The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-12-27
For the Central Presbyterian.
Rejoinder to &c. o. F's Reply"

HeSSrS. Ed1tOTS,-l am glad that our
esteemed brother has made this "reply; :"
for, the promptness with which it is made,
and its internal evidence unite in prov
ing that the antidote which had been
humbly rendered is working its desired
effects. That his first article entitled,
The Limits of Thought" did contain the
germs Of all the errors attributed to it is
only too plain. Two letters reached me
very soon after the issue of your paper of
the 22nd ult., containing Controversy
Us. Ignorance" Each of these letters
was from a ministerial brother distin-
guished for good qualities both of head
and heart. The first says: "The thanks
of the Church are richly due you" The
last says: write to express to you nay
thanks for your article in lote Central,
controverting the doctrine propounded
by Rev. Mr.. Frierson in "The Limits of
Thought" | felt as soon as I read his
article that it should not pass without
dissent, and was about to write briefly
on the point; but other duties prevented,
and quieted myself with the hope that
some one else would do the work. And
a very intelligent gentleman, in county
near to Richmond, who had read "The
Limits of Thought" remarked, in my
hearing, that the impression it made on
him was that the author was Roman
Catholic, and he was, therefore, at loss
to conjecture why the Central had been
selected as the channel of his opinions.
That article, then, made the same i'm
preston on others that it did on me. 1t
contained afirmations and statements
which tended both to PapohSna and to
ngnoSticiSm. Papalish seeks to draw
votaries to the teachings of the Roman
Pontif and his hierarchy, by making pre-
clsely the same afirmations which are
made by our excellent brother in that
article, viz, that in a very important
sense it is true that Ignorance is the
mother of devotion that ignorance of
God is the foundation of reverence and
worship" Ignorance of God is es-
sential to all proper and acceptable reli-
gious worship"-that " if man knew God
absolutely as he knows himself, he could
not worship Him." and that perfect
knowledge of God would destroy rever-
ence for Him, and remove the founda-
tons of worship" Such afirmations
called for all the Negos" used by me,
and which seem to have troubled our
good brother 80 much that he seeks in
his "reply" to convert me, and to change
these "negos" to assentios." But he
seeks in vain. That first article entitled
" The Limits of Thought" rests under
the ceaseless Nego" of all sound phil
osophy and religion.
AS to modern oo,ooef;n;c,o our Worth =,
brother seems to be in the dark. He
says: {" I cannot say that 1 understand
that doctrine" Yet it is very impor-
tant that he should understand it. For,
it is assuredly the prevailing form in
which in6delity and scepticism are now
working in Germany, in Italy, in France,
in Great Britain, in Canada, and in the
United States to blind poor sinful souls,
to keep them forever ignorant of God, to
induce them to lie down in despair, or
to cast off all thought of God as "un-
knowable;" and to devote themselves
finally to the world, the flesh, and the
devil, all of whom are aOelL knolOn. Ag-
'o8tlcssna, as taught by Herbert Spencer
and his disciples, delights in that word
absolute" of which our good brother
". o. F." is also 30 fond that he has
used it in his first article and "reply"
some dozen times. Agnosticisn1 also de-
lights in the word unconditional"
Neither the form nor the idea of either
of these words, nor any equivalent there
for is found in the Holy Scriptures.
They come from Germany and France.