"the

by Dr. Waterland; who explains at large "name and notion of regeneration," and also of the "renewing" spoken of by the Apostle as distinct from regeneration; the former comprising all that relates to the nature and efficacy of the sacrament of Baptism; the latter whatsoever is further necessary towards securing the benefits obtained by that sacrament.

About the time that this tract was written and published, (in the year 1739,) Wesley and Whitfield had begun to make proselytes to their new modes of preaching, and had succeeded in drawing multitudes after them, by their fanatical views of the gospel system. Regeneration was one of their most frequent and favourite topics; and served, according to their acceptation of it, as the groundwork of that delusive scheme of spiritual experiences, or inward perceptible motions of the Spirit, which, in common with some other enthusiastic sects, they strenuously inculcated. The necessity of being born again and made new creatures, is, indeed clearly the doctrine of Scripture. But, separating this spiritual regeneration from the baptismal, they "en"deavoured to explain away the outward part, re

66

solving all into the inward part, or thing signified, "namely, the grace of the Spirit ;" and thus, while they rendered Baptism, in effect, a nugatory and unavailing ordinance, they necessarily led the believer to seek for some other proof that he was actually regenerated. This proof their disciples were taught to expect in the perception of certain divine impulses, or impressions immediately proceeding from the Spirit of God, and the influence of which it would be im

possible for them to resist. In this fundamental error, it will be found that the opinions of Wesley and Whitfield nearly coincide, whatever difference might subsist between them on other points. The one as a Calvinist, and the other as an Arminian, might and did very materially differ in their respective views of predestination: but as to the necessity of personal election, they were both agreed; and also as to the kind of evidence by which this was to be ascertained, to the infallible conviction of the favoured individual. Their harmony of opinion on this point seems to be still the main bond of union between the two great parties of Wesley's 'and Whitfield's followers; and when such a persuasion has once got possession of the mind, it sets reasoning at defiance. It opens an inlet to every wild imagination; and by making the whole of vital religion to depend only upon internal feelings, renders it amenable to no higher authority than that of the individual himself.

A thorough investigation of the whole subject was therefore peculiarly seasonable at the time when Dr. Waterland turned his attention to it; nor could the discussion have fallen into abler hands. Without any personal notice of these new enthusiasts, not only their errors, but those of less exceptionable writers, are refuted; not in the spirit of controversy, but by a plain and lucid exposition of the doctrine, as deducible from Scripture, reason, and antiquity, and in connection with the whole system of our redemption. The tract itself being brief and comprehensive, to attempt an abridgment of it, would be doing it injustice. The recent controversies, however, which unhappily have arisen on

this essential point of doctrine, render a recurrence to such a treatise as this almost imperative upon every one sincerely and impartially desirous of forming an accurate conception of it. Nothing can be more simple and intelligible than the exposition here given; nothing more exactly conformable with the Scriptures, and with the Articles and Formularies of our Church: nor does it appear that any direct attempts to controvert it have been made, either at the time of its appearance, or by those who have lately revived, with so much zeal and vehemence, opinions of an opposite tendency.

This was almost the last of our author's works which he lived to publish.

SECTION VI.

CONTROVERSIES RESPECTING THE EUCHARIST.

WE have already had abundant proof of Dr. Waterland's great versatility of talent, and of the extraordinary extent of his acquirements, in his polemical writings against the Arians and Deists. His depth of knowledge in Scripture and in ecclesiastical antiquity, his judgment in discriminating between what was essential and what was non-essential to the questions brought under discussion, and his stedfastness, as well as skill and prudence, in confining his labours to the former, and not unnecessarily wasting his strength upon the latter, were continually put to the trial, by opponents of consummate dexterity and of determined perseverance. By these his spirit was continually excited, his energies called forth; and his inexhaustible vigour and vivacity disposed him to take an active part in the prevailing discussions and disputes on matters of religion, whenever they were such as he deemed likely to affect any of the vital interests of Christianity.

But, besides these general incitements to the exertion of his talents, an evident connection may be observed between the several controversies in which he bore a part, which would naturally lead him on from one to the other, as they successively arose. His Arian opponents (as has been already observed) not unfrequently betrayed sentiments, of which infidels would hardly fail to take advantage in support of their own views. If human reason were set up as

sole or chief arbiter in deciding upon matters of faith, the Deist would readily perceive that a first principle was conceded to him, which might greatly facilitate his endeavours to establish the all-sufficiency of the religion of nature. If unbelievers saw that even Christian Divines were labouring to distort the language of Scripture from its plain, obvious, and generally received signification, in order to avoid the admission of doctrines which they treated as contradictory to reason; it was but a step farther, to question the credibility of Scripture itself. If, again, some of these speculative theologians had formed mean and unworthy conceptions, not only of the mysterious doctrines of Revelation, but also of its peculiar rites and institutions, and had held them up as insignificant and worthless, when compared with those moral duties which (as it was contended) reason, of itself, might discover and dictate; in this strain also would the sceptic and the scoffer most readily join; well aware, that they were thus furnished with some of the most plausible pretexts for discarding altogether a system, reduced so greatly in value and estimation, even by its professed advocates, as to present scarcely any thing worth acceptance, which might not be obtained without it.

In this point of view Dr. Waterland seems to have contemplated the progress of those opinions which he most zealously controverted. It was not only their own inherent errors or defects, but their tendency to weaken the general faith of Christians, and to injure the very foundations of revealed religion, that he so earnestly deprecated. The probability of these consequences was indeed, on the other hand,