66

doctrine of justification, he observes, had been the occasion of much controversy in the preceding century; and had been ably discussed by Bishop Bull, in his Harmonia Apostolica, and other treatises, against those who maintained the solifidian doctrine, "that we are so justified by faith alone, as to "exclude good works from being necessary con"ditions of justification; admitting them to be only necessary fruits and consequences of it." This doctrine was revived by the new sect of Methodists, particularly by Whitfield; and it was a notion calculated to spread rapidly among corrupt and ignorant minds, to the great prejudice of sound morals and pure religion. The same motive, therefore, which induced Dr. Waterland to take in hand the subject of regeneration, led him to examine, more closely than had hitherto been done, the doctrine of justification, so immediately connected with it. There is evidence also, that he had been strongly pressed to do so by his friends. In Mr. Nicholls's Literary Anecdotes, vol. viii. p. 292, is a letter from Mr. John Jones, the editor of Free and Candid Disquisitions, to Dr. Zachary Grey, in which he says, "I rejoice to hear that Dr. Waterland is re

66

covering. His death would have been an extra"ordinary loss to the Church. I extremely value his "late piece on regeneration. It is excellent. I "had long intended, before he fell ill, to desire you "to write to him, in order to desire such another

66

piece on justification. It is as much wanted as "the other; and nobody can do it better. If the "Doctor recovers, pray, write to him on the subject, and desire him to clear it. Pray do, good

66

"Sir, I again beg of you." This letter is dated October 6, 1740. Waterland died in December following. But it appears from one of his own letters to Dr. Williams, in February of that same year, that he had taken up the subject some months before. There can be no doubt, however, that this, as well as the tract on regeneration, was intended to counteract the growing fanaticism of the times; both doctrines being equally perverted from their genuine signification, by the endeavour to engraft upon them the tenet so vehemently inculcated both by Wesley and Whitfield, that persons once regenerated and justified could never afterwards fall away from grace.

This notion could neither be reconciled with baptismal regeneration, nor with justification at the commencement of the Christian life. With respect to justification, it led also to the error, so ably refuted by Bishop Bull, that good works are not a condition of justification, but its necessary and certain result; justification being that act of sovereign grace, which ensured the final acceptance of the believer, and consequently could not but be productive of the fruits belonging to it.

To correct these erroneous persuasions, and restore the doctrine to its original and scriptural signification, Dr. W. pursues a method similar to that of his former treatise; summarily stating, what the term justification really denotes, and what is included in the right notion of it; how it stands distinguished from regeneration and renovation; what is requisite to give it effect; and what are the chief fallacies to be avoided, in the different

1

views that may be taken of it. These several points are explained and illustrated, according to our author's accustomed method of treating all theological doctrines, by reference to Scripture, to reason, and to the sentiments of the Church Catholic, from the apostolical Fathers to St. Austin. The deviations of modern writers from these high authorities are then examined and refuted; particularly, the denial of Baptism as the ordinary instrument for conveying justification, of the instrumentality of faith in receiving it, and of the conditions, on which its efficacy is made to depend. The doctrine is then further guarded against the extremes of undervaluing the Divine grace in the work of justification, on the one hand; or, on the other, of so magnifying it as to supersede, or to diminish the necessity of obedience and a good life. The former error is charged upon the Pelagians, Socinians, Romanists, and those enthusiasts who pretend to sinless perfection; the latter, upon the Antinomian and Solifidian teachers. Adverting to those of the latter description, then gaining many proselytes, he says, in conclusion of the treatise, "It is certain that the Anti"nomian and Solifidian doctrines, as taught by some "in later times, have deviated into a wild extreme, ❝ and have done infinite mischief to practical Christianity. I have not room to enumerate, much less "to confute, the many erroneous and dangerous te“nets which have come from that quarter: neither "would I be forward to expose them again to pub"lic view. They have been often considered and "often confuted. Let them rather be buried in ob"livion, and never rise up again to bring reproach

66

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 necessity 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

66

66

66

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.