66

relevant to such a purpose.-Others have contended, that the bare acknowledgment "that Jesus is the "Messiah," is "a general belief sufficient to make "a man a Christian, and to keep him so;" and "that nothing beyond that ought to be absolutely "insisted on as fundamental, or made a term of com"munion." This is a most defective rule in many respects; since though the whole of Christianity may be virtually implied in this one article, yet the denial of any essential point of the Christian faith would be "in effect revoking that very article;" and therefore the acknowledgment of such a general truth cannot supersede the necessity of receiving those special doctrines, without which it can hardly be said to have any definite signification.-Universality of agreement among professed Christians has been proposed as another criterion of fundamental articles; "to throw out what is disputed, and to re"tain only what all agree in." But "how shall any "one know what all sects and denominations of "Christians agree in, or how long they shall do so? "Or if that could be known, are we to be guided by "the floating humours, fancies, follies of men, or by "the unerring wisdom of God?" A comprehension or coalition of religious parties is very desirable, so far as it can be effected by throwing out circumstantials, and retaining only essentials. But to attempt it by relaxing the rule for essentials, is leaving no rule at all, or next to none, and is uniting in nothing but indifference to the truth.-A still more extravagant scheme has sometimes been proposed, that of making the universal agreement, not of Christians only, but of all mankind, the standard of funda

mental truth; reducing them to Lord Herbert's five articles of natural religion; the existence of a God, some kind of worship to be paid to him, the practice of moral virtue, repentance, and a future state. This is at once confounding infidelity with Christianity, and discarding altogether the authority of Revelation. One more attempt of a similar kind has been, to regard a right faith as utterly insignificant, and to comprise all that is fundamental in religion in the single article of a good life. The futility of this plea for error or unbelief, Dr. W. had exposed in his Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity; and he here again briefly lays open its fallacy and absurdity.

66

66

66

The Charge concludes with a summary recapitulation of our author's view of the subject; stating that "whatever verities are found to be plainly and directly essential to the doctrine of the Gospel-covenant, are fundamental verities: and whatever errors are plainly and directly subversive of it, are funda"mental errors." By this rule, he observes, we may with "sufficient certainty fix the terms of commu"nion with the several denominations of Christians. "As to the precise terms of salvation, they may ad"mit of greater variety and latitude, on account of "particular circumstances, of diverse kinds: and "there is no necessity of absolutely excluding all "from uncovenanted or even covenanted mercies, "whom we may be obliged to exclude from brotherly communion." Certainly, these are quite distinct considerations; and our author, by carefully drawing the line between them, has guarded his treatment of the subject from the imputation of laxity on the one hand, or of uncharitable rigour on the

66

other. Upon the whole, this is, perhaps, the most valuable of his minor productions.

The next Charge on the doctrinal Use of the Christian Sacraments, has been already incidentally noticed. It is a brief, but curious and learned investigation of the manner in which, from the earliest ages of the Church, the sacraments have been applied, by distinguished Christian writers, either to the vindication, or the illustration, of several important articles of Christian faith. The opinions of those early visionaries who denied our Lord's human nature, the fantastic notions of the Gnostics, the pretences of some who disbelieved the resurrection of the body, of enthusiasts of various kinds, of the impugners of the doctrine of the Trinity, whether Sabellians, Arians, or Macedonians, those also of the Nestorians and Eutychians respecting our Lord's twofold nature, besides the errors of Pelagius, and of those who were addicted to image-worship; have been all combated, more or less successfully, by shewing them to be incompatible with the doctrine implied in the sacraments; by one or both of which the abettors of these heretical, tenets found themselves inextricably embarrassed. This is a novel view of the subject, and well deserving of fuller consideration. The force of the argument against infidels, derived from these institutions, as standing evidences of the historical facts of the Gospel, had, indeed, been pointed out and very forcibly urged by Leslie, in his Short Method with the Deists; nor had it entirely escaped the observation of other writers. But the sketch here given by Waterland of their utility in giving collateral proof

of the doctrines of Christianity, is scarcely less important, and might perhaps be pursued still more in detail with considerable advantage.

The foregoing Charge contained little that was likely to excite controversy, although (as was before observed) it was probably intended to act as a counterpoise to Bishop Hoadley's tract on the Lord's Supper. Dr. Waterland, however, had in his treatise on the Eucharist, taken a view of the subject, which, on certain points, appeared to be considerably at variance with some other distinguished writers, who, no less strenuously than himself, opposed Bishop Hoadley's account of it. Upon the true nature of the Christian sacrifice, and the proper distinction between the sacramental and the sacrificial parts of the Eucharist, he had deemed it necessary to declare his dissatisfaction with the opinions maintained by Mr. Mede, Dr. Grabe, Dr. Hickes, and more especially by Mr. Johnson, in his Unbloody Sacrifice; and he had stated the ground of his objections without reserve, though with the respect due to theologians of such high character and reputation. Mr. Johnson died several years before this work of Dr. Waterland's appeared. But Dr. Brett, his warm friend and admirer, undertook a defence of the Unbloody Sacrifice, in a tract, entitled, Some Remarks on Dr. Waterland's Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, published in 1738.

In this tract, Dr. Brett's professed design is to shew, that there is less difference than might be supposed between Dr. Waterland's and Mr. Johnson's opinions; "that the difference between them is of very little moment, and rather verbal than real;

66

66

" and that Dr. W. had in effect granted all that was " contended for."

The points of difference, however, as stated by Dr. Brett himself, appear to be not so slight as he would fain believe. He contends, with Johnson, that the elements are offered as a material sacrifice, and are rendered efficacious, as such, by the supernatural virtue bestowed upon them from above. Waterland maintains, that the sacrifice in the Eucharist is purely spiritual, the offering of those holy desires and affections, those pious resolutions, that penitence, faith, devotion, thankfulness, fear, and love, which render it an acceptable service; and that it is upon the worthy communicant thus receiving, and not upon the elements themselves, that the Holy Spirit vouchsafes to descend, and, through the medium of this sacrament, to convey the real participation of the body and blood of Christ, or, in other words, the actual benefits of the one great sacrifice on the cross. Together with this main point are connected several other collateral questions, in which the opinions of the respective parties cannot easily be made to harmonize; such as the interpretation of the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel; the sense in which the elements in the Eucharist are understood to be our Lord's body and blood; the operation of the Holy Spirit upon the symbols, and the effect of its operation; the notion of this sacrament as a feast upon a sacrifice, and in what respects it may properly be deemed a sacrifice. On all these topics Dr. Brett dilates; and on each of them, much of what Dr. W. had advanced is controverted, though in a respectful manner, and apparently with a desire to differ as