articles of faith; no fixed or consistent principles can be laid down of Church-communion, nor can any certain criterion be established, by which to weigh the pretensions of different sects and parties. The obtrusion of certain heterodox tenets into the Church, by some who lay under the most sacred obligations to maintain its faith unimpaired; and the unblushing attempts made even by infidel writers to identify their own systems with Christianity, and thence to assume to themselves the appellation of Christian Deists;-rendered it still more necessary to guard the faith against such perversion, and to draw the line of demarcation betwixt truth and error, with as much clearness and precision as the nature of the case would admit.

With this view Dr. Waterland's Charge, entitled, A Discourse of Fundamentals, was professedly undertaken.

Several distinguished writers had before treated upon this subject; among whom were Bacon, Mede, Chillingworth, Hammond, Stillingfleet, Sherlock, Cla gett, and others of our own Church, besides Hoornbeck, Spanheim, Puffendorf, Witsius, Turretin, and Buddeus, of the Lutheran and other foreign re formed Churches. The importance therefore of the subject had been generally acknowledged; but so much diversity still prevailed as to the mode of determining the points in question, as to render a more distinct and satisfactory view of it exceedingly desirable.

Our author clears the ground for this difficult undertaking with his usual ability. The term fundamental, as applied to articles of faith, he observes,

66

"is supposed to mean something essential to religion or Christianity; so necessary to its being, or " at least to its well-being, that it could not subsist, "or maintain itself tolerably without it." The distinction between things thus essential, and those which are less so, is shewn to be recognised in Scripture, and to have been acted upon by St. Paul, in making converts to the faith. The primitive Churches carefully attended to this principle. Certain articles were invariably insisted upon as terms of Church-communion; and a departure from these was regarded as a renunciation of Christianity itself. But as parties multiplied in the Church, different rules of this kind were, from time to time, set up, by sects, or by individuals, desirous of adyancing their own particular tenets. Under such circumstances, the hope of perfect union could hardly, perhaps, be entertained. But to disentangle the subject, as far as might be, from the perplexity in which it had thus been involved, was certainly a laudable purpose, tending in some degree, at least, to prevent the increase of error and disunion.

Dr. W. sets aside the distinction between natural and revealed religion, so far as this subject is concerned, because revealed he considers as including both; nor does he dwell upon the distinctions between faith, worship, and morality, "these being all "essential to Christianity, and equally to be insisted "on as terms of Christian communion." "But," he observes, "it may be needful to distinguish be"tween fundamentals considered in an abstract "view, as essentials of the Christian fabric or sys"tem, and fundamentals considered in a relative

"view to particular persons." The former" are of "a fixed determinate view, as much as Christianity "itself is, and may be ascertained by plain and un"alterable rules;" the latter" will always vary, with "the capacities and opportunities of the persons." Accordingly, almost all parties make some distinction between terms of communion and terms of salvation; excluding many from the former as erring fundamentally, whom notwithstanding they would not dare to condemn to perdition.

66

A fundamental doctrine, then, may be defined, in the terms expressed by Dean Sherlock, namely, "such a doctrine as is, in strict sense, of the essence " of Christianity; without which the whole building "and superstructure must fall; and the belief of " which is necessary to the very being of Christianity, like the first principles of any art or science." In conformity with this general definition, Dr. W. lays it down as an axiom, "that such doctrines as "are found to be intrinsecal or essential to the "Christian covenant are fundamental truths, and “such as are plainly and directly subversive of it " are fundamental errors." The Christian covenant he moreover considers as including the following requisites: "1. a founder and principal cove"nanter; 2. a subject capable of being covenanted "with; 3. a charter of foundation; 4. a Mediator; "5. conditions to be performed; 6. aids or means to "enable to performance; 7. sanctions also, to bind "the covenant, and to secure obedience."

1. The existence of the Deity is a fundamental article; and so is the belief of his Divine attributes and perfections, and that he is the Creator, Pre

VOL. I.

server, and Governor of the world; all which is included in the very idea of God; so that to deny either of these is to err fundamentally. It is essential also to Christian theology, to acknowledge Jehovah, the God of Israel, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in opposition to any false gods, either of heathens or heretics.

2. A covenant implies some subject, or party, capable of being covenanted with; a moral agent, able to discern between good and evil, and to choose either. Therefore the doctrines of free-will, and of the essential differences between moral good and evil, are fundamental verities; and to disown them, is to err fundamentally.

3. The charter of foundation is also essential to the covenant. Consequently, the sacred oracles which contain that charter, and convey it to us, must necessarily be received: so that to reject the Divine authority of sacred writ, is another fundamental er

ror.

4. The belief of a Mediator is equally essential, and to deny our Lord to be that Mediator, is to deny the Scriptures and Christianity altogether. So is it, to deny Him to be such a Mediator as the Scripture describes him to be, a Divine Mediator, God and man. This is what the very nature of the covenant requires. And under this is included his making expiation, atonement, and satisfaction for us. To deny these doctrines is, in effect, rejecting the chief person upon whom our salvation depends, and overthrowing the whole covenant.

5. The conditions of the covenant, repentance and holiness, are no less plainly essential to it: and

whatever tenets militate against these, are fatal errors; errors in the very foundation of the Christian system.

6. The aids, or means, without which these conditions cannot be performed, are, for the same reason, essential articles of belief. In this view, the sacraments, as means of grace, cannot be dispensed with; and they who discard them, or deny their use and their necessity, err fundamentally. Here also the sanctifying operation of the Holy Spirit comes in, as another fundamental point, including the personality, the Divinity, and all-sufficiency, of the third Person in the Godhead, and consequently, the acknowledgment of the three Persons in the Trinity, by whose cooperation, the entire work of salvation, redemption, justification, and sanctification, is ef fected.

7. Lastly, the sanctions which give to the Christian covenant its force and efficacy, are to be reckoned among the essentials which cannot be set aside without renouncing the Gospel itself. The doctrines of a future state, of a resurrection, of final judgment by our Lord himself, of heaven, and of hell, are fundamental points of Christian theology, inseparable from it, and constituting the very end and purpose to which all its doctrines and its precepts are directed.

Keeping these general principles stedfastly in view, Dr. W. conceives that "it is not necessary to "exhibit any complete catalogue either of funda"mental truths or errors." It is sufficient that we have a certain rule to go by; and "though Divines "take not upon them to number up with exactness