is due to our Redeemer.1 We certainly sympathize with the learned critic, when after twice qualifying an "unqualified" phrase, he comes over to the true faith; and even while he adheres to a false speculation, we cordially repeat the words with which himself is familiar, and which, considering their source, he will be slow to suspect of Schleiermacherism: "There is a region a little lower than the head, a little deeper than the reach of speculation, in which those who think they differ, or differ in thinking, may yet rejoice in Christian fellowship!" 2

We now make a seventh and a general remark, that for various reasons, obvious and occult, theologians are often inconsistent with themselves; and while they would never come together if each were to follow out a few of his "radical principles," yet they are not always consecutive, and they often coincide by virtue of their inconsequent reasonings. Thus our Reviewer takes three "radical principles," viz. that "moral character is confined to acts, that liberty supposes power to the contrary [by which he means a natural, not a moral power, to choose right when one does choose wrong], and that ability limits responsibility," and from these principles he constructs, by a species of "comparative anatomy," a theological system, to which, as he says, the sermon under review belongs. In that system he declares that "the sovereignty of God in the salvation of men must of necessity be given up," and he contrasts with it his own system which “has for its object the vindication of the divine supremacy and sovereignty in the salvation of men." But lo! a few minutes afterward he affirms, that in the system to which the sermon belongs, "the acceptance of the sinner is the act of a Sovereign, dispensing with the demands of the law!" and herein it is said to be in contrast with his own system, which on a preceding page was said to exalt the divine sovereignty while the other excluded it! And this contrast he makes yet more pointed on p. 330, where he affirms that "according to the one system [his own, making much of sovereignty] the deliverance of a believer from condemnation is the act of a judge; according to the other [our own as he says, and one which makes nothing of sovereignty] it is the act of a Sovereign!" What will this gentleman say next? Those

1 "The atonement has such a relation to the whole moral government of God, as to make it consistent with the honor of his legislative and retributive justice, to save all men, and to make it essential to the highest honor of his benevolence or general justice, to renew and save some." Convention Sermon, p. 562. 2 Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, Vol. XX. p. 140. 3 Bib. Rep. Vol. XXIII. p. 323. * Ib. pp. 308, 311.

5 Ib. p. 312.

1851.]

Sovereignty of God.

605

three "radical principles," that liberty supposes a natural not a moral power of choosing right when one does choose wrong, and that this natural power limits responsibility, and that moral character is confined to acts, are the principles of our old Hopkinsian divines; and did those sturdy men overlook the sovereignty of God? The stale objection to them was, that they thought and talked and preached of nothing else! And the historical fact is, that this precious doctrine was never insisted on with so much force and frequency and safety, as in the pulpits where it has been combined with those three "radical principles." It never was and never can be preached as it ought to be, where the New England doctrine of "natural ability" is not also preached. Ministers and people "shrink from" it, without its complement of human freedom. We thank our Reviewer for so frankly letting out the truth that the system which is not his own does exalt the divine sovereignty in the salvation of men; and if his own system does the same, then so far forth both systems agree; and when he denies that the system which is not his own exalts the divine sovereignty, then he contradicts himself, and of course in one of his statements he must agree with us.1

Again, the conductors of the Princeton Review, "or which is the same thing, our historian," assert: "Now we confess ourselves to

1 The Reviewer represents the doctrines logically growing out of the three above-named "radical principles" as Pelagianism, and he repeatedly declares that the sermon under review advocates those Pelagian doctrines as literally correct and as essentially the same with the Augustinian! See Bib. Rep. XXIII. pp. 319, 320, 322, 326, 328, etc. Now the truth is, that a disbelief in those three "radical principles " as they are stated in the sermon, is far more logically connected with Baptismal Regeneration, Transubstantiation and other Romish absurdities, than a belief in them is with Pelagianism. We might far more honorably attempt to associate the Reviewer with Romanists, with infidel and Mohammedan fatalists, than he has attempted to associate us with Pelagians. It has long been an artifice of polemic divines to tie up the system of their adversaries with some unpopular scheme, as Mezentius bound his enemies face to face with the bodies of the dead. But it is too late. This whole style of disputing, or rather nicknaming, is what we may call, "for want of a better name," Moral Pelagianism. We make allowances, however, for our critic, as he evidently writes in a "language of feeling;" see, for example, his assertion on p. 326, that if the author of the Convention Sermon has not represented the Augustinian and Pelagian systems as both true and reconcilable, "he must be set down as either the most unfortunate or the most unintelligible writer of modern times." Hegel is one writer of modern times, and he said in his last days, that only one man in Europe understood him, and that one misunderstood him. To be more unintelligible than Hegel is "unfortunate."

2 See Bib. Rep. Vol. VI. p. 431, and 92, 93.

be of the number of those who believe, whatever reproach it may bring upon us from a certain quarter, that if the doctrine of imputation be given up, the whole doctrine of original sin must be abandoned; and if this doctrine be relinquished, then the whole doctrine of Redemption must fall, and what may then be left of Christianity, they may contend for that will; but for ourselves we shall be of opinion that what remains will not be worth a serious struggle." On p. 455 of the same volume it is said of President Edwards: "As he had rejected all of imputation but the name, it is no matter of surprise that his followers soon discarded the term itself." And the same Review declares that Hopkins, as well as Dwight, "rejects the doctrine." And yet our Reviewer, doubtless considers that President Edwards, (who has been termed "the prince of American divines,”) even at the time of abandoning this fundamental theory, was "in the main" correct, and preserved his essential orthodoxy by his logical inconsistency! And his followers, too, the Smalleys and the Robert Halls, did they make an utter shipwreck of the faith? Or if some of them did, can there be no hope that "the rest, some on boards and some on broken pieces of the ship escaped all safe to land ?" Really, our critic must either save himself from pronouncing an absurd censure on those good men by a plea that he has exaggerated the importance of their deviations from his faith, or else he must allow that these mighty logicians were enabled to save their own orthodoxy by their logical blunders. To whichever horn of this dilemma our Reviewer may betake himself, he proves what we assert, that men may be so inconsistent with themselves as to agree on the substance of a creed, while they differ on important articles of it, and may preserve either their essential Calvinism, or their Christian charity by a self-contradiction.

Once more, our Reviewer says that in his own system, (irreconcilable with the sermon which he condemns,) Christ is not regarded “as simply rendering it consistent in God to bestow blessings upon sinners, so that we can come to the Father, of ourselves, with a mere obeisance to the Lord Jesus for having opened the door."! We read in Andrew Fuller's Gospel its own Witness, p. 194, Ed. 1801: "If we say, a way was opened by the death of Christ for the free and consistent exercise of mercy in all the methods which Sovereign wisdom saw fit to adopt, perhaps we shall include every material idea which the Scriptures give us of that important event." And did this meek divine, when he was received home to his Father's house, merely make his obeisance to his once suffering Friend " for having opened the door?" Has this been the superficial, not to say profane piety of

1851.]

Andrew Fuller's Theology.

607 the beloved missionaries of the cross who have received the teachings of Andrew Fuller? We see here this great man's view of the Atonement. We have already seen his view of our natural ability. He asserts again and again that we are never personally blamable without "the concurrence of our wills." Our critic confesses that Fuller was a disciple of Edwards, and that the disciples of Edwards renounced the fundamental doctrine of imputation. But has it come to this, that Andrew Fuller will be accused of "philosophizing away" the Gospel (if we may be indulged in one of our critic's chosen words)? "Although we judge him in the main to be truly orthodox," says the Princeton Review, Vol. XVIII. pp. 553, 554, “yet there are minor points on which we should take the liberty of differing from him." "We have made up our minds never to contend with any man for agreeing in doctrinal points with Andrew Fuller." The mind of that Review, then, is made up. So much is fixed. It will never contend with any man merely for his advocating the "radical principles of Pelagianism."! There is a certain "practical" sermon which has uttered a few words in favor of natural ability, and against an inevitable sin, but-"Nolo contendere, for Andrew Fuller said the same, and said it fifty times where the sermon has said it once." Not sleep itself gives more occasional rest to a polemic divine, than do his own inconsistencies. "Blessed be the man that first invented sleep," and

contradictions.

Having now shown the particulars and the methods in which some men who dispute for opposing systems, may sometimes be more harmonious than their creeds, and some creeds may harmonize not in all respects but in "substance of doctrine," let us apply these familiar, not "German," principles, to the doctrines of imputed and of involuntary sin. These doctrines are singled out for various reasons. First, they have been imagined to be the fundamental doctrines of the Bible: see p. 606 above. Secondly, it is more difficult to reconcile the New England with the old Calvinism on these subjects than on any other. If we can succeed here, we can succeed everywhere; and above all, on the doctrines of imputed righteousness, atonement, inability. Thirdly, the style of the old Calvinistic writers is here eminently instructive, and the manner in which they often explained it may illustrate the meaning of the phrase "theology of feeling."

On the subject of Imputed Sin let us consider, first, what is the true doctrine in regard to the influence of Adam upon his descendants: Our benevolent Creator formed a constitution, according to which Adam was to be the head of our race, and the state of his

posterity was so far suspended upon the conduct of their representative, that they were to be born like him in nature and condition. Because he sinned, they are subjected to manifold pains in this life, and are so constituted and circumstanced that, left to themselves, they will sin and only sin in all their moral acts. Even if they should not do wrong, they would suffer evil in consequence of his transgression; but as they do wrong uniformly, they not only endure pains in this world, but will, unless forgiven, be punished forever in the world to come. As they are condemned to eternal death, in consequence of their own sin, and as they are certain to sin in consequence of their corrupt nature, and as they receive this evil nature in consequence of Adam's disobedience, it may be said by an ellipsis only that they are condemned to eternal punishment as an ultimate result of the first disobedience. The Deity had benevolent reasons for making our character and condition thus dependent on him who was on probation for the race. We know not fully what these reasons We presume that they affect kindly the whole intelligent uniWe bow down before the Sovereign Author of this arrangement and say, "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight." Here is one theory, and that critic must be in a peculiar state, who sees no essential difference between it and the Pelagian error that Adam's sin did not injure his descendants at all, or at most that it only presented an evil example for their imitation.

verse.

But in the second place, let us inquire what is the old theory, antagonistic to the preceding, in regard to Adam's influence upon his descendants. Its first and fundamental principle is, that God is influenced by retributive justice toward men in causing them to be born with an evil and suffering nature. The calamities which attend men at their very first formation are punishments, inflicted by God, acting not as a Sovereign but as a Judge; exercising justice not toward Adam alone, but toward the infants who have not yet seen the light. "For ourselves," says the Princeton Reviewer1 (in language which when dying he will wish to blot), "we are free to confess that we instinctively shrink from the idea, that God in mere sovereignty inflicts the most tremendous evils upon his creatures, while we bow submissively at the thought of their being penal inflictions for a sin committed by our natural head and representative, and in violation of a covenant in which by a benevolent appointment of God we were included." In the immediate context he censures those New England divines who represent "that as a matter of sovereignty which we

1 Bib. Rep. Vol. VI. p. 465.