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 must therefore receive credit for
moderation. Those volumes were hailed with exultation by the four or
five Old-School papers of our church, and all of them, even the