Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

mentallys. I might perhaps come at the same conclusion more directly, by considering the Sacraments as seals of the covenant, and so bearing in that view an immediate relation to it and connection with it. But I know not whether the premises might not admit of some dispute; besides that a metaphorical expression is not so clear a ground to build an argument upon: though at the same time I make no question but that the two Sacraments are very justly styled, and really are, seals of the

covenant.

Among the necessary aids must be reckoned the assistance or guidance of God's Holy Spirit, as the chief of all aids, and what contains all other: this therefore is a fundamental principle. And because this cannot be rightly understood without admitting that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent, all-sufficient, and, in a word, strictly Divine, therefore the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is a fundamental article of the Christian covenant, and to disown it is to err fundamentally.

And since it is manifest from the whole tenor of Scripture, that there is but one God, one Lord Jehovah, it is evident that the doctrine of three real Persons in one eternal Godhead is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. Of this I have largely treated elsewherei; but I may here take leave to add the excellent words of Baron Puffendorf, a person of exquisite judgment, and very far from being a bigot to any churchmen: "In this "article of three Persons in one Divine essence lies the foundation "of genuine Christian religion; which being taken away this "falls to the ground, and nothing will remain but somewhat of an exact moral philosophy. For if there are not more Persons "than one in the Divine essence, there is no Saviour, no redemp"tion, no faith, no justification." Good reason there is why the Christian churches would never communicate either with the Samosatenians and Arians of old time, or with the Socinians of later date a noble writer of our own has very justly observed, "That by this very thing, that they disbelieve the article of the Holy Trinity, they make themselves uncapable of the commu"nion of other Christian people of the Nicene faith and we

66

66

g Of Baptism in particular, see Puffendorf. Jus fecial. sect. lii. liii. and Clarke's Sermons, vol. ix. p. 86. Of the Eucharist as essential, see Puffendorf. ibid. sect. lvii. and Velthuysen, p. 800.

:

h See Sherlock, Vindicat. p. 271, 294. Velthuysius, p. 783, 789, 794. i Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity, vol. iii. p. 389.

k Puffendorf. sect. lii. p. 174. Lat, p. 162. Engl.

"cannot so much as join with them in good prayers, because we "are not agreed concerning the Persons to whom our devotions "must be addressed. And Christendom never did so lightly "esteem the article of the Holy Trinity, as not to glory in it, "and confess it publicly, and express it in all our Offices. The Holy Ghost, together with the Father and the Son, must be worshipped and glorified!." But I proceed.

66

66

VII. In the seventh and last place, I am to observe, that the sanctions proper to bind the covenant, and to give it its due force and efficacy, must needs be looked upon as essential to the covenant. Accordingly, the doctrine of a future state must be a fundamental doctrine, as it is the principle of all religion: for without it there can be no sufficient inducement to the constant and conscientious practice of virtue and piety. The doctrines also of a resurrection, and final judgment by Christ our Lord, together with the doctrines of a heaven for the righteous, and a hell for the ungodly, are fundamental points of Christian theology. To deny or disbelieve these doctrines is to overturn the covenant, because it directly tends to defeat and frustrate the end and use of it, undermining its binding force, and sapping its influences, depriving it of its life, strength, and energy.

Thus far I have proceeded in pointing out some of the fundamental verities, together with the fundamental errors opposite thereto, and known by their contraries. By the same rule, and upon the same general principles, it may be easy to draw out more, as often as occasion shall require. It is not necessary to exhibit any complete cataloguem either of fundamental truths or errors it is sufficient that we have a certain rule to conduct by, whenever any question arises about church communion, heresy, schism, or the like. The ablest physicians would not perhaps undertake to give us an exact catalogue or determinate number of all the essentials of human life", or of all the fatal distempers or mortal wounds incident to the animal frame: but they could easily give in a competent list of either kind; and when any

Lord Viscount Hatton. In the Preface to his Psalter, p. 17.

m See Chillingworth, part i. cap. 3. sect. 13, 53. Frid. Spanheim. p. 1312, &c. Turretin. p. 21, &c.

n Quis dixerit, quid præcise alimentorum ad vitam sustinendam requiratur? Neque tamen ob illam ignorantiam periculum est ne nos fame

consumi sinamus. Sed et quis dixerit quot ciborum genera, et quot venenorum species in orbe reperiuntur ? Quod tamen non impedit quo minus et cibis uti et venenis abstinere optime possimus. Quid mirum ergo, si de cibis animi salutiferis erroribusque exitialibus idem dicatur? Turretin. p. 23, 24.

particular case comes before them, they can for the most part judge, by the rules of their art, what means may be necessary to preserve life, and what will as naturally tend to destroy it. In like manner, though Divines take not upon them to number up with exactness all the verities essential to the life of Christianity, or all the errors subversive and destructive of it, yet they can specify several in each kind with unerring certainty, and have certain rules whereby to judge, as occasion offers, of any other; and this suffices in the essentials of faith, as well as in the essentials of practice.

There may be some difficulty in marking out the exact partitions which divide fundamentals from non-fundamentals, as they differ only in the degree of more and less weighty: but then there is also the like difficulty in settling the precise boundaries between lawful and unlawful, right and wrong, virtue and vice, in many particular instances; which yet is no just objection to the undertaking, nor accompanied with such difficulties as need make any considerate casuist despair.

Besides, whatever perplexities may sometimes arise in theory, there will be few or none in practice, since in case of just and reasonable doubt, whether such or such an article be fundamental or otherwise, the known rule is, to choose the safer side. If it be further asked, which is the safer side, that of truth or of peace; I scruple not to give it on the side of peace, which ordinarily is of greater value (as more depends upon it) than the supporting or securing the outward profession of a non-fundamental truth, or which does not certainly appear to be fundamentalo. When I speak of doubtful cases, I would not be understood of doubtful doctrines, (for such are not fundamental,) but of such cases where the truth of the doctrine is at least morally certain, and the importance of it only doubtful. In such cases and instances, reasons of peace and charity (as I humbly conceive) ought to prevail, rather than break communion for the sake of such truth as cannot be clearly proved a fundamental oneP. Till

• Est hic prudenter procedendum, ne fidei in non-necessariis et sæpe dubiis ac incertioribus dogmatibus ita consulamus, ut lædamus charitatem, et eos forte damnemus quos Christus summus judex absolvit. Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. lib. v. cap. 9. p. 140.

P Placuit et theologis distinctio in necessaria ad salutis consecutionem et

quæ insuper talis ad communionem ecclesiæ: quandoque enim, retento fundamento, non excludi judicio humano a salute- -quos tamen recipi in externam cum ecclesia communionem, unionis, ordinis, disciplinæ, ædificationis ratio prohibeat. In quo, si unquam alias, observandam esse, ut moderatæ prudentiæ, sic Christianæ

good proof can be made of its being fundamental, it may reasonably pass for a non-fundamental: and they who reject it, or refuse to accept it, may notwithstanding be received as Christian brethren, yea and ought to be received as such, if there be no other greater reason for excluding them. For I may note by the way, that though a disagreement in fundamentals is one bar to communion, and a very just one, yet it is not the only one which may be supposed. If any non-fundamental error should be rigorously insisted upon, so far as to require us to deny any certain truth, or if any sinful terms whatever be imposed; a breach of communion must follow of course, (since it is necessary to avoid a lie, and to obey God rather than man,) and the imposers in such cases are the dividers. So likewise in case of impure worship, or flagrant immoralities, (though all the essentials of faith might remain secure,) it may be necessary to refuse communion with such and such men, or bodies of men. But I have no occasion to consider those or the like cases, which lie out of the compass of our present inquiry. The subject of fundamentals was all that I undertook to state and clear as briefly as might be, and to observe how far Church communion hangs upon that single article, waving the consideration of other articles, as foreign to the point in hand. I am willing to hope that what has been said may be found sufficient with persons of discernment, for determining the formal reason of a fundamental truth or error; and for the settling a safe and easy rule to distinguish the same from what is not fundamental. I have not room to consider particular cases and instances, wherein some difficulties may occur: but if the general rule laid down be right and clear, that suffices; neither is the rule to be rejected on account of accidental difficulties which may sometimes happen to arise about the application of it.

But for the further illustrating or confirming the rule laid down, it may be now proper to compare it with other rules, some differing in words only, (being the same in substance with it,) others differing in the main thing, and some of them very widely. As to those other rules which appear to coincide with what I have offered, or scarcely to differ from it, it will be sufficient barely to mention them in passing.

charitatis, ac mutuæ tolerantiæ legem, -prudens quisque theologus facile largitur; satiusque peccari in chari

tatis excessu (nisi intercedat totius ecclesiæ salus) quam in defectu. Spanheim. Opp. tom. iii. p. 1311.

Some learned and judicious writers resolve the ratio of a fundamental article into its essential connection with the general and comprehensive article of salvation by Christ: which in reality amounts to the same with resolving it, as I have done, into the nature of the Christian covenant. Others characterize fundamental doctrines as being "necessary to the love of God "towards us, or to that love of ours towards him, which consists " in keeping his commandments." Which again comes to the same with resolving the ratio of a fundamental into the covenant of grace for maintaining that covenant in all its essential parts or branches, is most effectually maintaining the principles of consummate amity between God and man. Our very judicious Mr. Mede resolves the formal reason of a fundamental into the necessary connection which it has with the acts and functions of Christian lifes: but he owns at the same time, that if it be resolved into the necessary connection it has with the Christian covenant, it is all one with the other, differing only in the manner of expression. Baron Puffendorf, in his excellent treatise upon the subject of Union among Protestants, every where resolves the ratio of a fundamental, just as I have, into the doctrine of the Christian covenant. But I proceed to consider several other rules or ratios which have been offered by learned men, and which are more or less widely differing from what I have laid down. It will be proper not only to mention them, but to confute them likewise, by pointing out their faults or defects.

I. Some, to make short work, and to cut off all disputes at once, have been pleased to refer us to the definition of the Church, as the surest or the only rule for determining what is fundamental, and what not. But it is certain that the definition even of the primitive churches, after the Apostles, is merely declarative, not effective; makes no fundamental article, but declares only what was supposed to be so previously to that declaration and therefore we must look higher for the formal reason of a fundamental. The judgment of the primitive churches is, no doubt, of great use and weight, as they drew from the fountain head, and well understood the true and genuine principles of the Christian system and it is of great moment to observe what doctrines they received as fundamental truths, and what they rejected as

q Dean Sherlock, Vindicat. p. 259,

302.

r Whitby, Comm. on 1 John ii. 5.

s See Mede to Hartlib. Letter lxxxviii. p. 1072. Compare Dr. Clagett, vol. ii. Serm. 2. p. 37.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »