the desire to be fair and candid, with which, as far as intention went,
he conducted his argument. His first appearance as a writer was in the
controversy, as has been said before, on the subject of No. 90. That
tract had made the well-worn distinction between what was Catholic and
what was distinctively Roman, and had urged--what had been urged over
and over again by English divines--that the Articles, in their
condemnation of what was Roman, were drawn in such a way as to leave
untouched what was unquestionably Catholic. They were drawn indeed by
Protestants, but by men who also earnestly professed to hold with the
old Catholic doctors and disavowed any purpose to depart from their
teaching, and who further had to meet the views and gain the assent of
men who were much less Protestant than themselves--men who were willing
to break with the Pope and condemn the abuses associated with his name,
but by no means willing to break with the old theology. The Articles
were the natural result of a compromise between two strong parties--the
Catholics agreeing that the abuses should be condemned, so that the
Catholic doctrine was not touched; the Protestants insisting that, so
that the Catholic doctrine was not touched, the abuses of it should be
denounced with great severity: that there should be no question about
the condemnation of the abuses, and of the system which had maintained
them. The Articles were undoubtedly anti-Roman; that was obvious from
the historical position of the English Church, which in a very real
sense was anti-Roman; but were they so anti-Roman as to exclude
doctrines which English divines had over and over again maintained as
Catholic and distinguished from Romanism, but which the popular opinion,
at this time or that, identified therewith?[108] With flagrant
ignorance--ignorance of the history of thought and teaching in the
English Church, ignorance far more inexcusable of the state of parties
and their several notorious difficulties in relation to the various
formularies of the Church, it was maintained on the other side that the
"Articles construed by themselves" left no doubt that they were not only
anti-Roman but anti-Catholic, and that nothing but the grossest
dishonesty and immorality could allow any doubt on the subject.

Neither estimate was logical enough to satisfy Mr. Ward. The charge of
insincerity, he retorted with great effect on those who made it: if
words meant anything, the Ordination