The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-12-27

ture, and that He is so perfectly atncon.
oataoned," SO free from all conditions Of
thought that He is not subject even to
the necessary conditions of His own eter.
nal Being or of His own infinite moral at.
tributes. Therefore Ag,aoSticisns teaches
that God Gf He exists at alD is for ever
uaak,aoa0able to man-that mans finite
idea of holiness, justice, goodness, truth
may not have any identity or correspond.
ence with the attribute of holiness or of
Justice or of goodness or of truth in the
Divine Nature, even if such attributes
exist at all
l am not surprised to find our devout
and intelligent brother "E. o. F." recoil.
ing from the tendencies of his own article
and seeking in his "reply" to wade out
from the muddy and sitting waters"
into which he had ventured; and to
reach once more the shores of truth. In
restating" his views on the Limits Of
thought" he abandons entirely his former
ground, and gives up the doctrine that
ignorance of God is the foundation Of
reverence and worship" He now says
that he did not mean Ignorance" really,
but that his meaning is that "partial
knowledge of God encourages and
strengthens the instincts of worship"
This, of course, removes in substance the
dangerous and trustful germs of error
disseminated by his first article, for par.
tlal knowledge is as different from sqnor.
a'ace as truth is from falsehood.
But l have still somewhat against"
his views, as announced in his "reply";
and as | do not expect to discuss the
matter farther, l will briefly indicate
wherein he seems to me to be in error.
He says that, in asserting that knoDl.
edge of God is the necessary foundation
for all true reverence and worship"
play upon the word knowledge" and
tacitly attribute to it meaning differ.
ent from the sense in which it was used.
Herein he is greatly mistaken. 1 meant
no play" of any kind on the word or
its meaning, but used it very seriously in
the only sense in which I supposed it
possible for him to have intended it, viz,
IN the sense of such knowledge of God as
the finite creature-nea7a-cou have.
The sentence in his first article eff man
knew God absolutely as he knows him
self, he could not worship Him." in
grammar and by the laws of Language
demanded the construction put on it
the meaning I attached to it. And more
over, that construction-that meaning
was demanded by simple justice to the
good sense of our brother. For, was
not inclined to believe that he meant to
suppose an impossible case-an incredi-
BILE and suicidal hypothesis leading to an
empty and Improbable conclusion.
could not believe that he intended to
give to your readers such propositions as
the following: If man were ona7aiScie1rt
he would be equal to God and therefore
could not revere or worship God. All
such lllustrations-such attempts to sup
pose what is for ever a1nSuppoSab6, VIC.
late the bottom principles of sound rea-
sonlng. They amount merely to this
II man were God, man could not worship
God. And such seems to be the staple
out of which the very meagre element Of
truth in our brothers "reply" is wrought
The incomprehensible in Being, wheth.
er that Being be Spirit or Matter is its
eSSence-what it essentially is. We know
as much of the essence of spirit as of
matter-that is, we know nothing of the
essence Of either. The finite being-the
creature-cannot comprehend cannot
hold in his grasp the Infinite Spirit. He
can know only His manifestations, His
attributes, His character, His relations to
His creature as manifested But though
a science of OntoIogy-a science purport.
ing to give knowledge of essential being,
is forever impossible to man, yet it doe
not follow that man cannot knoaO God,
and that mans ignorance of God is the
source OF true reverence and worship.
The Sracomprehe1osible in God is not a
fixed and definite line up to which He
invites man to come, but beyond which
He sternly forbids man to attempt to
pass. God has fixed no such line. The
l1acon1prehenSibe in God arises not from
His desire to limit the knowledge of His
creature. On the contrary He manifests
Himself to His creatures powers OF
knowledge and invites them to ceaseless
exercise. His infnity is that in which
we live and move and have our being
therefore it is near to us-all around us
and yet stretching into depths beyond
US, never to be sounded. Hence the
beautiful illustration first pointed out BY
Joseph Addison in the Spectator is ap.
propriate. Man, in knowledge, can ap.
proach God forever without the posi-.
bility Of compromising Him or attain.
ing to complete knowledge of Him, even
as in the asymptotes of the Comic sections