understand them in the same sense, I proposed it to be expressed thus, in a sense agreeable to that passage in the Burial Office: he could not oppose this without making the Church inconsistent, so my amendment was agreed to. I wish you could communicate this to our friend, to whom I desire my humble duty may be acceptable: and if something could still be done in this affair, it would be infinitely to the satisfaction of, Dear Sir, yours entirely, Thomas Carte."[1]
This is an interesting letter. Law was among the opponents of the Union, because the Usagers proposed it on their own terms. It does not appear that there was to be any thing like mutual concession. Undoubtedly the majority of the Nonjurors were Usagers, but as Law and Blackburn never yielded, we may infer that the two Communions yet continued distinct: Carte was among those who adopted the usages. Probably, Mr. Kynaston, to whom the letter was written, had access to the Pretender, who is called, by Carte, their master. In the Lockhart Papers, there is evidence, that the Pretender was displeased at these internal disputes: but Carte imagines, that the question had not been fairly represented. It is clear, therefore, that the New Communion Office was now adopted by some of those who had previously rejected it: and "it is mentioned," says Mr. Perceval, "that in 1733, all the Nonjuring Bishops of this time were in communion, except Blackburn, who stood alone, but on what account is not stated."[2] It is, I think, clear from Carte's letter, that Blackburn stood apart on the ground of the usages, which were made terms of com-
