history of the times, and a want of heartfelt interest in the political concerns of the country, so far from being a subject of approbation in the religions, world, is a serious evil. If religious persons would more zealously endeavour to infuse into their children, and inculcate among their connexions, a large, liberal, and Christian view of passing occurrences; if they would more dili gently teach them to distinguish a sincere attachment to their king and conntry, and a conscientious obedience to the laws, from a blind and indiscriminating adherence to party politics; if they would shew them how to combine the, duties of Christian and loyal subjects, with a sober view of their rights, as intellectual beings, and members of a free community; they would find them far more completely armed against the dangerous, but often specious, principles of the revolutionary school, than by such vague maxims as that “Christians" have, nothing to do with politics;-maxims which, as far as they have any influence must tend to throw the whole management and discussion of public affairs in parliament and out of it, into the hands of those who are the least qualified by the soundness of their principles, and the moderation of their views, to give safe counsel in critical times-men, in fact, who are not "Christians." Will our correspondents contend, that those Christian senators who have so largely contributed to the Abolition of the Slave Trade, and the opening of India to the admission of Christian light, must necessarily lose their "spirituality of mind," or that they are acting an unchristian part, by the deep interest they take in the political affairs of their country; or, to use the expression of one of our correspondents, by mixing in "political debates." Christians, it is true, may well be disgusted with the unfairness, the asperity, the party-spirit of" political debates." But it were rash, therefore, to infer that to discuss the conduct of public men, or the character of public events, is necessarily to "wrangle,” and by consequence to lose all "spirituality of mind." Now, our object, and a most important one we think it, is to disunite these two ideas; to shew that Christians may and ought to be alive to passing occurrences; may and ought to exercise a temperate, and honest, and enlightened judgment on the conduct which they are called to witness; but that they ought not to " quarrel" with each other for political causes, or to sacrifice their religious obligations, and the interests of truth and charity, for the sake of depressing one party in the state or elevating another. On this principle we have for twenty years dedicated a portion of our miscellany to what we endeavour should be an impa:tial and Christian " View of Public Affairs;" but we have no department, as we have no taste for "political debate." Our honest opinion, however, when once we have formed it, we will continue honestly and openly to express, as Englishmen and as Christians ought, without fear or favour. And as to pleasing staunch party-men on any side, we never hope, and, to say the truth, never desire to do it. It is our aim to speak of passing events rather as they will be spoken of twenty years bence, than as they appear through the medium of contemporary passions and prejudices. How far we have succeeded, we must leave to others to determine. This, at least, we can safely affirm, that we feel it to be as sacred a duty to give a correct view of public affairs as of religions doctrines and duties. Our correspondents will find many of their observations anticipated in the Review we have given of the times of Cromwell. They will there find some strong exemplifications of the mischievous effects of a blind and undiscriminating party-zeal; and if we had now time to turn to the pas sage, we should have gladly confirmed what we have there said, by a sagacions remark of the historian Hume, who, in contemplating the ruinous effects of the spirit of party in the profligate times of Charles the Second, observes, that it is one of its unhappy consequences to destroy all sense of shame in public men, and to take away the distinctions between a good and a bad administra tion of public affairs; because there is no action, however good, which will not be decried by one party, and none, however bad, which will not be defended by the other. We beg, in conclusion, to thank our various correspondents for their friendly concern for our welfare, and to assure them that we shall always receive their observations, even when we cannot concur in them, with kindness.

INCOLA GLOUCESTRIENSIS; ADOLESCENS; ONE SIPHORUA; S.; A COUNTRY CLER GYMAN; and J. K. M; are under consideration.

We are much obliged to various Societies for copies of their Reports and Pro-ceedings, and hope to pay off some of our arrears in the Appendix,

TO THE

CHRISTIAN OBSERVER,

VOLUME THE NINETEENTH,

FOR 1820.

RELIGIOUS COMMUNICATION.

"Necessary Erudition" as opposed to our orthodox Homilies, or even illustrative of them? The Confession of Augsburg and its derivatives, "the pride and glory of the Reformation," little favour, as Dr. Laurence has in a great measure proved, the actual Calvinistic hypothesis; though their authors, by the way, Luther and Melancthon, but especially the former, were in their own sentiments doctrinally Calvinistic. But where is the passage in the Confession of Augsburg or its derivatives that favours the "Necessary Erudition" against our own Homilies, or which impugns that doctrine of justification by faith for which we contend? We might even refer to the Arminian or Remonstrant Creed itself, neither Popish nor Calvinistic, yet holding forth "whole and undefiled" the doctrine of justification by faith only. Let it never be said, then, that in advocating the doctrine of justification by faith, we are advocating in effect the cause of Calvinism.

2. We have been thought, in one quarter, not sufficiently to have proved the opposition of Cranmer to the "Necessary Erudition" in our first Number, that for January, because we did not make a distinct reference to his own notes on that book in his own autograph, as preserved in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and printed in the Fathers of the English Church, vol. III. We are not ashamed to say, that at the moment of writing we were not aware of the existence of such a document; to which, indeed, when informed of it by a correspondent, we made a distinct reference in our second Number on the subject, in March-not, however, so full a reference as might have been made, if our object had been to prove the Calvinism of Cranmer; but one fully sufficient to justify every assumption of our own a priori in respect to Cranmer's opinion of the Necessary Erudition." It was the doctrine of justification by faith that we wished to prove on the

་་

Protestant archbishop, held by him in opposition to the "Necessary Erudition," and immediately promulgated by him in our own Homilies upon the death of King Henry VIII. This argument, upon the very face of it, is capable of no reply, but what goes to invalidate the authority of those MS. notes of the archbishop preserved in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, extracted by Strype, but only printed at length in the "Fathers of the English Church." 3. We are admonished, "but with no friendly voice," that we have not made out our point in the historical question: and that, contrary to our assertion, there is every reason to believe that Cranmer had his own way in forming the "Necessary Erudition;" at least in those doctrinal statements now under discussion. Every reason! against the evidence of his own MS. notes on those very points which were then in the hands of our objectors! But let that pass. How is it attempted to be proved, that, 1. Cranmer did chiefly compose the "Necessary Erudition;" or, 2. that in publishing it be was not conjoined, "according to history," with persons of sentiments differing from his own; or, 3. that he had things much his own way at the time of publishing it? Why, let us see: to the first point, a passage is quoted from Burnet which asserts, totidem verbis, that Cranmer did not compose one of the very chiefest articles in question in the " Necessary Erudition," that on Faith; but that he consigued it to Dr. Red man, a great and good man, it is true, but who, we know, "according to history," happened to be unsound in the very point assigned to him, and actually made a retractation of his opinion on that article upon his death-bed. In addition to what we have already said of this divine, (see our Number for March, p. 196.) we shall quote the testimony of the honest Burnet bimself. "He was a man," says Burnet, “ of great learn

ing and probity; and of so much greater weight, because he did not in all points agree with the Reformers." And what these points were, besides his holding, according to Burnet's Collections, the seven sacraments, we learn more distinctly from Strype. "It is certain, he [Redman] was accounted by Dorman, and the Papists in those times, as one of theirs; and so he was accounted by Protestants then also; and therefore his judgment was so much made use of by them, that a man who in all his life before stood SO much against the Protestant doctrine, particularly of justification by faith, and wrote against it, (whatsoever his inward thoughts of it were,) should, in the last sands of his life, revoke this, and disallow so many POPISH errors, which he was never known to disallow of before; but now he was going to die-the truth would outt." We have only one question further that strikes us on this point: How did Burnet find out that Cranmer consigned to Redman the task of writing on Faith in the "Necessary Erudition?"— The next point, namely, that Cranmer was not associated, "according to history," with persons of a different way of thinking from himself, is made out with equal felicity by another quotation from Burnet, which informs us, that Cranmer was exposed to the attacks of Papists, who ever meditated an attack on the English New Testament; that on the sacraments there were stiff debates, that the opinions of Cranmer were not adopted by

own

his fellow-commissioners; that each party had occasion to be glad and sorrowful; that, indeed, the great fundamentals of Christianity, the conditions of the covenant between God and man, were plainly and sincerely laid down, [though, by the way, both Mr. Todd and Dr. Laurence conjecture, that Burnet had never seen the Necessary Erudition!] but that the seven sacraments were asserted, and many things laid down to which the Papists knew the Reformers would never agree, &c. &c. And all this to prove that Cranmer and his associates were all much of a mind! We beg pardon for wasting our readers' time. And for the third point; namely, that after all disputes and conflicts Cranmer had mainly his own way in the end;-this is attempted to be shewn on the authority of one passage from Strype, which seems to be at the bottom of all the errors conceived on this subject by Mr. Todd and other writers, together with our friendly Examiners. "The disputes of the bishops," says Strype, "ended in two good issues, that the Archbishop's enemies clothed with shame and disappointment, (not quite as Burnet would have it above;) and a very good book, chiefly of the Archbishop's own composing, came forth for the instruction of the people, known by the name of A Necessary Erudition."" Which testimony of the faithful chronicler is said to be further confirmed by the king himself, Henry VIII., in a letter to Cranmer, speaking of "Your own (the Archbishop's) book, called 'A Necessary Erudition." Now, not to mention how very vague and ingeneral expressions would be as to conclusive a whole gross of such the point in question; namely, the Archbishop's consent to any one or two doctrines contained in the book; it moreover happens, curiously enough, that the faithful and correct Strype, in the first of these quota❤ tions, is for once incorrect, on

"

were