Contemporary Literature [pp. 395-424]

187~. 1 CONTTh~pOpARy LITEI~ATUBE. 39~
so far as he has all the capacities and powers of a moral agent. And from
this they drew the conclusion, that he is to rely for repentance and salvation, not upon his ability, but solely and wholly upon divine grace. We
have been accustomed to accept this as a full and just statement of all the
facts in the case; and as the best ground on which to meet at once both
Necessarianism and Pelagianism. Dr. Hodge, however, and those who
agree with him, object to the phrase "natural ability" as ambiguous: he
seems to consider it as identical with plenary power ~" power to the contrary"). But this is not the sense in which it is used by the older New
England divines; it is used and defined by them in connection and harmony with the undeniable fact of a real moral inability, arising from the
sinful state of the heart or will and its opposition to holiness. When Dr.
Hodge claims that this moral inability is also "natural," since it springs
from our native sinful state, he is, it seems to us, using the term "natural"
in a different sense from thqt which has long prevailed in the school of
Edwards; for they define it in express co~itrast with what is moral. They
mean by "natural inability" an entire lack of capacity or opportunity.
But these are philosophical and scholastic distinctions. The difference, as
between such parties, is perhaps chiefly verbal and metaphysical. We
quite agree with the statement of our author (p. 277) that "no more
soul-destroying doctrine could well be devised than the doctrine that sinners can regenerate themselves, and repent and believe just when they
plea se."
Dr. Hodge is also known as the ablest advocate, in this country or England, of the theory of fm;;zcdiafr fm~ ii Ia lion, especially of the guilt of
Adam's first sin. We have no space now to take up this point, but will only
express our conviction that Mediate as well as Immediate Imputation has a
rightful place in the Reformed theology, unless we would cast out Au gustine and Calvin, Stapfer and Edwards; and (as even Dr. Thornwell conceded) so long as our own Catechism continues to say, "We sinned in
Adam and fell with him in his first transgression,"~fbr this, in our vIew,
means more than a representation of individuals. At the same time, it is
only just to say, that Mediate Imputation is not to be identified wi~h tlie
theory of Placaeus, as Dr. Hodge interprets it. The adjectives frnmcdiote
and ~1fco'iafr themselves perhaps need interpretation.
At the close of this notice, already too protracted, we can only allude
to the question of kcalism, to which the author recurs, under different
heads, with unnyistakeable earnestness and emphasis. We cannot even
indicate the points of agreement and difference; for the subject is too
complicated and abstruse, and also too important, to be disposed ~f in
concise phrases, always liable to be misunderstood. We certainly dissent
from some of Dr. Hodge's representations of the theory. Many of his
objections lie only against a kind of pantheistic realism, which has no advocate in our church. But we do not think that these objections, stiongly