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

Professor Park's Sermon.
be interpreted literally, the Socinian infers that all that is
said in scripture in reference to the sacrificial nature of Christ's
death, is to be understood as expressing nothing more than
the truth that he died for the benefit of others. When the
patriot dies for his country; or a mother wears herself out
in the service of her child, we are wont to say, they sacrifice
themselves for the object of their affection. This deceives no
one. It expresses the simple truth that they died for the
good of others. Whether this is all the scriptures mean when
they call Christ a sacrifice, is not to be determined by settling
the general principle that figures are not to be interpreted
according to the letter. That is conceded. But figures have
a meaning which is not to be explained away at pleasure.
Prof. Park would object to this exposition of the design of
Christ's death, not by insisting that figurative language is to
be interpreted literally, but by showing that these figures are
designed to teach more than the Socinian is willing to admit.
In like manner we say that if we were disposed to admit the
distinction between the theology of the feelings and that of the
intellect, as equivalent to that between figurative and literal
language, or as our author says, between poetry and prose,
we should still object to his application of his principle. He
is just as arbitrary in explaining away the scriptural representations of original sin, of the satisfaction of divine justice
by the sacrifice of Christ, as the Socinian is in the application
of his principle. IIe just as obviously violates the established
laws of language, and just as plainly substitutes the speculations of his own mind for the teachings of the word of God.
Entirely irrespective, therefore, of the validity of our author's
theory, we object to this sermon that it discards, as the language of emotion, historical, didactic, argumentative state
ments, and in short everything he is not willing to receive, as
far as appears, for no other reason, and by no other rule than his
own repugnance to what is thus presented.
Having considered some of the differences between the
emotive and intellectual theology, the author adverts to the
influence which the one exerts over the other. And first, the
theology of the intellect illustrates and vivifies itself by that of
the feelings. We must add a body, he says, to the soul of a
1850.]
653