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

oil SuPoAoAoh Va AA1PASoJ Va OIL anu
misery
knowledge and ignorance are contra
ries. In fact they may be logically stated
as the coaatradictoraes, the one of the other.
Therefore if we can define knowledge, we
can define ignorance. John Locke's de-
fnition of knowledge has been, long since,
discarded as cumbrous and obscure. We
have better one. knowledge is Truth
perceived, apprehended, and assented to
BY the soul. Here are two elements.
First, Truth. A lie or an error on any
subject never constitutes knowledge.
And, SO, thousand lies or thousand
errors or any subject bring us no nearer
to knowledge than one. But truth alone
does not constitute knowledge. 1t must
be truth grasped and assented to by the
SOUL Then it becomes knowledge in that
SOUL
Hence we see what ignorance is. 1t is
defined by the two elements which make
knowledge. Truth may be inaccessible;
or it may be accessible, but if the soul
refuses or fails to perceive, apprehend
and assent to it, that soul remains in
ignorance. This is negative ignorance.
But, on the other hand, the soul instead
of receiving and asserting to truth on
any subject, may receive and assent to
lie or an error, and it may receive and
assent to thousand lies or thousand
errors on that subject. This is positive
ignorance; and though both of these
kinds of ignorance are hurtful and de-
plorable, the latter kind-positive ignor-
ance-is the most hurtful and deplorable.
All ignorance must fall into one or the
other OF these categories. Hence it is
clear that ignorance of God-whether it
be negative or positive-whateve be its
kind or its degree, never can be foun-
dation for any true reverence or worship.
To the exact extent that man is ignorant
OF God, to that extent will man be either
superstitious or impiousl
And thus we learn what Faith is.
Some have adopted the notion that faith
is generically different from k7aoaoledqe.
This was the error of Sir William Ham
ilton. Hence his incautious statements
in his " Philosophy of the Conditioned"
which Dean Mansel and Herbert Spencer
have made, in part at least, the founda-
ton of modern 0gaaosticiSn1. Ard this
error, fear, has affected our valued
brother. For he says: Belief in God is
not knowing God" Faith does not re-
veal Him except to very partial extent. F."
The sound view of the subject is that
faith is distinguished from knowledge
only in this: Faath is the spiritual act
of the creature. 1t is never the act of
the mind of God, because that mind be-
ing omniscient, knowing all past, present,
and future, never can be the subject
either of belief or uqbohef. AS faith,
therefore, is the mental act of the crea-
ture-the finite being-man who is falli-
BILE and sinful, it is certain that faith may
be false; it may believe lie or an error
or thousand lies or errors on any sub
ject Hence we read in the holy Word,
OF men who changed the truth of God
into lie" and of men so wicked and
abandoned that they received not the
love of the truth that they might be
saved, and were, therefore under so
strong delusion" that they believed a
lie: Every practising lawyer and every
Judge knows how easy it is for man to
believe lie. Hence the rigid rules of
evidence which forbid witness to tell
what he merely believes, and confne him
strictly to what he knows on the testi-
mony of his own personal senses-his
sight, or hearing, or feeling, or taste, or
smell. But these rules of evidence apply
only to the investigation of some specific
matter, local and narrow in its range of
facts. For, the enlightened science of
Lam does not draw any generic distinc-
ton between belief or faith and kloaOJ-
edge. Every judge on the bench takes
cognlzance OF .. e., has knoaUledqe of every
truth established by Authentic history or
by real science. Every Judge kaoa0s-
has judicial knouOledge-that such man
as Julius Caesar lived some nineteen hun.
dred years ago, and that there is such a
city as London, although neither the
Judge nor any witness who testifes be-
lore him ever SaaO Julius Caesar, or ever
saw London. From all this we see that
true faith, .. e., faith in the truth, does
not differ in kind from knowledge; it
differs only in degree. Faith is knowl.
edge in the bud; knowledge is faith full
blown. Faith is the infancy of knowl-
edge; knowledge is the maturity of faith.
Faith is knowledge beginning; knowl-
edge is faith perfected. Faith is the
same spiritual act of the creature as that
involved in the acquisition of knowledge.
For, true faith is always the perception,
apprehension, and assent of the soul to
truth. The first conscious exercise OF
the soul is an act of faith. Hence the