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

Professor Park's Sermon.
the latter for helplessness; the one does not assert that all sin
consists in acts, and the other affirm the sinfulness of the
heart; the one does not look on Christ as merely teaching by
his death that sin is an evil, and the other behold him as bearing our sins in his own body on the tree.
This subject admits of abundant illustration, did our limits
allow of a protracted discussion. A man may look over a
tract of country and his inward state will vary with his object.
He may contemplate it in reference to its agricultural advantages; or in regard to its topography, or its geological formation, or he may view it as a landscape. Another may gaze on
a picture on any other work of art as a critic, to ascertain the
sources of the effect produced, or simply to enjoy it as an
object of beauty. He may listen to a strain of music to note
the varying intervals, the succession of chords and the like, or
merely to receive the pleasurable impression of the sounds. In
all these cases the object contemplated is the same-the intellectual apprehension is the same, and though the state of
mind varies as the design of the observer varies, and though
the terms which he employs as an agriculturalist, or a geologist,
or a critic, may differ from those which he uses to give expression to his emotions, there can be no contrariety. Ile cannot
apprehend the same region to be barren and yet fertile, the
same picture to be beautiful and yet the reverse, the same
strain to be melodious and yet discordant. His intellect cannot make one report, and his feelings an opposite one. It is
thus with regard to divine truth. It may be viewed in order
to be understood, or in order to be felt. We may come to the
contemplation of it as theologians or as christians, and our inward state will vary witk our object, but there will be no contrariety in our apprehensions or in their expression.
The points of differences between the views expressed in the
foregoing paragraph, and the theory of this discourse are two.
First, Professor Park makes the perceptions themselves to
vary, so that what appears true to the feelings is apprehended as
false by the intellect. Secondly, he says that the expression of
these different perceptions is or may be contradictory. Hence
there may be, and actually are, two theologies, the one affirming, the other denying; the one teaching sound old school
1850.]
669