Unity and Diversity of Belief on Imputed and Involuntary Sin. By Edwards A. Park [pp. 674-695]

694 Professor Park and the Princeton Review.
minent than any other, it is opposition to these principles. The
world-wide fame of President Edwards as a theologian, rests
mainly on his thorough refutation of them in the works we
have already referred to. In this opposition, Bellamy, Dwight,
and the other great men of New England were no less strenuous
than Edwards. The aberration of the advocates of the' Exercise Scheme," though it led them to a denial of at least the
first of the above principles, was in the direction of ultra Calvinism. It was not until the rise of what is popularly called
New Havenism, that these principles were rejected by any
other class of New England divines reputed orthodox. It is
Professor Park, and not we, who is the assailant of New England theology, a fact which he will not be able to conceal. We
recently heard of certain Unitarian gentlemen who seemed honestly to believe that Trinitarianism is dying out in this country.
It is possible that a similar hallucination may lead Professor
Park to regard the little coterie to which he belongs as all
New England.
Again, there is not in the long article under consideration
any frank and manly discussion of principles. His great object
seems to be to elude pursuit by a copious effusion of ink. We
had two leading objects in our late review. The one was to
state clearly what it was our author proposed to accomplish;
and the other was, to examine the means by which he endeavoured to attain his end. We endeavoured to show that
the task which he undertook, was to reconcile the two great
conflicting systems of theology, the Augustinian and the antiAugustinian; and then we endeavoured to set forth the theory,
under its different aspects, by which this reconciliation was to
be effected. If he intended his "Comments" to be an answer
to our review, it was incumbent upon him to take up these
points. He should have proved either that we had not fairly
presented the two systems of theology referred to, or that they
were not included under his category of allowable creeds. Or
if satisfied as to these points, he should have shown either that
we misapprehended his theory, or that that theory was philosophically true. So far as we can discover, he has hardly made
a show of attempting to accomplish any one of these objects.
We therefore do not feel it necessary to pursue the subject any
[OCT.