The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-21 00:00:00

DR. PUSEY.

The following letter from Dr. Pusey has been ad-
dressed by him to a friend :
" My dear —,—You ask me what I should do in
case this new test, to be proposed to Convocation, should
pass. I would say at once, that others, not so imme-
diately affected or intended by this test, need not, I
should think, make up their minds yet. I plainly have
no choice ; it is not meant that I should take it, nor can
I. You will not mistake me. I sign the Articles as I
ever have since I have known what Catholic antiquity
is, to which our Church guides us, in their literal
grammatical sense,' determined, where it is ambiguous,
by the faith of the whole Church (as good Bishop Ken
says), before east and west were divided.' It is to me
quite plain that in so doing I am following the guidance
of our Church.

" The proposed test restrains that liberty which Arch-
bishop Laud won for us. Hitherto high and low Church
have been comprised under the same Articles; and I have
felt that in these sad confusions of our Church things must
so remain, until, by the mercy of Almighty God, we be
brought more nearly into one mind. But as long as this
is su, the Articles cannot be (which the new test requires)
cerium atque in dubitatum opinionum signum.' How can
there be any certain and indubitable token of opinion,'
when they can be signed by myself and —? This new
test requires that they should be : one then of the two
parties who have hitherto signed them must be excluded.
We know that those who framed the test are opposed to
such as myself. It is clear then who are henceforth ex-
cluded. The test is indeed at once miserably vague and
stringent ; vague enough to tempt people to take it : too
stringent in its conclusion to enable me to take it with a
good conscience. Beginning and end do harmonise, if it
be regarded as a revival of the Puritan anti-declara-
tion' that the Articles should be interpreted according
to the consent of divines;' they do nut in any other
case. This shifting of ground would indeed (were not so
much at stake) be somewhat curious ; how those who
speak so much of fallible men' would require us now to
be bound in the interpretation of the Articles by the
private judgment of the Reformers (it being assumed, for
convenience sake, that Cranmer, Ridley, and Hooper
agreed among themselves), instead of Archbishop Laud's
broader and truer rule*, according to the analogy of
the faith.' It would indeed be Is ell, if all who
have urged on this test could sign the Ist and
Bth Articles in the same sense as Cranmer and
Jewell. Well, indeed, would it be for our
Church, if all could sign the 27th in the same sense
as the Reformers, except perhaps Hooper. One could
have wished that, before this test had been proposed td
us, the Board who accepted it and proposed it to us, hay
thought of ascertaining among themselves whether the
themselves all took all and singular of the Articles in on
and the same sense. And yet, while they enjoy thi
latitude, how can the signature of the Articles be anys
certain and indubitable token of people's opinions ?
" However, this is matter fur others ; my concern is
with myself. I have too much reason to know that my
own signature of the Articles would not satisfy some of
those from whom this test emanates, since, when a year
and a half ago, I declared repeatedly (as I then stated)
that I accepted, and would subscribe, ex animo, every
statement of our formularies on the solemn subject upon
which I preached, that offer was rejected ; and this on
the very ground (I subsequently learned) that they did
not trust my interpretation. When, then, they require
that the signature should be certum atque indubitutum
opinionum mearum signum' it is plain that they mean
something more than what I offered and they refused to
accept.
" The Articles I now sign in the way in which from
Archbishop Laud's time they have been proposed by the
Church : this test I should have to receive not from the
Church but from the University in the sense in which it
is proposed to me by them. Could I then ever so much
satisfy myself that I could take the test according to any
general meaning of the words, I must know from past
experience that I should not take it in the sense in which
it was proposed to me. I could not then take it without a
feeling of dishonesty.
" You will imagine that I feel the responsibility of
making such a declaration, knowing, as I must, that in
case, in the present state of excitement, the statute should
pass, younger men, whom it might involve in various
difficulties, might be influenced by my example. I know,
too, of course, that some will be the more anxious to press
the test, in hopes that my refusal to take it may end in
my removal from this place. Whether it would or no I
know not. but whatever be the result, it seems to me
the straightforward course. It is best in cases of great
moment that people should know the effect of what they
are doing.
" I am ashamed to write so much about myself, but I
cannot explain myself in a few words. What is my case
would probably be that of others. It has often been
painful to witness the apparent want of seriousness in
people when things far more serious than office, or home,
or even one's allotted duties in God's vineyard have been
at stake. But people now feel more readily what it is to
lose office and home, and the associations of the greater
part of life. It will be a great gain, if what is done is
done with deeper earnestness. For myself, I cheerfully
commit all things into His hands, who ordereth all
things well, and from whom I deserve nothing.
" Ever yours, affectionately,
" Christ Church, Advent, " E. B. PLSEY.
Ember Week, 1844.—Tuesday."
* Vide Heylin's " Life of Laud," pp. 178, 182.