The Theology of the Intellect and that of the Feelings. By Edwards A. Park. [pp. 642-674]

Professor Park's Sermon.
tion, and the fame of which has gone through the land,* as
inimical to the proper authority of the word of God. But if
it is right in him to publish such an attack on doctrines
long held sacred, it must be right in those who believe
those doctrines, to raise their protest against it. We are far
from supposing that the author regards his theory as subversive
of the authority of the Bible. lie has obviously adopted it as
a convenient way of getting rid of certain doctrines, which
stand out far too prominently in scripture and are too deeply
impressed on the heart of God's people, to allow of their
being denied. It must be conceded that they are in the Bible.
To reconcile this concession with their rejection, he proposes
the distinction between the theology of feeling and that of the
intellect. There are two modes of apprehending and presenting truth. The one by the logical consciousness (to use
the convenient nomenclature of the day) that it may be understood; the other by the intuitional consciousness, that it may
be felt. These modes do not necessarily agree: they may
often conflict, so that what is true in the one, may be false in
the other. If an assertion of scripture commends itself to our
reason, we refer it to the theology of the intellect, and admit
its truth. If it clashes with any of our preconceived opinions,
we can refer it to the theology of the feelings, and deny its
truth for the intellect. In this way, it is obvious any unpalatable doctri ne.y be u,i; C't 1no 1iCJ o0i)i'l)L[.de
expense of the authority of the word of God. There is another advantag,e of this theory of which the Professor probably
did not thlinlk. It enables a man to profess his faith in doctrines which he does not believe. Dr. Bushnell could sign
any creed by help of that chemistry of thought which makes all
creeds alike. Professor Park's theory will allow a man to assert
contradictory propositions. If asked, Do you believe that
Christ satisfied the justice of God? he can say, yes, for it is
true to Lis feelings; and he can say, no, because it is false to his
intellect. A judicious use of this method will carry a man a
great way. This whole discourse, we think will strike the
reader, as a set of variations on the old theme, "What is true
* While writing we have received a copy of the the third thousand" of this
discourse.
646
[OCTOBER