The idea here suggested by Pusey was eventually carried out several years later by the formation of the English Church Union. Palmer's suspicions were therefore well founded, and so to prevent, if possible, what he considered would be a disaster to the High Church cause, he gave notice that at the forthcoming Annual Meeting of the Bristol Church Union on October 1st, he would propose that a "Statement of Principles" should be adopted by the Union, containing a protest against the Church of Rome and her errors. On hearing of this proposal Pusey was greatly alarmed. A protest against Rome was what he hated with all his heart. He was afraid that his Father Confessor, Keble, would approve of this protest, so he wrote to him:-"If you go along with this plan I shall withdraw my name from the Bristol Union, by a letter to the Chairman, in order not to have any responsibility in the matter.”1 Canon Liddon tells us that:-"Dr. Mill suggested a resolution expressing love and allegiance to the English Church, 'as reformed in the sixteenth century.' Pusey would prefer to omit the allusion to the sixteenth century. It would introduce a large controverted subject, and would repel many minds. Pusey would have as simple a statement as possible; a positive statement of love for the Church of England, without a negative statement about the Church of Rome." 2 Keble at length came over to Pusey's view, and therefore wrote:-"I cannot join in any Anti-Roman Declaration that I have yet seen, not even in my own, now that I find the terms of it are equivocal." At length the day arrived (October 1st), on which the Bristol Church Union held its annual meeting. And what, it may be asked, was this declaration which Pusey and his supporters so dreaded and hated? It was proposed by the Rev. William Palmer, and seconded by the Rev. Prebendary Clarke, and was as follows:

"STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES.

"1. That the English branch of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has reformed herself, taking primitive

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

329

Christianity as her model, has a claim upon the undivided and faithful allegiance of the whole English people.

"2. That the Roman Church (including the other Churches in communion with her) having repudiated communion with all the Churches which do not recognise the claims of the Bishop of Rome, and having by formal decrees and other authoritative acts, and in her popular practice, corrupted the primitive faith and worship of the Holy Catholic Church, and persisted in the said claims and corruptions, communion with the Roman Church, on the part of Churches, and therefore of individuals, of the English Communion, cannot, consistently with the laws of Christ, be restored, until the Roman Church shall have relinquished her pretensions; and sufficient provision shall have been made for the maintenance of Christian truth in all its purity and integrity.

"3. That the serious dangers to the faith, arising from the abuse of private judgment, and from a mere negative Protestantism, having of late years been greatly aggravated by the insidious propagation of Rationalistic notions, and by the encroachments of a Latitudinarian State policy, it is the duty of all members of the Church of England to offer to these several abuses, errors, and pernicious principles, the most active and uncompromising opposition." 1

The wording of the third section of this Statement shows that Mr. Palmer was no lover of decided Protestantism; nor can there be a reasonable doubt that if there were nothing more in the Declaration than this section it would have been carried unanimously. But, as we have seen, the Corporate Reunion of the Church of Rome had been the chief object of the leaders of the Oxford Movement from its very birth. How, then, could they agree to a Declaration censuring either that Church, its doctrines, or its practices? And why should they be called upon to demand that Rome should "relinquish her pretensions," or give up any of her doctrines, as a condition of England's union with her? It is true that no reasonably loyal Churchman could consistently object to sign the second clause of the Declaration; but these were not consistent or loyal Churchmen, as their conduct on this occasion amply proved. They were more anxious to shield and protect the Church of Rome from her enemies than to defend the Church of

1 Palmer's Statement of Circumstances, p. 74.

England, and, therefore, Lord Forbes proposed, and Mr. A. Beresford Hope, M.P., seconded, the following amendment, which was carried by a large majority :

"That whereas the Bristol Union was designed to be a union of all Churchmen desirous of co-operating in the promotion of certain defined objects, it cannot consent to narrow the basis of its constitution by identifying itself with an organisation which is founded upon the acceptance of a Declaration of faith over and above the existing formularies of the English Church, which it desires to make the rule of its proceedings." 1

Amongst those who spoke in favour of this amendment, in addition to the mover and seconder, were Dr. Pusey and the Rev. J. Keble. Amongst those who spoke in favour of Mr. Palmer's motion was the Rev. G. A. Denison, afterwards so well known as Archdeacon Denison. The objection to signing a Declaration of faith "over and above the existing formularies," came with a bad grace from those very men who signed Declarations of faith soon after "over and above the existing formularies" in defence of Baptismal Regeneration, as against the Gorham judgment. Two days after the Bristol meeting, Dr. Hook replied to an invitation to join the Yorkshire Church Union. He declined to do so.

"I do not," he wrote, "see how members of the Church of England can be called upon to form a Union, except on the principles, and in vindication of the principles, of the English Reformation. Those principles are both Catholic and Protestant-Catholic as opposed to the peculiarities of Rationalism, and Protestant as opposed to the Medievalism of the Romanist. I do not see how a consistent High Churchman can, after what has transpired, join your Union, unless you state one of your objects to be 'to maintain and propagate the principles of the English Reformation; to uphold Scriptural and primitive truth in opposition to mediæval heresies; and to preserve the middle position of the Church of England in opposition equally to Rationalistic scepticism and Romish superstition.' If this were to be one of the avowed objects of your institution, it would exclude Romanisers as well as all Rationalists." 2

One result of the Gorham judgment was seen this year in an organised attack on the Judicial Committee of Privy 1 English Churchman, October 3, 1850, p. 675. 2 Ibid. October 10, 1850, p. 685.

THE BISHOPS AND THE CHURCH DISCIPLINE ACT 331

Council as the final Court of Appeal. It was the desire of the Puseyites that not only should the Church's laws be made by the clergy only, but that they alone should be judges in ecclesiastical causes. Their wish was to bring the Church once more into priestly bondage. It is remarkable that the Act of Parliament which made the Judicial Committee of Privy Council the final Court of Appeal (viz., 3 & 4 Victoria, chap. 86), was passed with the consent of the Bishops. Archbishop Tait, on this subject, wrote, while Bishop of London :—

"It is important to observe that this Act was framed with the concurrence of the Bishops. The Lord Chancellor, in introducing it, expressed a hope that it would reconcile all differences upon the subject. The Archbishop of Canterbury, on the part of the clergy, gave his cordial approbation to the Bill; the Bishop of Exeter, also, entirely and heartily concurred in the measure. There is no record of any debate upon the Bill, beyond a very few suggestions by independent members in either House; and the acquiescence with which it was received on all sides was doubtless owing to the agreement of the Bishops in supporting the measure. It seems clear, therefore, that the rulers of our Church at that time saw no reason to object to the Judicial Committee as a Court of Appeal in matters of ecclesiastical discipline, whether relating to faith or morals. It would be a serious reflection upon the character of men like Archbishop Howley, and Bishop Blomfield, and Bishop Kaye, were it to be supposed that they were ignorant of the nature of a tribunal which they had themselves assisted in founding, or that they were careless of the interests with which they were now, after trial, entrusting it, or that they deliberately sanctioned an institution against which any objection of principle could be raised." 1

During this year, the Bishop of London introduced a Bill into the House of Lords, which received the assent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the object of which was to deprive the Judicial Committee of Privy Council of its powers as the final Court of Appeal, and to transfer them to the Upper House of Convocation. Happily it was defeated on its second reading, on June 3, 1850, by 84 to 51, and from that day to this the Judicial Committee remains the final Court of Appeal. It will be a dark day for Protestantism

1 Brodrick and Freemantle's Judgments of the Judicial Committee. Introduction by the Bishop of London, p. lxxi.

should Parliament ever make the Bishops the final Court of Appeal. The opinion of Lord John Russell on this important subject was wise and worthy of remembrance. He wrote to the Bishop of London on February 25, 1850 :"What I think essential to the Queen's Supremacy is that no person should be deprived of his rights unless by due interpretation of law. If the Supreme Court of Appeal in heresy were formed solely of the clergy, their opinions would probably be founded on the prevailing theological opinions of the Judicial Bishops, who might be one day Calvinistic and the next Romish. Especially if three senior Bishops and two Divinity Professors were to form part of the tribunal, we might have superannuated Bishops and University intolerance driving out of the Church its most distinguished ornaments." It was on this same subject of a final Court of Appeal that his lordship wrote the sentence which I have already cited :-"I fear that nothing but the erection of a priestly supremacy over the Crown would ever satisfy the party in the Church who now take the lead in agitation." 2

The Papal Aggression led to a great increase of Protestant opposition to Puseyism throughout the country. By this time the Puseyite clergy had made considerable progress in the adoption of Ritual which had not been seen in English Churches since the Protestant Reformation. Protests were heard on every hand, and addresses to the Bishops were multiplied. Of these, the most remarkable was the outcome of a great Protestant meeting held in the Freemasons' Hall, on December 6, 1850, over which Lord Ashley presided. An important Lay Address to the Queen on the subject of the Papal Aggression was presented to her Majesty, signed by 63 Peers, 108 Members of Parliament, and 321,240 lay members of the Church of England. In this Address, an earnest protest was made against the Romanising work going on in the Church of England. From it I give the following extracts :—

"But we desire also humbly to represent to your Majesty our conviction, confirmed by the recent testimony of several Bishops of 1 Life of Lord John Russell, vol. ii. p. 116. 2 Ibid. p. 117.