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

Professor Park's Sermon.
that they have conflicting judgments and give utterances to
inconsistent declarations, we maintain is no proof of a theology of the feelings as distinct from that of the intellect.
These vacillating judgments are really contradictory apprehensions of the intellect; one of which must be false, and
therefore to attribute them to the sacred writers, under the plea
that they sometimes spoke to be impressive, and sometimes to
be intelligible, is to destroy their authority; and to use in
worship expressions which the intellect pronounces doctrinally
untrue, is repudiated by the whole Christian church as profane. If we wish to get the real faith of a people, that faith
on which they live, in which intellect and heart alike acquiesce,
go to their hymns and forms of devotion. There they are sincere. There they speak what they know to be true; and
there consequently their true creed is to be found.
Having endeavoured to show that Prof. Park finds no foundation for his theory in the constitution of our nature, or in
those familiar changes of views and feelings, in varying states
of mind, of which all are conscious, we wish to say further,
that this theory finds no support in the different modes in
which the mind looks on truth for different purposes. Sometimes a given proposition: or the truth which it contains, is
contemplated merely in its relation to the reason. Its import,
its verity, its consistency with the standard of judgment, is all
that the mind regards. Sometimes it contemplates the logical
relations of that with other truths; and sometimes it is the
moral excellence of truth which is the object of attention. When the mind addresses itself to the contemplation of
truth, its posture and its subjective state will vary according
to the object it has in view. But neither the truth itself nor
the apprehension of it as truth suffers any change. It is not
seen now as true, and now as false; or true to the feelings and
false to the reason, but one and the same truth is viewed for
different purposes. When, for example, we open the Bible
and turn to any particular passage, we may examine it to ascertain its meaning; or having determined its import, we may
contemplate the truth it contains in its moral aspects and in
its relation to ourselves. These are different mental operations, and the state of mind which they suppose or induce
1850.]
667