Page images
PDF
EPUB

66

upon the Christian name. But take we due care "so to maintain the doctrine of faith, as not to ex"clude the necessity of good works; and so to "maintain good works, as not to exclude the neces

66

66

66

66

sity of Christ's atonement or the free grace of "God. Take we care to perform all evangelical du"ties to the utmost of our power, aided by God's Spirit; and when we have so done, say, that we "are unprofitable servants, having no strict claim "to a reward, but yet looking for one, and accepting it as a favour, not challenging it as due in any right of our own; due only upon free promise, " and that promise made not in consideration of any "deserts of ours, but in and through the alone me"rits, active and passive, of Christ Jesus our Lord.” This is sound, rational, scriptural doctrine; and had it been more generally attended to, both before and since this admonition was given, the Church might have been spared much reproach and vexation, brought upon it either by injudicious friends, or by inconsiderate opponents.

The tract upon Infant Communion is of less general interest. Yet, besides throwing light upon a curious, though obscure point of ecclesiastical history, it is not unimportant with reference to its bearings upon the comparative obligation and necessity of the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. Difficulties have sometimes been raised respecting Infant Baptism, grounded upon an argument that the universal obligation of the Eucharist is no less positively affirmed in Scripture, than that of Baptism; and that, therefore, if the one is supposed to extend to infants, so must the other; our Lord's declaration,

Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, seeming to be equivalent, in the extent of its application, to his other declaration, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Our author's solution of this difficulty, so far as relates to the inference thus erroneously drawn from these texts, has been already noticed, in stating his sentiments upon the doctrine of the Eucharist. The subject, however, is in the present tract treated historically, rather than doctrinally, for the purpose of tracing what were the opinions concerning it among the early Fathers, particularly St. Cyprian and St. Austin. The inquiry into the practice of Infant Communion is also briefly carried on to later times; and it is shewn to have been very inconsiderable at any period, being grounded rather upon over-scrupulous fears and doubts, than upon any solid and clear conviction of its real foundation in Scripture. Our author's conclusion is, that the practice is neither enjoined by Scripture-authority, nor appears to have been known till the middle of the third century; and that it is not supported by any express injunction as to the precise age of admitting persons to the holy Communion; this being a matter of mere expediency, left to the regulation of the Church. This tract, though a posthumous publication, was probably of an earlier date than either his Review of the Eucharist, or his Charges; mention being made, towards the beginning, of an essay then lately published on the subject, by Mr. Pierce of Exeter, dated 1728.

Here might have ended the investigation of Dr. Waterland's learned labours, had not some other of his productions lately come to light, which have been deemed of sufficient importance to admit them into this first entire collection of his writings. The public might reasonably have been dissatisfied if any undoubted manuscripts of the author, not undeserving of his high reputation, had been suffered to remain unnoticed, or known only to those few who might have access to the public or private archives in which they are deposited. Some brief account of these remains, therefore, to be given.

The first to be noticed are Two Letters on LayBaptism.

66

66

In the Biographia Britannica, it is stated, that in the year 1716, there passed several letters between Jackson and Whiston upon the subject of InfantBaptism, which Jackson defended against Whiston, as he did also the lawfulness and validity of LayBaptism to another friend and correspondent. But" (it is added) " whether in the last letter he " had an eye, or no, to Dr. Waterland, does not appear, who once denied the validity of Lay-Bap“tism; however, he afterwards changed his opinion.' This is said to have been "communicated by Dr. "Nicholls, Rector of St. Giles, Cripplegate." The communication, however, will hardly obtain credit, when compared with the evidence of these two letters by Dr. Waterland now under consideration.

6.6

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The first letter was found in the collection of Archbishop. Wake's Manuscripts, deposited in the Art. Jackson. Vol. vii. Supplement, p. 107. note B.

library at Christ Church, Oxford. It is inscribed to the Reverend Mr. P. Rector of L-. dated M. C. (Magdalene College) October 29, 1713, and subscribed D. W. It can now only be conjectured who was this Mr. P. Rector of L. Probably it was Mr. Pyle, then Rector of Lynn, in Norfolk. The letter was evidently written for the purpose of removing certain doubts entertained by Mr. P. în consequence of some correspondence or conversation between him and a Mr. Kelsall, in which the latter had maintained Dr. Bingham's opinion on the subject, against that of Mr. Laurence, the wellknown author of Lay-Baptism invalid. In the introductory part of the letter, Dr. W. professes himself to have been, till lately, of Dr. Bingham's opinion, but to have changed that opinion upon further deliberation; a statement, the very reverse of that brought forward in the Biographia Britannica; unless we are to suppose, that, even after these letters were written, he abandoned his latter judgment and returned to the former; than which nothing can be more improbable. The letter itself contains a brief summary of the main arguments on which the invalidity of Lay-Baptism is grounded; and shews in a very concise, but distinct and luminous manner, the proofs to that effect, from Scripture, antiquity, and reason. To this general view of the subject the first letter is confined, the writer professing not to enter into any further detail, but rather to be desirous of information from Mr. Kelsall himself, of whose learning and ability he speaks in terms of high respect.

Together with this letter, (which is transcribed

in a small duodecimo book, and written in a remarkably neat and distinct hand, not much unlike to that of Waterland,) there is also a transcript, in the same hand-writing, of Mr. Kelsall's letter, addressed to the same Mr. P. in consequence (as it appears) of Mr. P.'s having sent Dr. Waterland's letter for his consideration. It is subscribed, E. Kelsall, and dated, Boston May 12, 1714. The same name occurs in Cooke's Preacher's Assistant, as the author of two Sermons in the years 1710 and 1712; and also among the Cambridge Graduates, is found Edward Kelsall, St. John's, A. B. 1691, A. M. 1695. There can be little doubt that this was the author of the letter; and that he was a man whose opinion Dr. Waterland thought might have considerable weight. His letter, indeed, shews great learning, research, and ability; vindicating his former judgment on the validity of Lay-Baptism, and elaborately combating the arguments against it; though at the same time expressive of great personal respect for Dr. Waterland. At considerable length, he goes through the whole question, examines it in all its bearings, and contests with much strength, not without some asperity also, the conclusions formed, on the other side, by Mr. Laurence and Dr, Brett. He takes the liberty, however, of inverting the order of his opponent's arguments, by examining first, what reason has to allege from the consequences which, he conceives, must follow from admitting the invalidity of Lay-Baptism; and then, what may be inferred from the authorities of Scripture and antiquity; thus, in some measure, prejudging the main question, or, at least, prepossessing the mind of the reader somewhat

« EelmineJätka »