The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-08-18
For the Central Presbyterian.
DOGMA.

the supernatural element of religion must
be abandoned. 1t is worthy Of inquiry
whether purely rational religion is OF
any real value. The skeptical reader is
respectfully invited to consider this very
question in the light of reason.
If natural religion teaches us anything
concerning the nature of God, it surely
teaches that he is just An unjust God
would be no God, but a moral monster.
Even indifference to the distinctions Of
right and wrong would make the Creator
hateful to his creatures If we believe
in his existence, we must believe that it
is his nature to reward and punish. This
is dictate of reason. But the same au-
thority is no less clear in reference to the
goodness of God. If he is not inclined to
mercy, he cannot be God. Indifference
to the sufferings of his creatures would
deprive him of all title to our worship.
Here then are two of the PROJECTIONS OF
Deity to which natural reason equally
testifes-his justice and his mercy.
The question therefore arises how these
two attributes can operate tremendously
together. If two creatures are unlike in
their moral character, one good, and the
other bad, justice demands that they shall
be differently treated. If the righteous
is rewarded, the wicked must in some
way be punished. Yet mercy must in
cline the Creator to abstain from the in
Fiction of suffering. Has human reason
any suggestion as to the method by which
both these attributes can be exercised in
the same case? None whatever. All
that reason can do is to indicate the diff
Guilty, without furnishing us with any
solution. Without the supernatural, we
are left in absolute darkness.
Possibly it may be said that reason
suggests method of reconciliation un-
known and unknowable to us, and that
we are only expected to rely upon this
for salvation. The answer is obvious.
If reason makes such a suggestion, it sug-
gests an atonement For an atonement
IS method of reconciling the justice and
mercy of God If, therefore, we hope at
all, we must hope in fact that involves
a supernatural element 1t is thus con-
coded that atonement is the work of God,
not of man. Reason cannot discover it,
but God has devised it,
1t only remains for reason to decide
whether a revelation of Gods method of
atonement has been made. This is a
question of fact A need for it cannot be
denied. For if method has been de-
vised, the better it is known, the more it
must be appreciated. A revelation of
Gods scheme Of mercy is certainly de-
sirable.
There are two ways in which such an
inquiry can be conducted. One relates
to the evidences Of Christianity, the other
to its substance We refer only to the
latter at present. Assuming the evil
dence to be at least plausible, we ask rea-
son to say whether any other solution has
ever been reached We confidently as
sert that the Christian atonement is the
only one that processes to meet the diff
culty-how God can be Just, and yet the
justifer of the sinner. You believe in a
divine atonement, and here is the only
one protesting to be such. You cannot
reject it for inadequacy. You know that,
If true, it is all-sufficient. You cannot
reject it because it is mysterious, because
you profess to believe in such mystery.
Your only possible ground for objection
is want Of evidence
The evidences cannot be argued in a
brief space, but this aspect of the ques
ton can be presented. You do not deny
the existence or importance of way of
salvation, but simply doubt whether it
can be communicated to man. But the
question is, has it been communicated n
You cannot limit the poaoe, of Creator.
If you confess he can create, you admit
he can reveal The central fact is, Did
Jesus Christ rise from the dead? Yours
is rational religion. Well, then, is it
reasonable to reject this historical event?l
If his resurrection is incredible, your own
is also incredible. You have then no
such hope. If you have religion, it is
one without resurrection, and your
hope is limited to felicity of the soul
But this also is supernatural Reason
does not teach you how the soul can live
in disembodied state If you reject the
one on rational grounds, you should in
consistency reject the other In point of
fact, you do reject them both They are
both dogmas, and you say, Down with
dogma ]"
Dear skeptical reader, look at your
position. If you do not believe beyond
your reason, you are reduced to reject all
knowledge Of way Of salvation. If you
have a religious hope, it is all founded in
imagination. Your argument is that