upon
their own supposed knowledge of some other felonious act
of his, not mentioned in the indictment.
It might be otherwise, had the measure proposed been
simply a doctrinal censure, or declaration of want of con
fidence. But bad faith and degradation are such serious
matters, and involve such heavy penalties, that the person
so threatened is surely entitled to every protection and
safeguard, which law and equity provide in analagous
cases. Leaving therefore out of consideration whatever else
Mr. Ward may have written (except so far as it may be
needed for interpretation of ambiguities or obscurities in
the words actually quoted), we may confine ourselves to the
three questions set down above, which between them seem
practically to exhaust the subject.
I. The first of the three, Is it expedient to entertain the

case at all? is clearly a very relevant and a very important
one. It is relevant and within our cognizance ; for Con
vocation is not a court of justice, bound to dispose judicially
of causes and persons regularly brought before it, although
if we do try any cause, especially one involving such highly
penal consequences, we are bound to guard ourselves by
those rules which courts of justice find needful for their
guidance. But in itself, as hardly need be stated, Convo
cation is a deliberative body, and may be likened, in such
proceedings as the present, to the House of Commons
debating a question of impeachment. No wonder, in such
a debate, if many whose impressions are unfavourable to
the accused person, should yet vote against penal proceed
ings, as judging them on the whole inequitable, or simply
undesirable. And obviously in this case there are very
grave reasons for quashing the proposition altogether,
reasons quite independant of particular statements in theo
logy, and apart from all question of Mr. Ward's guilt or
innocence. 1. It is unnecessarily harsh and cruel, and also undigni
fied on the part of the University, to blend with what is
meant to be a grave ecclesiastical decision, and to put on
record, the saying, That " the passages ... are inconsistent
. . . with the good faith," i. e. the honesty, of the person
supposed to be in error.
2. The condemnation, if passed, will indirectly, and pro
tanto, have the effect of a new Test: for it will affirm the
following propositions to be so contained in the Articles as
to exclude honest subscription on the part of any one
denying them.
a. That the English Reformation, as a movement, has
claims on our sympathy and regard. (Neither of this, nor
of any other of these sayings, is the truth here in question;

the only point is, Are they palpably contained in the
Articles ?)
/3. That there was no great sin on the part of the Eng
lish Church in our separation from Rome : no connivance
at sacrilege, for example ; no slighting of established autho
rity and visible unity; no unworthy truckling to secular
tyranny and injustice. What is there in the Articles about
this, one way or the other ?
y. That the " spirit" of certain of the Articles is not con
tradictory to that of the Prayer-Book. For example, that
the saying, " We are justified by faith only," has no appear
ance or air of contradiction to St. James ii. 24. (which the
Prayer-Book orders to be read in Church three times a
year) and to the last verse of the Creed of St. Athanasius.
8. That the Reformers could not have intended so to
frame the Articles, as to make it possible for Roman
Catholics to sign them.
e. That the 12th Article in particular may not be signed
in any sense, but that which would naturally be given to it
by a person versed in the controversies of the sixteenth
century. Of these five statements, three at least are obviously
irrelevant to the substance of the Articles themselves.
Unless however we are prepared to affirm that no one,
dissenting from any of these propositions, can honestly
sign the Articles, we shall be voting against our own
convictions in saying Placet to the first question ; and
if we do affirm it, we make (as far as one precedent goes)
a virtual addition to the test of Church membership at pre
sent required by the University.
3. The proposed decree being in the nature of a privi-
legium, or law passed ex post facto for a particular case, is
in its own nature invidious and unfair, and can only be

justified by great necessity, and strict impartiality in the
enacting body. But both the necessity and the impar
tiality are in this case negatived by the palpable fact, that
at this very time persons are allowed to go on unquestioned
in the University, who take at least as great liberties with
the five first Articles, and with the letter of the Prayer-
Book, (the Baptismal and Ordination Services, and the
Catechism,) as any one is now charged with respecting
some of the later Articles. And the impartiality in particular
is made questionable by this other obvious fact, that at the
Board from which this censure proceeds sits one, of whom
the University has declared her suspicion on the ground of
his theological opinions, without his " good faith " being
questioned, and without any proposal to degrade him. If
the " Via Media" is to be defended by something like the
sword of excommunication, at least it should be two-edged,
and cut both ways. Indeed it seems highly scandalous,
that any degree of what is called Romanizing should be
visited more severely than heretical statements affecting
the foundations of the Faith, the Trinity, and Incarnation.
4. It is very undesirable that the University should
hastily depart from the regular traditional policy of this
branch of the Church, which has always been to tolerate
all who could subscribe the Articles in their literal and
grammatical sense, enduring great latitude both on the
right hand and on the left, while by her Canons and the
voice of her greatest Divines, as well as by the spirit of her
other Formularies, she has ever held up the consent of
Antiquity as the best interpreter of what might be ambi
guous in them.
5. It is especially uncharitable and unwise at present
to narrow the ground of Anglicanism, and that on the
side of Rome exclusively ; both as increasing the relative

10
power of the Latitudin arian and Rationalistic schools which
exist among us, and as adding force to any doubts, which
may be reasonably or unreasonably felt concerning our
Catholicity. 6. Nor ought it to be overlooked in this question of
expediency, that in driving this writer and such as think
with him out of our body, we are parting with a set of per
sons most willing and able, as large experience has shewn,
to work within and under the Church of England in all
charity, patience, and self-denial, against the common
enemies of us all — vice and unbelief. All that has been
and is said about bearing with unsound Protestant opinions,
because of the practical excellency and usefulness of their
maintainers, ought to tell, one should imagine, against harsh
dealing in the present case.
7. On the other hand, valuable as their services are, they
are so few in number, and so little likely to increase, that
scarce any thing would be gained by excluding them. So
painful a matter as a formal punishment ought not to be
urged except of necessity, and for some great end. What
is the great end in degrading Mr. Ward ? Hardly one or
two agree with him, in thinking all Roman doctrine com
patible with the Thirty-nine Articles. This being so, the
measure reduces itself to a mere unmeaning wanton attack,
almost upon an individual. Others, who have been struck
at, did at least represent a school : but can this be said in
the present instance ? Or will it be maintained that Con
vocation is an ordinary judge, to come forward whenever
any private M.A. does wrong?
Here again one is tempted to long for a little impartiality.
There has notoriously been for some time a School of
Oxford Divines, maintaining (to speak plainly) Sabellian
opinions. Why has no censure upon them been proposed ?

11
The only excuse which suggests itself is, their being sup
posed few, and little likely to spread. I wish the supposi
tion were correct : but being, as it is, the only creditable
account of the omission to censure in that and in some
other instances, it makes the present attempt appear the
more inexcusably partial and one-sided.
I would put it most respectfully, but most earnestly, to
those Members of Convocation especially, who for various
reasons feel indignant toward Mr. Ward, whether on grounds
like these it be not desirable that the proposed measure
should be stopped in limine ? whether, if it came before them
as questions do in the Houses of Parliament, they would
not be disposed to move the " previous question ?"
II. In the next place we have to consider, how far the
passages cited from " the Ideal" bear out the charge of
" bad faith." If we do but think it possible that the error
we may suppose contained in them may be attributed
to obliquity of judgment, incautious reasoning, or anything
else short of conscious and deliberate dishonesty, we are
bound by every obligation of charity and justice to say
Non placet to the charge.
On this head I submit as follows : —
1. No person who knows Mr. Ward believes him at all
likely to be guilty of conscious and deliberate dishonesty :
the mistake which his friends and acqiiaintance of all
parties seem rather to dread on his part is what may be
called excess of frankness : as though he thought it neces
sary to state his opinions at every possible disadvantage,
and to shock as many persons as he can, lest he should
seem hereafter to have beguiled them.
2. Mr. Ward and Mr. Oakeley have produced no small
quantity of historical evidence to prove the admissibility in

12
the English Church, since the Reformation, of certain
views more or less like their own : and those who do not
think that their precedents quite bear them out, may yet
easily understand how they might innocently and in " good
faith" rely upon those precedents.
3. If after considering all this, people yet feel themselves
constrained to pass so very severe a sentence, by parity of
reasoning they must be prepared to denounce, as dishonest,
the whole, body of those who declare their adherence to the
Prayer-Book, denying at the same time or explaining away
the doctrine of Regeneration in Baptism.
All that can be said against Mr. Ward of inventing
"strange, incredible hypotheses," "going against the spirit
of our Formularies," " breaking the letter of solemn engage
ments," " denying authority to the Church," and (in many
cases) using language concerning her which sounds dis
respectful — may be said at least as truly of the writers and
preachers of the schools referred to : and all that can be said
in their behalf, of high general character and usefulness,
of seeming warrant for the liberties they take, to be found
in other parts of our Formularies; or of the toleration shewn
to them in various ages of the Church ; — may be said, with
quite as much cogency, in behalf of Mr. Ward. If his words
convict him of " bad faith," so do theirs convict them : if
their pleadings may but be listened to, his ought not to be
overruled. And here it may not be superfluous, distinctly to call
the attention of Members of Convocation to the real posi
tion in which they will stand on the 13 th of February. It
will be, I scruple not to say, an unpardonable mistake, if
we allow ourselves to suppose that we come to affirm or
deny an abstract opinion : to record our own adhesion to
this or that school within the Church. Whatever may be

13
involved in the result, our direct business, that for which we
shall be responsible, will be to try a Master of Ar ts and
Clergyman on a special and defined charge. Whatever we
may think of his opinions, however dangerous we may ac
count his party, — unless we believe him guilty of the whole
of that charge, still more unless we believe him guilty of
the most stringent portion of it, the breach of " good faith,"
we cannot, as the proposition is framed, honestly affirm it.
And better it were to miss of a great good, than to obtain
it by a mean so wicked as a dishonest verdict.
III. Suppose now, what I am most unwilling to imagine,
the sentence of "bad faith" carried, a very material question
remains : Has the University power to degrade for such an
offence ? We are not, many of us, lawyers enough to answer
this ; but it is understood to be matter of grave doubt, at
least, among persons of high professional character, and not
likely to be blinded in this case by sympathy with the
accused. Is it dutiful and respectful to the University, to
aid in committing her to a verdict, not unlikely to be here
after annulled ?
On this part of the subject, even persons incompetent as
I am may be able to understand the following suggestions,
for which I am indebted to an experienced legal friend.
We seem to be members of a great corporation : we have
the power of conferring degrees, and these degrees are not
merely titular or of value among ourselves; they are
requisite for the enjoyment of many valuable rights and
franchises, not only in Oxford but in the world at large.
We have the power also of making bye-laws, or statutes,
within certain limits, and of inflicting punishments for the
breach of them : some of those punishments, but very few,
involving degradation.

14
If Mr. Ward's offence, as it stands in the charge, supposing
it proved and affirmed, is to subject him to this punishment,
either our present statutes must point it out, or we must
make a new statute for the purpose, or we must inflict it
without authority of any statute.
Now, first, it is not pretended that any existing statute
imposes this punishment for this offence.
In the next place, (setting aside the odiousness of an ex
post facts-' law of punishment,) it is enough to say that the
present proceeding does not affect to make a new statute.
For the Hebdomadal Board, and the House of Convocation,
are not alone competent to make a new statute. See Tit. x,
s. 2. § 2.
Lastly, it would seem hardly maintainable that Convo
cation has a discretionary power of punishing, to the extent
of degradation, in cases not provided for by statute. If it
has, we live under this strange condition: that whatever
the majority may vote to be a crime becomes so, and being
so, the same majority may vote it punishable by the loss of
a degree. This would be a new kind of law, I believe, for
any other corporation. It surely behoves us all, of what
ever party, to consider well, before we lend our help to
introduce it among ourselves.
Even if the sentence were legal, there are circumstances
attending this punishment of degradation, which would
make us all most unwilling to inflict it, except in very ex
treme cases of deliberate moral guilt.
I have not felt myself at liberty to dwell here on the
positive merits of the Author of the Ideal towards the
Church of England, and many perplexed consciences within
her, in respect both of large portions of that work, and of
some former and more elementary publications : although

15
for both (amid serious disagreement from some of his prin
ciples, if I understand them rightly) I cannot but feel
deeply grateful. Of course, to such as sympathize in this ,
feeling, and appreciate also the many noble traits of
character which Mr. Ward's writings disclose, it must be
simply impossible to find him guilty of '**bad faith ;" or to
think of his being degraded, without a deep sense of wrong
and dread of retribution.
But judging of his case by those measures only which I
have endeavoured to apply above, I can imagine few things
more unfair and cruel in themselves, or more likely to be
ruinous under our present circumstances, than his con
demnation, should it unhappily be carried.

Hursley, Jan. 16, 1845.

OXFORD: PRINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 0755