UL.be

1

HonUon ©tttott on €ftttrrii J*latterss,

ADDRESS

REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D.,
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW AND CANON OF CJI. CII., OXFORD.

AT A MEETING OF THE
LONDON UNION ON CHURCH MATTERS.
Held in St. Martin's Hall, October 15, 1850,
PUBLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE MEETING.
(Reprinted from the Guardian.)

A POSTSCRIPT.

OXFORD: JOHN HENRY PARKER;
AND 377, STRAND, LONDON.
Price One Penny.

IMPORTANT MEETING OF THE LONDON
CHURCH UNION.
(From the Guardian of October 16.)
The special general meeting of this Union, held yesterday
at St. Martin's Hall, was one of the most important that has
been held. It was attended by a larger number of members
than on any preceding occasion.
The following resolution was adopted unanimously: —
" Resolved, —
" That whereas the London Church Union was designed to he a Union of
all Churchmen desirous of co-operating in the ¦promotion, of certain define A
objects, it cannot consent to narrow the basis of its constitution by identify
ing itself with any organization which is founded upon the acceptance of a
declaration of faith over and uhove the existing formularies of the English
Church, which it desires to make the rule of its proceedings."
The resolution was put forward in the same words as the
amendment adopted at Bristol, to show the sympathy of the
Committee of the London Union with the majority at Bristol.
In reply to the request made to Dr. Pusey, to publish his
address, we have great pleasure in laying it before our readers-
The Rev. Doctor spoke as follows : — ¦
The amendment agreed to in the Bristol Church Union, which has
been proposed for our adoption, was based unon principles of peace
honesty towards others, good faith among ourselves, and, I may say,
humility and love. I do not, of course, mean to say that those who
framed the declaration which was rejected, were conscious of any
breach of any of them, although I must think that the declaration
proposed was (not to mention names) contrary to the natural feel
ings and acknowledged principles of some who advocated it. I
know that one, much concerned in it, would himself have been quite
contented with a positive declaration of adherence ,to the Church of
England. But I am speaking now of those only who supported the
amendment. Some of them had a very invidious office. They were
almost certain to meet with censure and misunderstanding which
would be diligently propagated among their flocks. But the sup
port of the amendment was a plain duty, as matter, I mast think, ol
honesty. However kind-hearted people might persuade themselves
that it was no test, such a declaration could not but be a test. I

was avowed by some that it was intended to bo a test; it had been
avowed before hand by one who supported it, that he wished to
get rid of what he called " Romanism within the Church of Eng
land;" it was avowed at the time; it has been justified since; and
the country has been congratulated on the result, that the desired
severance has been made; at least by the secession of the minority.
The sad disunion which has been made has been termed the " hoist
ing of the banner of sound Churchmanship, in opposition to the un
faithfulness and duplicity of a Romanising spirit."
A declaration, advocated on such grounds, must be a test. And
it was necessarily the worse sort of test, because it was not such pro
fessedly. It was to be binding and not binding at the same time. It
was not to be ubscribed by individuals, and so not drawn up with
the care with which a declaration ought which is to be tendered
to individuals. And yet it was to be put forth in the name of the
whole body of which these individuals were members. It was to be
honest in the body and binding upon it. It was to declare its
principles, and yet it was not (some said) to be binding upon indivi
duals, or to declare theirs. Yet such a declaration was to gain
confidence with the country when those who proposed it to the
Union were not agreed what its meaning or effect was to be. If
those against whom it was directed had accepted the interpretation
and remained members of the Union, they would have neutralised
its effect. So long as they remained, the declaration would have been
waste paper. If they had remained and protested, the confusion
would have been endless. But it would have brought disgrace upon
them and their principles, and would have made all declarations
hollow. It was, then, the only plain and honest way to regard such a de
claration as a test. But a test (we were reminded at the time) is, by
the law of the land, illegal. But whether this test was technically
illegal or not, it was contrary to a great moral law. Church Unions
were formed on a broad, intelligible principle. They were to consist
of persons, whose one common bond was to be, love for the Church,
and zeal for her well being and her purity. All were supposed to
love the Church. When a city or a country is in a state of siege or
invasion, to unite in resisting the invasion is itself the highest test of
zeal and faithfulness. Men do not love exertion. To what end to
weary ourselves, if we did not love? Why toil for the Church but in
the belief that she is of God — that she is a messenger from heaven —
the Bride of Christ — His instrument for the salvation of souls.
These were tho terms of our union. We did not ask one another

4
what was our opinion on each point which had been questioned. We
were united together by one common faith, one common care and
love for our Mother. It was assumed that we all loved her for whom
we gave up our ease, and rest, and our quiet pursuits. We are
bound to her by all our early ties, by our early prayers, by our cate
chising — some of us by our labours for her — by our longings that
she, and we in her, should be all which God willed for her, and us in
her — by our confirmations, our absolutions, our communions —by the
faith which she taught us — the worship with which she hallowed all
our blessings. These are the bonds of love with which we are held to
her; by which even those who have misgivings, which I have not,
are held to her. And shall we think that these can be strengthened
by a mere negative ? Repulsion is a poor substitute for attraction.
It might make people infidels or indifferent; it will not bind them
to the Church.
But, apart from this, any thing introduced as a test into an exist
ing society is morally wrong. We may, if need be, dissolve; we can
not, on any principles of morality, narrow the terms of the agreement
on which we combined. We united on the simple basis of defending
the Church. We have morally no right to alter that basis. This
cannot be done, even in human partnership, for worldly convenience.
Human law would not permit it. Human justice would declare it
injustice. But we, of the clergy, have need to look to it, that we do
not, on account of any apparent urgency of our object, admit prin
ciples which would not be tolerated in transactions of this world
Fiat justitia; mat cmlwm. The things of God cannot be upheld by
the breach of human justice, or endangered by adherence to its rules.
In this case, the test is the more wrong, because it must make those
suspected who decline it. Persons might object to the principle of
such tests; many might object, on any authority less than that of the
Church, to declare any thing about terms of communion with the
rest of Western Christendom; they might object to say any thing
about the decrees of the Eoman Church', when the English Church
had said nothing about those decrees; or they might object to a de
claration, which to them seems to make it a duty imperative on the
inhabitants of Spain or Italy to sever themselves from the Roman
Church, to join themselves with nothing; or they might object to
statements so sweeping. Yet all these, and others, would have been
stigmatised as unfaithful to the English Church, and, if clergy, their
influence in their parishes destroyed.
What, again, are we, a handful of Churchmen, that we should put
out statements which our Church has not put forth, as the terms by

5
which our body should be held together? It was well said, on the
late occasion, " This declaration is less, or the same as, or more than,
the formularies of the Church of England. If less, it is idle; if the
same, superfluous; if more, it is wrong.'' We migbt have united on
any terms we would. We might have united in a Reformation
Society. The eyes of those who joined it would have been open;
tliey would have known what they were doing. People might have
combined in antagonism to Rome. But there is no right to convert
a society, formed; simply for the defence of the English Church
against the aggression of the State, into an association for any other
•nd Without the concurrence of all united in her. Still less is there
a right, and still less is it humble, to make declarations as to so great
a question as the terms upon which intercommunion is to be
restored, a test of our faithfulness to the Church. One cannot but
think, that amid a less panic, some in whose names that declaration
was put forth would have shrunk from the responsibility.
But, it is said by some, " if not this, at least let there be some
declaration of principles." And I have been asked, " Is not the
statement of your sense of the royal supremacy itself such a decla
ration?" The case is wholly different. Those who put forth that
declaration simply meant, for the interim, to relieve their own con
sciences. We feel ourselves bound to oppose the Privy Council.
What, then, we are asked, (as people had a right to ask,) is the
meaning of the declaration of the Queen's supremacy, which you
have yourselves signed ? We do not judge others ; but we felt our
selves bound, for the very prevention of scandal, to show that our
opposition to the Privy Council was consistent with our previous de
claration. This statement, among many others which might be framed,
made our proceeding straightforward and intelligible. Still more,
we feared, lest, if we did not protest, our declaration, founded as it is
on the earlier- acts of the Church, should be wrongly interpreted by
the later statutes of the realm. But those who put forth that state
ment make it no test as to others. There is room for many state
ments. Those who do not think they need any incur no imputation
by rejecting it. It is simply the act of individuals, not a test to be
adopted by a body.
But, again, surely, the professed objects of the Union super
sede the necessity of any additional declaration. They are them
selves a declaration. It must have struck many of us on the
late occasion — " What connection is there between the objects here
set forth, and a declaration against Romanism?" We are not, as

members of a Church Union, endeavouring to get power into our own
hands. Wc are but a body, brought together by the emergency of
the times to bring about, with God's help, the healthful action of the
Church itself. We would aim to have the fetters of the Church un
done — her voice loosed, not ourselves to act or speak in her name.
The objects of the Bristol Union were set forth as —
" 1. General Church Extension.
" 2. An increase in the Episcopate, with some valid security against unfit
appointments. " 3. The revival of a Church Legislature.
" 4. The restoration of discipline.''
What have these to do with a declaration against Rome?
Those of the London : —
" To watch the course of events and proceedings which may affect the
Church; and with reference thereto to obtain and spread information;— tu
correspond and co-operate with parties in the several dioceses ; to pro
cure legal advice and assistance when requisite; and, in general, so to exer
cise as a body the rights and privileges possessed by Churchmen in their
individual capacities as to promote the interests of the Church."
And its second rule expressly provides —
" That it be the especial care of the Union that, in all its acts, dutiful
and affectionate deference be paid to Episcopal authority."
What call is there here for an anti-Roman declaration?
Those of the new association (which were framed by a committee
apart from the declaration, although brought forward by a section of
that committee with the declaration,) are : —
" 1. The revival of the synodal action of the Church.
" 2. Security for the appointment of orthodox Bishops.
" 3. Protection for the Church's faith from the interference of any au
thority or influence alien to her principles and constitution.
" 4. The removal of all legal impediments to the proper exercise of
spiritual discipline in the Church, and to her extension commensuratcly
with the wants of the nation."
As far as these are opposed to the encroachments of the State, they
are themselves a protest against Erastianism ; but what have they to
do with any anti-Roman declaration? Those who act with this aim
arc but as instruments in launching the vessel, which has been too
long laid by, but in whose guidance they would have no share.
They forget and ignore themselves, and labour only, that others,
whom God shall appoint, shall have free scope, untrammelled by
earthly politics, to guide, as He shall teach them, the vessel "of the
Church. What matters it who we are, when wc are only acting in
order that we may cease to act, through the restoration of the
healthful action of the Church herself? There is no scope, in these
objects, for what are called Romanising tendencies. The whole

1
position of the London Church Union is simply on the defensive-
defence of the Church of England. The whole office of its mem
bers is within the Church of England. An anti-Roman declaration
is, for any purposes of the Unions, simply nihil ad rem, foreign and
extrinsic to their whole constitution and object.
But, it is said we are labouring under an imputation of unfaith
fulness to the Church; and the secession of a leading individual
is pointed to, who, on a late occasion, occupied a prominent place.
It may be said, in justice to himself, that he attended that
meeting as a private individual, and only accepted the chair,
to which he was suddenly called, in the hurry of a decision
to be made, one way or the other, on the instant. Certainly
it were to be desired that those who have misgivings about
the Church of England should not allow themselves to be put in
prominent positions ; and, probably, the recent experience and the
feelings since expressed would prevent those who doubt about the
Church from so doing. But can any desire that those whose hearts
ache with fear for the Church of England, who feel that, in leaving
her, they would be leaving the hopes of their whole lives, who desire
to struggle for her deliverance while they can,— can any desire that
those should not labour for her, or should cease to be members of
Church Unions? Pew can tell but those who have felt or seen it,
how heavy and oppressive the feeling of insulation is, when a man is
spoken of with mistrust and suspicion, and kept aloof. Those must
have stout or unfeeling hearts who cannot be affected by the want
of sympathy. To decline any one's help in the defence of the Church
is to disown him as her son. and to brand him as an alien. We must
not use- so cold, calculating a policy. Human policy may say,
" Take heed that ye be not suspected; keep clear of all who are;
make yourselves popular." Divine love says, " Loose not one single
band which, however tremblingly, holds one single heart; keep, if
you can, every one who still clings to his mother; loose not one
finger which would still hold her skirt. You think it sin to part with
her; do not yourself snap one thinnest cord." Some who have, ia
the first strong shock, had misgivings about the Church, have been
comforted and strengthened ; others have been re-assured. Who can
tell what the effects might have been, had they been severed off as
aliens? No ! it may be well that the faint-hearted should not occupy
the first posts, lest they should discourage the rest; but who shall
refuse their services, and sever them from the camp, as though they
were recreants or traitors ?
But again, it is said, wo are some of us suspicious and suspected.

8
I believe that there is no remedy, certainly not in declarations.
Acts speak ; not words. If any think that our acts are con
trary to our words, no words will convince them. They will
think us hypocrites, or, as they term it, Jesuits. They will
not believe us. If the labours of seventeen or twenty-seven years
will not persuade men that we are faithful to the Church
of England, words will not. We must await God's time, until
this fever of fear subside; or, if nothing will convince them, death
in the bosom of the Church of England will. The suspicions
began before there was any defection, or fear of one, while all were
living in Holy Scripture, the Fathers, and our own Divines, and
while Rome was known only as an antagonist body. Suspicion was
as rife twelve years ago as now.
At this moment, I believe, that it is much more directed
against primitive truth than against any thing peculiar to the
Church of Rome. We are not suspected of what was spoken
of the other day, the cultus of the Blessed Virgin. Our belief
in baptism, and all that train of truths as to man which flow
from the true doctrine of the sacraments, are far more in per
sons' minds. And this is a special difficulty as to any declaration in
this direction. If it be general, it must be ambiguous. In the minds
of a large body of persons the doctrine of justification by faith only
is the articulus stantis aut cadentis Ecclesice. A recent pamphlet put
forth against the (so-called) High Church, puts this and connected
doctrines in the fore-front of the charge. But what since a mo
derate reformed writer (Le Blanc) says that, when rightly
understood, the statements of the moderate writers among
the Roman Catholics and the Reformed mean the same thing?
I believe most entirely that, on the doctrines of original
sin and justification, the English Articles and the Council of1
Trent present only different aspects of the same truths. How,
then, could we agree (to instance no other doctrine) when
they whom we should wish most to conciliate by our statements,
would understand by a general declaration the very contrary of what
we mean? And so I have seen that every attempt to make a decla
ration must be ambiguous. One proposes " adherence to the dis
tinctive doctrines of the Church of England." The Church of England
has, of course, no distinctive doctrines.* All doctrines in the whole
* I did not doubt that the words, " that the Church of England has no
distinctive doctrines," would be sufficiently explained by the next sentence.
The " Faith" being " one," and having been " once for all delivered to the
saints," there can be no distinctive doctrines, because doctrine is matter of

Christian Church ought to be part of that faith, which was once for
all delivered to the saints, contained in Holy Scripture, attested by
the Church Universal. So these "distinctive doctrines" must
mean the doctrines which the Church of England has expressed as
apart from those which she has not expressed. But, first, little has
been said in her formularies on some doctrines which have ever been
held by her divines. (I may mention to you, with reverence, the
Eucharistio sacrifice.) And then, this is again a negative test.
Good Bishop Andrewes would not have received it, who prays, and
we with him, " supply what is lacking, strengthen what remains.'
Another form from one whom we all reverence, suggested the words,
" The unauthorised additions to the Primitive Faith." Yet he with
drew it on the suggestion, that it too was ambiguous ; for among the
articles in Pope Pius's Creed, which would bo supposed to he in
tended, one relates exclusively to original sin and justification.
We can survive any odium, except that of want of straightfor
wardness. Other imputations are but as mud, which, with patience,
peels off; this eats into the very hearts of the English people.
There are other grave reasons, I think, against any new declara
tions in consequence of the present panic. Fear is a bad counsellor.
Two religious societies have lived through a century and a half.
One of them had no declaration ; the other, the Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, has this only: "I believe A.B. to be a well-
affected member of the»United Church of England and Ireland, as by
law established; and disposed to aid the pious and charitable designs
of the Society." We have not, as a Church Union, any office of
teaching. We issue no tracts. Why are we to take upon us to set
an example to the Church, that antagonism to the Church of Rome
should be tho basis of religious union, and select as proofs of our
fealty to the Church of England, declarations, in which Socinians and
Anabaptists would join, and have joined, and would turn against the
Church of England? The Socinian boast might be a warning to us
against such declarations. The Socinian pictured Calvin as carrying
on the protest against Rome more vigorously than Luther, himself
than Calvin. " Tota jacet Babylon; destruxit tecta Lutherus;
Calvinus muros ; sed fundamenta Soeinus."
The charge is brought against the English Church itself. It has
Faith, and matter of Faith must have been committed to the Church from
the first, and possessed by her. " Distinctive doctrines" as positive truth,
would be heresy; for there can be no new truth, nor any new faith.

10
recently been said,* " I may perhaps be mot with the 'remark that
by some partiet' I am myself accused of Popery. I know it, and I
laugh the accusation to scorn, because it is made by those who are
ignorant of the principles of the Church of England ; or, in their
ignorance of Christianity, regard as Popish the Church of England
itself. Tho first theologians of the Church of England, and the
Reformers themselves, have met with similar treatment."
But now, especially, we need and might have, the prayers of the
whole Church. If all sympathy (as we trust) is not extinct, surely
that great part of the Christian Church must behold with interest our
struggle for an article of the Creed which we hold in common.
They cannot all be exulting in our loss as their gain. They do not
all say, down with her, down with her, even to the ground, or wish
that the vessel of our Church should sink, that they may pick up
some stragglers out of the wreck. Surely to make antagonism a
basis and condition of united religious action is at all times to be
deprecated ; hew much more is it gratuitous, when we are maintain
ing the same fight against the like unbelief in God's miracles of
grace through His sacrament. For, surely, what gives the chief
interest to these Unions now is the present and future jeopardy of the
faith. We are not desirous for liberty and power for the Church, as
good in themselves. We desire, we agitate, we pray, for liberty for
the Church, to maintain and transmit, unimpaired, the faith of
Christ. Of all the points put forth in the resplutions of Mr. Palmer,
there is not one for which the Church of Rome is not bound by her
faith in the Creeds, and the common bonds of the Gospel, to wish the
Church of England " God speed." Since love is the bitumen which
held and holds the seams of the ark together, so that the waters of
the deluge cannot penetrate, it would be an evil day, when declared
hostility to a portion of the Church is to be " hoisted," as has been
said, " as the banner of sound Churchmanship" under which the Ark
of God is to sail.
It has been said that we shall never make the objects of Church
Unions popular until we have persuaded the people that we arc not
secretly leading them to subjection to Rome. One cannot walk along
the street of this great city to this place of meeting, without seeing
and feeling painfully that you might as well speak of putting out a
spark, when the flame is curling around the house tops, as of sus
picions of Rome keeping from us the hearts of the people. It is idle
to speak of antagonism to Rome amid the wide-spread antagonism
to Christianity. Babylon is around us. This is the great problem
* Dr. Hook's Letter on Church Unions.

11
for the Church of England — the conversion of the heathen within her
walls — the multiplication of devoted missionaries at home — the
rousing of the lukewarm — the conversion of sinners — the instruction
of the ignorant — the recall of the erring. At this we must indivi
dually, as we can, aim; for this we must pray; this, in whatever
degree it shall be accomplished, will also be the bulwark of the
Church against the world. While this is neglected, it is idle, and
worse than idle, to think of winning, by paper declarations, to the
conflict of the Church with the world those whose hearts, being with
the world, cannot be with the Church.
In the name of the God of Peace, and of our Lord who is our
peace, and God the Holy Ghost, who is the Author of peace, let us
avoid all fresh divisions, and whatever we can which may sow dis
cord. Three months ago we met together hero, as one united body.
Is the failure of a few hearts to separate us, and make us suspect one
another? God forbid that we should be rather like Jerusalem
when besieged by the Romans, than that " which is at unity in itself !"
If the peril of our common faith, the fear of the corrupting influence
of the world, the pressure of a common enemy, and the terror of
God's judgments cannot awe us into stillness, we should be more
stupid than the very beasts which perish; for they at least cower and
are still, they fight not when the storm is impending.
Be attachment, then, to our Mother, the Church of England, our
bond; the maintenance of the faith our single aim; her sacraments
our pledges of fealty; not paper declarations, which will be misunder
stood, and not believed.

12

POSTSCRIPT

In publishing this speech (as I have been requested) in a separate
form, I will add a few words, in explanation of some misapprehen
sions, because I would not give any occasion to perpetuate heart
burnings. I cannot be expected, amid the duties of term , or indeed at any time,
to answer objections made by persons who write to me anonymously
in newspapers. Those who demand of me answers may, at least, let
me know who calls upon me. I do so now, because the name of one
with whom I was, many years ago, associated as a friend, and la
boured for the Church, whom I yet love for his own sake, and for the
Church's sake, Mr. Palmer, has been mixed up in this appeal to
myself. But I must first disclaim any such statement as the antithesis of
the writer, " it will be a matter of convenience to the public, to have
it clearly understood that the London Union is Dr. Pusey's body,
and Dr. Pusey'the mind of the London Union." This is entirely
unfounded. I was not a member of the Committee of the London
Union until the end of last April, and, since the meeting of July, I
have attended no meeting, either of the London Union or of its Com
mittee, nor had I any share in any thing which has been done, except
that, when asked, I signed, together with others, a letter to the
American Convention, which I neither originated nor wrote. The
London Church Union has abundance of members qualified to direct
her measures. On« the late occasion, the then meeting approved of
what I said, as a whole. They are not, of course, committed to its
details. I state this, because there seems to be a disposition, in some
quarters, to make use of my name in order to make the London
Church Union unpopular, and to represent me as desiring to be a
" leader," which has been altogether foreign to all the objects of my
heart. To proceed to these statements.
They are —
(1) " You represent the declaration of Mr. Palmer as the result of »
panic, produced by recent secessions. The question of an Anti-Boman de
claration was mooted five months ago, and resisted by yourself. It was stated,
in your hearing, at Bristol, that it was not the result of a panic, but of a
conviction of its necessity, gradually arrived at."
It was said at Bristol that it was not the result of a certain act at
Bristol, but not, as far as I heard, that it was not the result of the
panic cansed by Lord Feilding's secession. But I have said nothing
whatever of the motives of those who put it forth. I was simply
speaking of the acceptance of the test, and I was alluding to the
grounds put forth for its acceptance. I most entirely believe that,
had it not been for Lord Feilding's secession, this declaration would
not have found tho degree of support which it has. It " was mooted"

13
some time ago in a private meeting. I did speak against it, and it
was on that occasion that an individual said plainly that he advo
cated it as against "Romanism within the Church." In a meeting of
clergy from different dioceses on the day after the meeting of July,
it was dropped. Nor was the subject brought forward in the com
mittee appointed by that meeting, of which I was a. member, and
which agreed upon resolutions similar to those brought forward at
Bristol. (2) " You charge Mr. Palmer and his friends with having committed a
moral wrong, and to establish this charge you represent them as endea
vouring to change the end for which Church Unions are formed."
This is simple misconception. I did not blame Mr,. Palmer at all.
Mr. Palmer declared that he did not mean his declaration as a test,
and did not mean (as I understood him) to eject any members by it.
Others argued upon it as a test, and wished to make it such. I said
that it was " contrary to a great moral law" to introduce a new test
into an existing body, in order to eject members of that body. It is
a breach of the original compact. I meant this. We are an asso
ciation of Churchmen brought together for one set of objects.
Nothing was required but that we should concur in those objects
Many of us were elected without our knowledge. The first rule of
the Bristol Union was —
" That the society shall consist of clergymen and laymen willing to
assist in defence and protection of the interests of the Church."
Willingness to assist in the defence and protection of the interests
of the Church was the only condition proposed to us. Upon this we
united. In the first address of the Bristol Church Union it was
said: —
" There is no intention of imposing any pledge, or any particular view
of any of these ^objects on the members of the society. It desires to em
brace all ChurchiSen who are anxious to promote, in one way or other, these
important objects.
I meant, then, that although those who proposedj it as a test, of
course had not so considered it, it really would be a breach of faith
to introduce into an existing body a declaration intended to act as a
new test, and to exclude some of those who were included by the
original terms of the society. Churchmen means, I suppose, com
municants. This was put forth as the simple basis of the Union, the
very principle upon which persons were united.
In like way the London Union stated : —
" The Union has been formed to unite Churchmen in the defence of the
interests, and in the zealous promotion of the principles and purposes of the
Church. " It (the Bristol Union) declares to embrace all Churchmen."
Now some wish to exclude some Churchmen, whom they, in their
own private opinion, do not think " sound Churchmen." Such a
change, by a majority, would not be borne in any partnership, guild,
club, society. It is contrary to the principles of morality to alter tho
terms of an existing compact, against the will of some of the contract
ing parties. We may dissolve partnerships; we cannot lawfully in-

14
traduce fresh conditions of partnership into an existing partnership.
We cannot, on any after-thought, change its terms. No court of
justice would allow of any such measure. Nor can it be alleged that
circumstancesliave been changed since Unions have been formed.
We had had more grievous losses in 1845. Nor has any different
line been taken by the individuals aimed at, that they should be in
vited to become members in 1848, and a test be directed against
them in 1850.
" To establish this charge you reproach them (Mr. Palmer's friends) as
endeavouring to change the end for which Unions were formed, and insinuate
that the change contemplated is to convert them into Eeformation
Societies." I meant nothing of tho kind. I used this simply as an illustration.
I could not mean to censure the ends set forth by Mr. Palmer, for they
are (I suppose almost verbally) the same as were agreed upon in the
committee of which I was myself a member. So far from represent
ing the ends of Mr. Palmer as different from those of other Unions, I
instanced them in common »s having absolutely nothing to do with
the Roman controversy.
" Least of all can I see the remotest indication of aggressive designs
against Rome among those objects."
On this very ground, that the objects had really nothing to do
with Rome, I said that a declaration against Rome was simply "nihil
ad rem."
" By stating that those who oppose Mr. Palmer's plan ' would aim to have '
the fetters of the Church undone, her voice loosed, not themselves to act or
speak in her name,' you insinuate that Mr. Palmer and his friends are
doing, or aiming to do, the latter "
And this is entitled " a false accusation." The thought was not even
in my mind. Nor is there a trace of it in my words. I meant simply this.
If in Church Unions we were aiming to get power into our hands, and
ourselves to act in the name of the Church, it might matter to
Churchmen who we are. But since the restoration of the synodal
action of the Church is a leading and prominent object, and in that
synodal action, we (who, I suppose, are objected to), [not being
members of Convocation, should have no share, what harm can wc
do? The objects of Church Unions are objects of external polity to
be brought about by agency not our own.
" You intimate that the declaration of Mr. Palmer might ' seem to make
it a duty imperative on the inhabitants of Spain or Italy to sever themselves
from the Koman Church, to join themselves with nothing.' There is no
foundation whatever for this."
I am glad to see this disavowed. But I simply said: "they might
object to a declaration, which to them seems to make it a duty im
perative upon the inhabitants of Spain or Italy to sever themselves
from the Roman Church, to join themselves with nothing." Some
did so think, and objected to the declaration on that ground. They
argued thus : if we declare that " communion with the Roman
Church, on the part of the Churches, and therefore of individuals, of
the English Communion cannot, consistently with the law of Christ, be
restored until the Roman Church shall have relinquished her pre-

15
tensions, and sufficient provision have been made for the maintenance
of Christian truth in all its purity and integrity,". what room do
we leave for tho Churches of Spain or Italy remaining in that com
munion, consistently with tho law of Christ. I see that Mr. Palmer
maintains that " a Roman Catholic in France, &c, ought not to for
sake his Church voluntarily," while we cannot lawfully subscribe or
profess the creed of Pius IV. (on the Church, p. 1. c. xi. § 9-11.)
But I mentioned this, as being a ground by which some might be
deterred from accepting the statement, since, as a fact, some did on
this ground object to it, whether they objected on this ground alone
or no, which I do not know, and did not say. I was simply putting
together objections which people had, or might have, to this declara
tion, who yet did not depart from the formularies of the English
Church. " You state that Church Unions issue no tracts."
I knew of none. But if they should issue tracts relating to doctrine
or discipline, this would be a ground for subjecting the tract com
mittee, if there ever is one, to rules, not Tor a test to all the members
of the society. The Christian Knowledge Society has no such test ;
why should we?
" You describe the declaration as a mere negative. Will you permit me
to ask you whether, a profession of ' undivided and faithful allegiance to
the English branch of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which has
reformed itself, taking primitive Christianity as its model,' is a mere nega
tive?" Had the declaration been confined to a profession of " undivided
and faithful allegiance to the English branch of the One Holy
Catholic Church " [subordinate, of course, to the Church Universal,
as Archbishop Bramhall says] it would never have been opposed. It
was opposed because persons thought it a test " over and above" the
formularies of the Church of England. An amendment *, had been
circulated by myself and another, confined to such a declaration. It
shows that we were willing to concur in a positive declaration
stronger than that proposed by Mr. Palmer. But at the meeting
/ there was a distinct refusal to modify the statements which were ob-
' jected to on the ground that they were " over and above " our
formularies. The unhappy division has arisen, not on the ground of the positive,
but of the negative statement.
I hope that this minuteness will be accepted as a token of an
earnest wish to heal these disunions which threaten so seriously to
injure the great object which we all have at heart, the restoration of
our common Mother, and to hinder our prayers.
* The following declaration was proposed as an amendment, in ignorance
that any such declarations, as conditions of belonging to a society, were
illegal. But it shows the wish which was entertained to concur in any
positive declaration : —
" Proposed amended form to be signed by members of the proposed society :
" ' I hereby declare that I believe the English Church, being a true
portion of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church, to have a claim upon our
undivided and faithful allegiance, and that I desire and intend, by the grace
of God, to live and die in her communion.' "

16
Let me urge, again, St. Cyprian's words, when he had seen in
visions how God was displeased at the varying and discordant
prayers offered to Him. Had prayer been more united the Decian
persecution might have been averted: —
"For (which the more moved and compelled me to write this
epistle unto you), ye ought to know (since the Lord has deigned to
manifest and reveal it), that it was thus declared in a vision, ' Ask,
and ye shall have.' Next, the people who stood by were enjoined
to intercede for certain persons pointed out to them. In doing this,
however, there issued forth discordant voices and opposite desires,
and this exceedingly displeased Him who said ' Ask, and ye shall
have,' because the people agreed not in their prayers, nor was there
among the brethren one uniform consent and blended harmony, seeing
it is written, ' God maketh man to be of one mind in a house ; ' and
we read in the Acts of the Apostles, that ' the multitude of them that
believed were of one heart and of one soul;' and the Lord hath
charged us with His own voice, saying ' This is my commandment
that ye love one another;' and again, ' I say unto yon, that if two of
you shall agree on earth, as touching any thing that they shall ask,
it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.' But if
two agreeing shall prevail so much, what, wero there agreement
among all? what if, in accordance with the peaces which our Lord
gave us, all the brethren should agree? We had long since obtained
of the Divine Mercy what we ask for. Nor should we be so long
tossing in this peril of our salvation and our faith. Yea, rather, these
evils would never havetfallen upon the brethren, if the whole brother
hood had been of one mind.
" For this also was shown, how there sat the Father of a family, a
Youth also sitting on his Right Hand, with a sorrowful countenance,
His face leaning on His hand, and saddened with a mixture of anx
iety and resentment. But another, standing on His left side, carried
a net, which he made as if he would cast, to catch the people that
stood around ; and when he who saw this wondered what it meant,
it was said to him, that the Youth, who sat thus on the Right Hand,
was grieved and sorrowed because His commands were not ob
served ; and that he on- the left hand exulted because an opportunity
was given him of obtaining from the Father of the family leave to
destroy. This was shown long before the storm of this present deso
lation arose. And now we have seen fulfilled.what had been shown,
that whilst we despise the commandmenljs Of the Lord, whilst we
observe not the salutary precepts of the law' given us, the enemy
gains a power to hurt; and by the cast of his net encloses us too ill-
armed and off our guard to resist." — St.' Cyprian, Ep. xi. § 3, 4, p.
25, 6. Oxf. Tr.
Christ Church, Oct. 21, 1850.

BIGGAR AND ODnAMS, PRINTERS, 15, BEAUFORT-BUILDINGS, STRAND.

5771