American Lutheranism Vindicated; or, Examination of the Lutheran Symbols, on Certain Disputed Topic | Page 2

and is the following:--
"1. The Divine inspiration, authority and sufficiency of the Holy

Scriptures. 2. The right and duty of private judgment in the
interpretation of the Scriptures. 3. The unity of the Godhead, and the
Trinity of persons therein. 4. The utter depravity of human nature in
consequence of the fall. 5. The incarnation of the Son of God, his work
of atonement for sinners of mankind, and his mediatorial intercession
and reign. 6. The justification of the sinner by faith alone. 7. The work
of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and sanctification of the sinner. 8.
The Divine institution of Christian ministry, and the obligation and
perpetuity of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and 9. The immortality of
the soul and the judgment of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ, with
the eternal blessedness of the righteous and the eternal punishment of
the wicked." Not one of these are here discussed.
As to the doctrines taught in this little volume, they are the same
inculcated in our Popular Theology twenty-one years ago, and in our
different works published since that time. And here it seems proper to
avail ourselves of this public opportunity to correct an error committed
by our esteemed friend, Dr. Schaff, of Mercersburg, in his recent work
on the American churches, in which he represents us as denying the
reality, as well as the guilt of natural depravity. This is entirely a
mistake. The reality of Natural Depravity is a doctrine so clearly taught
in God's word, as well as by the history of the human race, that we have
never even been tempted to doubt it. In the eighth edition of the
Popular Theology, (p. 144,) which has recently left the press, our views
on this subject are thus summed up:-- "The Augsburg Confession
seems to combine, both these views, (i.e. both absence of holiness and
predisposition to sin,) and the great body of Lutheran divines has
regarded natural, or original, or innate depravity, as that disorder in the
mental and bodily constitution of man, which was introduced by the
fall of Adam, is transmitted by natural generation from parent to child,
and the result of which is, that all men who are naturally engendered,
evince in their action want of holiness and a predisposition to sin.
Without the admission of such a disorder in the human system, _no
satisfactory reason can be assigned for the universality of actual
transgression_ amongst men." "Our own views on this disputed subject,
maybe summed up in the following features: 1. All mankind, in
consequence of their descent from fallen Adam, _are born with a

depraved nature, that is, their bodily and mental system is so disordered,
as in result of its operation to evince a predisposition to sin. 2. This
natural depravity disqualifies its subjects for heaven_. Because the
action of depraved (disordered) faculties and powers, would not, even
in heaven itself, be conformed to the divine law, and could not be
acceptable to God In our natural state, moreover, we have not the
_qualifications requisite for the enjoyment of heaven_, having no
spiritual appetites. But we cannot suppose that God would condemn us
to positive and eternal misery merely on account of this depraved
(disordered) nature; for we are in no sense the authors or causes of it;
and a just God will not punish his creatures for acts which they did not
perform;" (p. 147.) It is evident, therefore, that we do maintain the
reality of natural depravity inherited from our first parents, but deny the
imputation of it to us as personal guilt. This correction, we doubt not,
Dr. Schaff will make in the future editions of his work. Nor are we
more chargeable with even the remotest tendency to rationalism, than
the great mass of American and English theologians, including such
men as Drs. Dwight, Mason, Woods and Alexander, who all distinguish
things above reason from those contrary to it, and whilst they deny that
revelation teaches any doctrine of the latter class, admit and believe a
number of its doctrines, such as the Trinity, Incarnation, &c., to be
above the comprehension of human reason. With them, moreover, we
maintain, that in doctrines which lie within the grasp of human reason,
it is proper and a duty to expect and to inculcate a harmony between the
teachings of revelation and the dictates of reason, thus to exhibit and
confirm the _intrinsic moral fitness and glory of those truths of
revelation_. And it is these and similar things which a certain class of
German theologians of late are wont to style rationalizing tendencies.
As to the necessity of this work; two little volumes have appeared,
assailing some of the positions of the Definite Platform, and none in
vindication of them. The New School