Thus much we have felt constrained to say in reply to Professor Stuart's argument. We trust the candid reader will find sufficient reason to dissent from the scheme which he has proposed.

ART. VII.-The Theology of the Intellect and that of the Feelings: a Discourse before the Convention of the Congregational Ministers of New England, in Brattle Street Meeting House, Boston, May 30th, 1850. By EDWARDS A. PARK, Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. [THIS is the first of three admirable papers by Dr Hodge of Princeton, in connection with a controversy which has excited much interest in America. Professor Park's papers have already been published in this country in the Bibliotheca Sacra.]

The normal authority of Scripture is one of the subjects about which, at the present time, the mind of the church is most seriously agitated. The old doctrine of the plenary inspiration, and consequent infallibility of the written Word, is still held by the great body of believers. It is assailed, however, from various quarters and in different ways. Some of these assaults are from avowed enemies; some from pretended friends; and others from those who are sincere in thinking they are doing God service in making his Word more pliant, so that it may accommodate itself the more readily, not to science, but to the theories of scientific men; not to philosophy, but to the speculations of philosophers. The form of these attacks is constantly varying. The age of naked rationalism is almost over. That system is dying of a want of heart. Its dissolution is being hastened by the contempt even of the world. It is no longer "the mode" to make " common sense "the standard of all truth. Since the discovery of the Anschauungs Vermögen, men see things in their essence. The intuitional consciousness has superseded the discursive understanding; and rationalists have given place to transcendentalists. In the hands of many of the latter, the Scriptures share the same fate which has overtaken the outward world. As the material is but the manifestation of the spiritual, so the facts and doctrines of the Bible are the mere forms of the spirit of Christianity; and if you have the spirit, it matters not what form it takes. These gifted ones, therefore, can afford to be very liberal. They see in Christianity, as in all things else, a manifestation of what is real. They pity, but can bear with, those who lay stress on the historical facts and doctrinal assertions of the Scriptures. They look on them as occupying a lower position, and as belonging to a receding

period.

Still men can have the substance in that form as well as in another. The misfortune is, that they persist in considering the form to be the substance, or at least inseparable from it. They do not see that as the principle of vegetable life is as vigorous now as when it was expressed in forms extant only as fossils, and would continue unimpaired though the whole existing flora should perish; so Christianity would flourish uninjured, though the New Testament should turn out to be a fable.

This theory has more forms than one; and has many advocates who are not prepared to take it in its full results. Neither is it confined to Germany. With most of the productions of that teeming soil, it is in the process of transplanting. Shoots have been set out, and assiduously watered in England and America, which bid fair to live and bear fruit. trine that "Christianity consists not in propositions-it is life in the soul," and a life independent of the propositions, of necessity supersedes the authority, if not the necessity of the Scriptures. This doctrine, variously modified, is one of the forms in which the Word of God is made of none effect.

The doc

Another theory, intimately related to the one just referred to, is the doctrine that inspiration differs in degree, but not in nature, from the spiritual illumination which ordinary men enjoy. Just in proportion as the religious consciousness is elevated, the intuition of divine things is enlarged and rendered more distinct. If sanctification were perfect, religious knowledge would be perfect. "Let there be a due purification of the moral nature," says Morell, "a perfect harmony of the spiritual being with the mind of God-a removal of all inward disturbances from the breast, and what is to prevent or disturb this immediate intuition of divine things?"+-(P. 174.) The inspiration of the sacred writings resembles, he tells us, that of men of genius. The natural philosopher is so in harmony with nature, he has a sort of intuition of her laws; the poet, from sympathy with his fellow-men, can unfold the workings of the human breast; and so good men, from congeniality with God, can see the things of God. Of course, the trustworthiness of the sacred writers differs with their goodness. Those of the Old Testament, standing on a much lower level of moral culture than those of the New, are proportion

• Morell's Philosophy of Religion, p. 172.

+ Morell is a very superior man. He stands among the first rank of reproducing, as distinguished from producing minds. His book is a simple reproduction of the doctrines of the German school to which he is addicted; but it is remarkably clear, well digested, and consistent. He understands himself and his masters. This is a great deal. Still he is but an intelligent pupil; and those who wish to understand the theory which he presents, would do well to study it in the writings of its authors. They will find it there in its nakedness, freed from those delicate concealments which a traditionary faith has imposed on Mr Morell.

ately below them in authority. The weight due to what these writers say, depends not only on their relative goodness, but also on the subjects of which they treat. Beyond the sphere of moral and religious truths, they can have no peculiar authority, because, to that sphere, the intuitions of the religious consciousness are of necessity confined. The greater part of the Bible, therefore, is not inspired, even in this low sense of the term; and as to the rest, it is not the Word of God. It is merely the word of good men. It has at best but a human, and not a divine authority; except, indeed, for those who repudiate the distinction between human and divine, which is the case with the real authors of this system. We are, however, speaking of this theory as it is presented by professed theists. It has appeared under three forms, according to the three different views entertained of the Holy Spirit, to whom this inspiration is referred. If by that term is understood the universal efficiency of God, then all men are inspired, who, under the influence of the general providence of God, have their religious consciousness specially elevated. This is the kind of revelation and inspiration which many claim for heathen sages, and concede to Christian apostles. But, if the Holy Spirit is regarded as merely "the forming, animating, and governing principle of the Christian church," then inspiration is confined to those within the church, and belongs to all its members in proportion to their susceptibility to this pervading principle. Again, if the Holy Spirit be recognised as a divine person, dispensing his gifts to each one severally as he wills, inspiration may be a still more restricted gift, but its essential nature remains the same. It is that purifying influence of the Spirit upon the mind which enables it to see the things of God. It is simply spiritual illumination granted to all believers, to each according to his measure; to the apostles it may be conceded in greater fulness than to any others, but to none perfectly. The Bible is not the Word of God, though it contains the aspirations, the convictions, the outgoings of heart of men worthy of all reverence for their piety. The distinction between the Scriptures and uncanonical writings of pious men, is simply as to the degree of their piety, or their relative advantages of knowledge. It is not our business to discuss this theory of inspiration; we speak of it as one of the modes in which the authority of the Bible is, in the present age, assailed.

Under the same general category must be classed the beautiful solo of Dr Bushnell. He endeavoured to seduce us from cleaving to the letter of the Scriptures, by telling us the Bible was but a picture or a poem; that we need as little to know its dogmas, as the pigments of an artist; the aesthetic im

pression was the end designed, which was to be reached, not through the logical understanding, but the imagination. It was not a creed men needed, or about which they should contend; all creeds are ultimately alike. It is of no use, however, to score the notes of a dying swan, as the strain cannot be repeated, except by another swan in articulo mortis. Dr Bushnell has had his predecessors. A friend of ours, when in Germany, had Schleiermacher's Reden über die Religion put into his hands. When asked what he thought of those celebrated discourses, he modestly confessed he could not understand them. "Understand them!" said his friend, "that is not the point. Did you not feel them?"

To

We are sincerely sorry to be obliged to speak of Professor Park's sermon, which was listened to with unbounded admiration, and the fame of which has gone through the land,* as inimical to the proper authority of the Word of God. But if it is right in him to publish such an attack on doctrines long held sacred, it must be right in those who believe those doctrines to raise their protest against it. We are far from supposing that the author regards his theory as subversive of the authority of the Bible. He has obviously adopted it as a convenient way of getting rid of certain doctrines, which stand out far too prominently in Scripture, and are too deeply impressed on the heart of God's people, to allow of their being denied. It must be conceded that they are in the Bible. reconcile this concession with their rejection, he proposes the distinction between the theology of feeling and that of the intellect. There are two modes of apprehending and presenting truth: the one by the logical consciousness (to use the convenient nomenclature of the day), that it may be understood; the other by the intuitional consciousness, that it may be felt. These modes do not necessarily agree: they may often conflict, so that what is true in the one, may be false in the other. If an assertion of Scripture commends itself to our reason, we refer it to the theology of the intellect, and admit its truth. If it clashes with any of our preconceived opinions, we can refer it to the theology of the feelings, and deny its truth for the intellect. In this way, it is obvious any unpalatable doctrine may be got rid of, but no less obviously at the expense of the authority of the Word of God. There is another advantage of this theory of which the Professor probably did not think. It enables a man to profess his faith in doctrines which he does not believe. Dr Bushnell could sign any creed by help of that chemistry of thought which makes all creeds alike. Professor Park's theory will allow a man to assert contradictory propositions. If asked, Do you believe that * While writing we have received a copy of the "third thousand" of this discourse.

Christ satisfied the justice of God? he can say, Yes, for it is true to his feelings; and he can say, No, because it is false to his intellect. A judicious use of this method will carry a man a great way. This whole discourse, we think, will strike the reader as a set of variations on the old theme, "What is true in religion is false in philosophy:" and the "tearful German, of whom our author speaks, who said, "In my heart I am a Christian, while in my head I am a philosopher," might find great comfort in the doctrine here propounded. He might learn that his condition, instead of a morbid, was in fact the normal one; as what is true to the feelings is often false to the intellect. We propose to give a brief analysis of this sermon, and then, in as few words as possible, endeavour to estimate its character. The sermon is founded upon Gen. vi. 6, and 1 Sam. xv. 29. In the former passage it is said, "It repented the Lord;" and in the latter, God "is not a man that he should repent." Here are two assertions in direct conflict,-God repented, and God cannot repent. Both must be true. But how are they to be reconciled? The sermon proposes to give the answer, and to show how the same proposition may be both affirmed and denied. Our author begins by telling us of a father who, in teaching astronomy to his child, produced a false impression by presenting the truth; while the mother produced a correct impression by teaching error. This, if it means any thing to the purpose, is rather ominous as a commencement. A right impression is the end to be aimed at in all instruction; and, if the principle implied in this illustration is correct, we must discard the fundamental maxim in religion, "Truth is in order to holiness," and assume that error is better adapted to that purpose; a principle on which Romanists have for ages acted in their crass misrepresentations of divine things in order to impress the minds of the people.

But we must proceed with our analysis:

"The theology of the intellect," we are told, "conforms to the laws, subserves the wants, and secures the approval, of our intuitive and deductive powers. It includes the decisions of the judgment, of the perceptive part of conscience and taste, indeed of all the faculties which are essential to the reasoning process. It is the theology of speculation, and therefore comprehends the truth just as it is, unmodified by excitements of feeling. It is received as accurate, not in its spirit only, but in its letter also."-(P. 534.) *

It demands evidence. It prefers general to individual statements, the abstract to the concrete, the literal to the figurative. Its aim is not to be impressive, but intelligible and defensible. For example, it affirms "that He who united *Our references are to the reprint of the sermon in the Bibliotheca Sacra for July 1850.