The New Divinity Tried [pp. 278-304]

The New Divinity Tried.
he justly remarks, is an important distinction, which it is of
the highest moment should be understood and properly ap plied. " The doctrines of religion are the simple facts of
Christianity. The philosophy of the doctrines is the mode
adopted of staling and illustrating those facts, in their
relations to each other, to the human mind, to the whole
character and government of God. From this distinction,
results the following most important practical principle of
Christian fellowship and of theological discussion. all who
teach the leading fajcts or doctrines of Christianity are
orthodox, though they differ greatly in their philosophy of
those doctrines." p. 31. The reviewer gives these passages
in italics, to note his sense of their importance. We are
constrained, however, to think, that although they contain a
very obvious and familiar truth, they are of little consequence
for his purpose. The truth they contain is, that there is a
distinction between the essentials and not essentials of a doc trine. We care little about his calling doctrinesfacts. But
how is this to aid any one in deciding on what is heresy, and
what is not? The reviewer chooses to say, that the fact which
all the orthodox must receive respecting sin Is, that it exists,
and that it is a dreadful evil. But how its existence is ac counted for, is philosophising about it. But if I assert, it
exists by the immediate efficient agency of God, do not I
assert a fact, as much as when I say it exists? Or, if I say it
exists because God cannot control a moral agent, do not I
assert a fact? Again, the orthodox fact about man's natural
character is, that in consequence of the fall of Adam, men sin
and only sin, until renewed by the Holy Spirit; the philoso phy is in accounting for it. But is it not obvious, that when
the Church declares, that the universality of actual sin is to be
accounted for by a sinful corruption of nature, she means to
declare, that the Scriptures account for one fact by another?
When it is said, we are condemned for the sin of Adam, is it
not a fact again asserted? We think, therefore, the reviewer's
distinction between facts and the philosophy of them, perfectly futile. The use he would make of it, is still worse.
'"All who teach the leading facts of Christianity, are orthodox." But what are these facts? Let the reviewer state
them, and then he is orthodox; let Edwards state them, and
he is a heretic. The substance of the fact regarding man's
character, is, that somehow, in consequence of the fall, he sins
and only sins, &c. Is not this a bald petitio principii? That
somehow may be the very thing which the Scriptures clearly
303