PREFACE.

IN reprinting, for popular distribution, these Sermons, set forth by the authority of ARCHBISHOP CRANMER, it is very far from the wish of the Editors to sanction the notion, that Christian Truth-or that view of it which THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND has taken-is dependent on the personal opinions, or private judgment, of any man, or men, of station or influence however high. Happily,

there is no question among us of the English Communion, that "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not to be read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be received as an Article of The Faith, or be thought requisite, or necessary to salvation." But there are among us many questions and debates, as to what really is the SCRIPTURAL Truth, as recognised and set forth by the PRAYER-BOOK of our Church. And for the express purpose of throwing some popular light on such questions these Tracts are reprinted; as well as on account of their further tendency, (in the judgment of the Editors), to promote the general edification of Christians.

Every one knows that there are, at present, within the pale of our Church, two very different classes of interpretation of Divine Truth, and that the Church's authority

A

is challenged with some boldness, by both the opposing parties, as clearly and expressly in their favour. How much fairness there is in some of these appeals, it would be melancholy to have to say. The one party refers to the Liturgy and Services, chiefly; the other, to some of the Articles; while neither seems willing to concede to the other what candour demands. The old charges are constantly revived, of Puritanism on the one side, and Popery on the other, and thrown back, from this to that, with a puerile animosity and zeal, which, were the subject less serious and sacred, would place the combatants beneath notice. The most obsolete and worn out mistakes of the last two centuries, have teemed forth in pamphlets, of which, the ink and the paper, and a somewhat perter and more assured look of ignorance, are the only new points. Surely all this is unworthy of us. Lookers on, Dissenters, for instance, see very plainly how the case stands between us. How long are we determined to blind ourselves to the truth? It certainly is not so difficult to fix the meaning of an English sentence, as controversialists would have us believe. In coming, and, we trust, better times, it will, we think, be quoted as a curious and remarkable fact, that there once existed a considerable number of the English Clergy, who succeeded in persuading themselves that their CHURCH did not consider the Grace of Regeneration to be conveyed in Baptism.

Let not this be taken, however, as insinuating that the disingenuousness which we complain of, has been all on one side. The case may perhaps be fairly represented by a few remarks on two of our Articles: the 16th and 17th. The former is concerning "Sin after Baptism:" the latter, concerning "Predestination and Election." Now,

let it be honestly asked, as to the first, whether it would have occurred for a moment to a maintainer of the Modern Theology to draw up an Article on any such point as "Sin after Baptism?" Whether he would have thought of recognizing any such distinction as this, between Sin before and after Baptism; and between "deadly" sin and other sins? We do not enquire, whether this Article may or may not be believed by the receivers of modern opinions; (probably it would seem to most of them, to announce a mere truism)-but, whether the having an Article on such a subject, and so phrased, does not indicate the existence, among our Reformers, of opinions very different from those which are common at the present day? No one, surely, who understands the points in question, whatever his own sentiments may be, will fail to acknowledge if he be an impartial thinker, that the 16th Article of our Church implies an admission of much which many would now call Popish." It is evidently in harmony with all the feelings and thoughts of the old Divinity. It is, to a certain extent, then, decisive on the question as to the spirit of our first Reformed Theology. Granting even, that the words of the Article do not contradict the modern religious tenets-still they are such as the modern teachers do not, and could not, think of using, and so it is certain that there were elements in the Divinity of the Anglican Fathers, which peculiarly distinguish it from that of their sons in this generation.

66

But, on the other hand, it is by far too common with those who defend the ancient Christianity to allow too little to those who think that they must interpret Calvinistically the 17th Article. This is unwise, as well as unfair: because the wording of that Article is certainly such as

the generality will always be apt to consider Calvinian, while it remains as it is; and a prejudice in favour of the modern opinions generally, is often created by our seeming reluctance to do justice to those who think this 17th Article to be in their favour. Surely we can well afford them the solitary admission that the wording of this one Article seems now more suitable to them than to us. Why should we imitate, in any measure, that sort of unfairness which we charge on them throughout? The 17th Article is not inspired: and there can be no necessity for maintaining that every one of its phrases is precisely the fittest that could have been employed. And yet, from our mode of defending it, something amounting to this seems to be practically assumed. It is not enough for us to shew (what no one now doubts) that our Articles preceded, rather than followed, the Genevan doctrine. Ordinary readers will still feel that the words of this 17th Article, at least, appear to recognize a theology very similar, at all events, to the Calvinian; and they require to have it shewn that, in point of fact, our Reformers did not admit any such system. This should be made to appear as far as possible from their contemporary writings. And it should further be shewn, that the language of the Reformers has often acquired a new meaning by being taken up, and adopted by the controversialists of later times.1

1. At all events, What the different Reformers of our Church-who certainly were no Calvinists-were able to subscribe, we, their descendants, may well be allowed to sign as they did in no Calvinistic sense. By the way; we never heard that the Council of Trent was ever charged with Calvinism-yet the Tridentine Fathers certainly go further than the English Church on this point_even recognizing in some sort personal or individual Election. The words of the Council are: "Nemo quoque quamdiu in bac mortalitate vivitur de arcano Divinæ Prædestinationis usque adeo presumere debet, &c." (which is similar to the cautionary part of our own Article,). Nam nisi ex speciali Revelatione sciri

66

66

66

non potest quos Deus sibi elegerit."-Sess. vi. Cap. xii.