Remarks on the Princeton Review [pp. 306-347]

Nature of the Proposed Theory.
to have some idea of the system of which it is a part. We re peat, however, what we have already said, viz: that we attri bute to our author nothing more than he has avowed. We do
not say, and we, do not know, that he holds the theory above
stated in any of its steps beyond the principle that right feeling
may express itself in diverse, inconsistent, and therefore, at
times, erroneous intellectual forms. That he does teach this
principle, and that it is one aspect of the theory by which he
proposes to reconcile "all allowable creeds," we think plain, in
the first place, from the formal statements of his doctrine. The
sermon from beginning to end treats of two theologies, which
differ in form, i. e. in their intellectual statements, but have a
common principle. Both are, therefore, allowable, because
they are only different expressions of the same thing. It is a
matter of perfect indifference whether these are called two
theologies, or two modes of expressing one and the same theo logy. The difference between them in either case is the same.*
Sometimes," says our author, "both the mind and heart are
suited by the same modes of thought, but often they require
dissimilar methods and the object of the present discourse
is, to state some of the differences between the theology of
the intellect and that of feeling, and also some of the influences which they exert upon each other," p. 534. "The theology of feeling differs from that of the intellect. It is the form
of belief which is suggested by, and adapted to the wants of the
well-trained heart. It is embraced as involving the substance
* One of the complaints against us, which Professor Park urges most frequently, is
that we misrepresent him as teaching two,, kinds of theology," instead of A, two different forms" of one and the same theology. After many iterations of this complaint,
he loses his patience, and asks,, Will the Reviewer never distinguish between two
doctrines, and the same doctrine expressed in two forms i" We are afraid not.
There is not the slightest difference between the two statements, except in words.
There are no doctrines so wide apart, but that some general truth may be found of
which they are but different forms. Atheism is one form, and Theism is another
form of the one doctrine, that the universe had a cause. The Socinian and the
Church exhibition of the design of Christ's death, are but different forms of the one
doctrine, that we are saved by Christ. It is therefore perfectly immaterial whether
Professor Park teaches that there are, two theologies," or, two forms of one and the
same theology." His readers understand the former expression precisely as they
do the latter, after all his explanations. The former is the more correct, and has
the usage of all ages in its favour. One great difficulty in regard to this sermon is,
that its author wishes to change the established meaning of terms, and call new
things by old words.
VOL. XXIII.-NO. II. 32
337
1851.]