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

346 Prof. Park's Remarks on the Princeton Review. [APRIL
Thirdly, this theory necessarily destroys the authority of the
Scriptures. This follows from what has already been said. If
it subverts the true idea of revelation, it - subverts all that rests
on that idea. But, besides this, it teaches that the influence
under which the sacred writers thought and wrote was not peculiar to them. It is common to all believers. Inspiration is an
exalted state of the religious feelings, quickening and rendering
clearer the religious perceptions. The light within is therefore
co-ordinate with the light in the Scriptures. This theory is a
philosophical form of Quakerism, and stands in much the same
relation to the normal authority of the Scriptures. The practical operation of this doctrine confirms the view here given of
its nature and tendency. There is of course a great difference
among its advocates, as to the reverence which they manifest
for the word of God, and as to the extent in which they agree
with its teachings; but in all there is abundant evidence that
the Bible has lost its ancient authority as a rule of faith. They
construct systems which do not profess to be expositions of
what is taught in the word of God, but deductions from the
religious consciousness as it now exists. Few of them hesitate
to say that the Bible is full of errors, not merely of history and
science, but of such as are connected with religion; that it is
disfigured by misconceptions, false reasoning, and erroneous
exhibitions of doctrine. How can it, be otherwise if its logical
propositions are but the fallible interpretation given to their
feelings by the sacred writers. Our readers cannot ask us to
say more in opposition to a theory which thus deals with the
Scriptures, which represents its doctrinal statements as due to
the peculiar training of the sacred writers, and which teaches
that propositions categorically opposed to each other may be
alike true-true relatively, since none is true absolutely.
Professor Park may ask, what has all this to do with his convention sermon? That discourse does not teach that all religion consists in feeling, nor does it advocate the view of revelation and inspiration deduced from that principle. Very true.
But it does teach one of the main principles of the theory in
question. It does teach that right feeling may express itself in
inconsistent intellectual forms. Does it not teach that we may
say the sin of Adam is imputed to his race; that our nature