The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-03-24
For TIE Central Presbyterian.
Liberal Christianity"
A Dialogue.
SCENE III.

Mrs. Knox Our little tifs, l trust, are
always temporary, but our friendship,
hope, will be lasting.
Mrs. haor. 1 heartily wish so. And
will express my warmest friendship by
praying that you may have all the bless
lngs of my religion. As the Apostle said
to Agrippa: 81 would that thou vert
both almost and altogether such as 1 am
except these bonds" so can say of you
except this neuralgia of mine: don t
wish anybody to have that.
Mr.. b. Oh That religion of yours
Well, | think it would be better for me
to catch your neuralgia; but 1 shall try
to avoid both.
Mrs. *. Have you read those "hard
sayings" of the loving Saviour, to which
l referred you?
Mr. b. No madam, not yet; but 1
have great many other objections. How
could ever be Trinitarian, without
taking leave of my reason?
Mrs. X. My dear sir, don part with
your reason, but keep it, and use it more
reasonably about the things of God.
Mr.. b. That is just what l mean to
do and therefore do not believe thing
that can t understand; like your trinity
in unity.
Mrs. K You don't believe anything
you don't understand? Then, as DR..
Parr said to the young student, you must
have remarkably short creed Do you
believe you can crook your finger when
you choose?
Nh. b: with great dignity) Yes,
madam; know it. No trihing, if you
please.
Mrs. K. stand rebuked but then
you understand how volition acts on the
muscles? You know all about it of
course? Now, never heard of anybody
before that did. Come, explain all about
it to me
Mr. b. Oh I can't do that. But
don t you see, Mrs. Knox, that since be-
lief is grounded in evidence, the mind
must see in order to believe; and so, an
enlightened person can't believe what he
does not understand. If he says he does,
he is only installing his blind prejudices
for beliefs.
Mrs. K Yet you don't understand
how the volitionof your mind crooks your
finger; Is your belief that you can do
that only a blind prejudice?
Mr.. b. Oh, but that's a matter Of
direct experience
Mrs. K. Well; experience is only one
kind OF evidence. Testimony is another
Ought not peasant to believe the learned
Mr.. Belsham, testifying that messages are
instantaneously sent by electric telegraph,
although the ignorant man cannot under
stand how?
Mr.. b Certainly he ought: he would
be an impudent fellow else.
Mrs. X. Well, suppose we Calvan-
lists should stand related to the inspired
prophets, as the peasant does to the
learned Mr.. Belsham. VIII he not APP
prove our believing what we do not un
derstand, as he requires his peasant to do?
N1'. b. How you do catch one upl
but | stand by my argument belief must
come from evidence hence no man can
6e(ee0e what he does not understand.
Mrs K All, but; which is it we must
understand? The evidence? or the thing
evidenced Don't you see that these are
two different matters? OF course [ do
not accept an assertion without some in
telllgent view,of the evidence for it: but
the thing asserted may be as far beyond
my comprehension as the electric tele-
graph Is beyond your peasants. In near
ly every assertion whose truth we accept,
there is something about the thing as
serted, which we cannot understand
Yet If the evidence is good, we know it is
true. You say " This gravel is dead.
but this grain of wheat is alive" (has
vegetable life l believe you. You
have good evidence for both assertions.
But what, exactly, is vegetable vitality
Can you tell me2 Can you produce it?
Mr.. b. Oh, no: l know very well
that you can ask questions the greatest
Psychologist on earth cannot answer.
Mrs. *. Yet you believe the mvste-
rious facts! So, on evidence which
find conclusive, | believe another fact
no more mysterious, although infinitely
gronder; that there is a trinity in unitl
in God.
Mr. e. But your parallel is not fair
Your trinity is not only incomprehensible
but contradictory II thing is one. it
is not three if it is three. it is not one
You require me not only to bow my rea-
son, but do violence to it.
Mrs X. Nay Mr.. Belsham. but it is
you who are unfair. IF Calvinists asserted
that the divine essence was one and vet
three in the same sense. vour objection