216 
character. Our reformers followed no human 
authority—they had recourse to the scriptures 
themselves as their sole guide. And the 
consequence has been what might have been 
expected, that our articles and liturgy do 
not exactly correspond with the sentiments 
of any of the eminent reformers upon the 
Art. LXVI. 
» subject 
D. D. late Rector of Appleton. 
THIS little tract is reprinted as part 
of a larger miscellaneous work, entitled, 
«© The Churchman’s Remembrancer: 
being a collection of scarce and valu- 
able treatises in defence of the ‘truly 
primitive doctrines and. discipline of 
the established church.” The editors 
profess themselves “happy to introduce 
to the public Dr. Winchester’s admira- 
ble treatise on the seventeenth article: a 
work now known to very few, and not 
procurable for money; the design of 
which is to prove, that our reformers 
were not Calvinists, by the same mode of 
argument as that by which Dr. Kipling 
has, very recently, demonstrated that 
our liturgy and articles are not Cal- 
vinistic: and such is its execution, that, 
€xcepting those “ predestined never to 
be convinced,” it will doubtless be con- 
sidered by all its readers “ as decisive”’ 
upon the point in question, “ and as 
setting it atrest for ever.” P. v. 
In prosecuting his enquiry, Dr, Win- 
chester very wisely confined himself to 
the sense of our reformers in the reign of 
Edward VI. 
«© The design of the ensuing dissertation 
is, to prove that the seventeenth article’ of 
the church of England, which treats of pre- 
destination, was not drawn up by the compi- 
Jers of our articles, conformable to the doc- 
trine of Calvin on this subject. In prose- 
cuting this enquiry, it is intended to confine 
jt to the sense of our reformers in the reign 
of Edward VI. To proceed further, into that 
of Elizabeth, would only be to discover that 
many of our divines, during their exile under 
Queen Mary, were strongly tinctured with 
Calvin’s doctrines; which occasionedat length 
great disputes at Cambridge in the year 1595. 
* Dr. Waterland, in the Supplement to the Case of Arian Subscription, has considered, 
in a masterly way, the disputes on this subject, which happened in ns 
James I. and Charles I. 
THEOLOGY AND ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS. 
A Dissertation on the Seventeenth Article of the Church of England: 
avherein the Sentiments of the Compilers, and other contemporary Reformers, on the 
of th®Divine Decrees, are fully deduced from their own Writings. To which is 
~ subjoined, va short Tract, ascertaining the Reign and Time in which the Royal Declaration 
before the Thirty-Nine Articles was first published. By the Rev. 'T. WincuEesters 
A New Edition, with Emendations from the Author's 
corrected Copy, and the Addition of a Biographical Preface. 8vo. pp. 106. 
continent, or with the creeds of any of the 
rotestant churches which are there estab- 
ished. Our church is not Lutheran—it is 
not Calvinistic—it is not Arminian—It is 
Scriptural. It is built upon the apostles and 
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the 
chief corner stone.”’ 
They who maintain that the article is calvi- 
nistical, have generally chosen to fix upon 
this * latter period; but the evidence drawn 
from those times, whatever it may amount 
to, cannot be equal to that which arises from 
the apparent sentiments and design. of the 
compilers themselves, and their contempo- 
raries.” 
He first states at large Calvin’s opi- 
nion.on the subject of the xviith article: 
then, from the design and history of the 
article, and the sentiments of the princi- 
pal compiler of it, (Cranmer) he shews, 
that it gives no countenance to the doc- 
trines of the Genevan reformer. To 
confirm this, he next produces, from the 
Reformatio Legum, the chapter de Pre- 
destinatione. The testimonies of Bi- 
shops Hooper and Latimer, against the 
rigid doctrine of the Calvinists, are then. 
produced, and are strong in ‘favour of 
the anti-calvinistic interpretation; lastly, 
the difference in opinion, on this subject, 
between those who were imprisoned by. 
Queen Mary, is considered. 
A passage from Latimer is very re- 
markable: ‘Christ shed as much blood 
for Judas as he did for Peter; Peter be- 
lieved it, and therefore he was saved; 
Judas would not believe it, and therefore 
he was condemned, the fault being in 
him only, and in nobody else.’’ ‘This is 
certainly not calvinism; and Mr. Over- 
ton, in attempting to get rid of the dif- 
ficulty it occasions, has resorted to the 
strange and useless measure, of proving 
the sentiment not just. 
The declaration prefixed to the arti- 
cles is, in the short tract subjoined, 
proved to have been published in the 
reign of Charles the First. 
e reigns of Elizabeth, 
ey 
