66

in opposition to those of the "established theological system;" and that, therefore, whatever claim they might have, in their own estimation, and in that of others, to the character of "liberal inquirers "after Scripture-truth," they were, in effect, undermining the system which, as ministers in that Church, they were pledged to uphold. And though, perhaps, it may be allowed, that, in some instances, Dr. Waterland's remarks are pushed further than the very expressions of the Exposition may seem at first to warrant; yet, when the intent and purpose of the writer is judged of by his former writings in conjunction with this, there can hardly be a doubt in the mind of any impartial reader, that the Remarks impute to the Exposition no more than it was really intended to convey.

But,

This indeed might be inferred from the line of defence chiefly taken by Dr. Sykes. Here and there a charge is rebutted with considerable effect. for the most part, the omissions or insinuations noted by Waterland are vindicated, rather than disproved. Much is also said in derogation of the authority of the Church, of the primitive Fathers, and of Creeds, and Confessions of Faith; the same in substance with Dr. Clarke's memorable rule, in the first edition of his Scripture-Doctrine, and with Dr. Sykes's own notions of Arian-subscription to the Articles of our Church. The same laxity is contended for respecting fundamental doctrines; and the old arguments are again urged, to lessen the force of the Divine character ascribed to our Lord. It is therefore not unfair to argue, that such, even in Dr. Sykes's own

opinion, was the direct tendency, at least, if not the real purpose of the Exposition itself.

But the most important, and perhaps the most exceptionable part of Dr. Sykes's Answer, is that which relates to the design and efficacy of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. After expressing great abhorrence of the terms satisfaction, merit, and sacrifice, usually applied to our Lord's death upon the cross;-which he regards as unscriptural, and unworthy of a just and merciful God-an attack is commenced upon what Dr. Waterland had said respecting the benefits which Christians receive from that sacrament. The sum of Dr. Sykes's assertions (for they are scarcely supported by a semblance of proof) is this. He affirms, that there is not a word in Scripture to shew, that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper unites us to Christ, or has a life-giving virtue annexed to it, or supplies the defects of moral virtue; on the contrary, that in Scripture positive institutions "are treated as mere nothings, "as things not required at all, compared with mo"ral virtues. Have moral virtues, then, (he asks,) "an efficacy towards salvation, without their being "made acceptable by the sacraments? I answer, "Yes. They are in themselves acceptable to God:-they want nothing to make them acceptable, nor "can any thing make them more acceptable than

66

66

they are. They are already perfection; the exact "imitation of God himself; and therefore need no "aid to relieve them, nor any thing to improve "them. What is baptism, but only the dying to Christ, and a resurrection to a new life, in a

66

66

66

figure and does not St. Peter treat it as a very "low thing in itself, 1 Pet. iii. 21, and shew, that living after the dictates of moral virtue is that "which saves us? As to the sacrament of the "Lord's Supper, there are but two ends mentioned "of it in the New Testament; the one, to do it in "remembrance of Christ; the other, that it is a sym“bol of love and friendship with one another.”

These are, some of them, bold positions, which Dr. Clarke would probably have hesitated to avow. They involved, however, matters of too great importance to be passed by unnoticed. The former part of Dr. Sykes's pamphlet called for no reply; the topics to which it related having been again and again considered on both sides. But in these concluding observations fresh ground of controversy was broken. Waterland felt it necessary again to encounter this keen opponent. Accordingly, within a short space of time, he published a tract, entitled, The Nature, Obligation, and Efficacy of the Christian Sacraments considered. 1730.

This is a short, but systematic and well-digested treatise upon a subject of deep interest with respect both to theology and morals. The question of the importance of the sacraments, necessarily involves the previous question respecting" the com"parative value, excellency, and obligation of mo"ral and positive duties." Dr. Sykes had rather assumed, than proved, that these latter duties were as nothing in comparison with the former; and consequently he regarded Dr. W.'s notions of the Eucharist, not only as extravagant and unwarrant

able, but even as injurious to the interests of moral virtue. To clear up a point of such magnitude, and to prevent misapprehensions detrimental, on either side, to truth and piety, were the objects which our author had in view.

66

It is Dr. Clarke's general principle, “ that this and "all other positive institutions have the nature only "of means to an end, and that therefore they are never "to be compared with moral virtues." Dr. Waterland observes, that "to make the comparison clear, " and the opposition exact," it ought to have been between "positive duties and moral duties;" since otherwise it is comparing what is merely the external part of positive duties, the institution, with the internal part of moral duties, the virtue, the moral habit and disposition which accompanies their performance; which could not be intended; since "the 66 opposition does not lie between outward acts and "inward habits, but between obedience, both out“ward and inward, to positive laws or rules, and "obedience, both outward and inward, to moral "commandments."

This being premised, as necessary to a fair statement of the question, Dr. W. proceeds to examine the distinction between moral and positive duties. The distinction itself, however, (he observes,) is, perhaps, not the most proper. "Every law, properly so "called, is moral, because it is a rule regulating the

66

practice of moral agents. But in a more restrained "sense, it signifies the same with natural law, a "law derived from God, consonant to the nature " and reason of things, and therefore of as fixed and "unmovable obligation as the nature and reason of

66

66

66

things. Positive Divine law, in contradistinction "to the other, is not founded in the fixed nature or "reason of things, or at least not known to be so; being considered only as prescribed, and depending on God's good pleasure either to remove or " continue it." Of several duties enjoined in Scripture, it may be difficult to say whether they are natural or positive; though of their importance and obligation there can be no reasonable doubt. Such are the duties we owe respectively to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, in their several distinct capacities, as well as in their united characters as God. These we know from Revelation only, and from the Divine injunctions concerning them; yet they may justly be regarded as natural and moral duties, "since Scripture has discovered "to us what foundation they have in the nature and "truth of things." They thence become of unalterable and of universal obligation to all who know them; and do not partake of that character ascribed to positive duties only, that they are dependent upon circumstances and conditions liable to change or cessation.

Dr. W. proposes, therefore, to divide our duties into natural and supernatural: the former discoverable by the bare light of nature; the latter by Revelation. The supernatural may again be divided into constant and occasional; such as are of eternal and immutable obligation, and such as are temporary or changeable. Of these latter, which answer most correctly to the term positive duties, some were transient, as several occasional precepts given to the Patriarchs, to Moses, and the Prophets; some per