Remarks on the Princeton Review [pp. 306-347]

Status Quaestionus Proved.
pious men," he says,'are distressed by the apparent contra dictions in our best theological literature, and for their sake
another practical lesson developed in the discourse is, the im portance of exhibiting the mutual consistency between all the
expressions of right feeling. The discrepancies so often lamented
are not fundamental, but superficial, and are easily harmonized
by exposing the one self-consistent principle, which lies at their
basis."* "Over and over it is asserted in the discourse, that
while the intellectual theology is'accurate not in its spirit only,
but in its letter also,' the emotive theology involves'the sub stance of truth, although when literally interpreted it may or
may not be false.' The purport of one entire head in the ser mon is to prove, that the one theology is precisely the same
with the other in its real meaning, though not always in its
form; that the expressions of right feeling, if they do contradict
each other'when unmodified,' can and must be so explained as
to harmonize both with each other, and with the decisions of the
judgment.... The sermon repeats again and again, that it is
impossible to believe contradictory statements,'without qualifying some of them so as to prevent their subverting each other;'
that the reason'being the circumspect power which looks before
and after, does not allow that of these conflicting statements
each can be true, save in a qualified sense;' and that such statements must be qualified by disclosing the fundamental'IFinciple
in which they all agree for substance of doctrine,''theprinciple
which will rectify one of the discrepant expres~sins by explaining it into an essential agreement with the other.' "t The
sermon then was designed to harmonize those "apparent contradictions" in doctrinal statements by which pious men are
distressed. It was intended to teach that the two theologies,
the intellectual and emotive, though they may differ in form,
agree in substance of doctrine. Accordingly he says, "Pitiable
indeed is the logomachy of polemic divines. We have somewhere read, that the Berkleians who denied the existence of matter, differed more in terms than in opinion from their opponents,
who affirmed the existence of matter, for the former uttered
with emphasis,'We cannot prove that there is an outward
* Reply, p. 137. t Reply, p. 149.
VOL. XXIII.-NO. II.
1851.]
321
30