The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-12-06
For the Central Presbyterian.
Reply to "R. r. H.

in the Central, and has expressed his APP
prehensions lest the germs Of "hurtful
error" it contained may "spring up in
harvest of unsound thought" l must ask
you to allow me to restate my views on
the limits of thought" l shall en-
deavor to be more precise and perspicu
Gus without being tedious. He misun-
derstood me on one point altogether, in
which, however, he was entirely excus-
able, inasmuch as the language was am
biguous and quite liable to the construc-
ton which he put upon it. That point
was, &C If man knew God absolutely as he
knows himself he could not worship him. "
The first personal pronoun, he, refers
to God and not to man, so that the mean
ing intended to be expressed was this :
" If man knew God absolutely as He (God)
knows himself he (man) could not wor-
ship him" That was the idea sought to
be expressed The reference was to the
knowledge God has of Himself. and not
to that which man has Of himself.
Now if "R R. H. still insists on APP
pending his favorite "Nego" to the state
ment as thus understood, shall be COM
PEELED to differ with him and express my
apprehensions lest his ideas may give rise
to harvest of unsound thought" Sup
posing, however, that this explanation
will render the statement acceptable to
him, and that he will be willing to strike
out that "Nego,' let us proceed to the
others and see if we cannot persuade him
to strike out the other two and put assem-
ito in their place.
He denies that ignorance of God is the
foundation of reverence and worship,
and asserts that knowledge is the true
foundation. But here he plays upon the
word, knowledge and tacitly attrib-
utes to it meaning different from the
sense in which it was used. The refer
ence was not to knowledge in general,
such as we have of God from his Word
and through the operations of grace, but
to absolute and perfect knowledge, such
as God has of Himself There was no in
tention to deny that scriptural and gra-
cious knowledge of God enter as integral
elements into our worship. That was
not the kind of knowledge in question,
but an infinite and absolute knowledge,
supposing such knowledge possible for
man. Such knowledge aOould destroy
the foundations of worship by removing
all obligations to it on mans part. On
that supposition man would be infinite,
he would be Gods equal, a god himself,
and one god cannot worship another, sup
posing them both equal. Man, in that
case, would have no desire, no necessity,
no occasion to worship. He would have
no occasion to pray or to ask for any
thing, for he would have all he wanted,
and could say in the language of che
man to another, / am your equal; | ask
you no favors.' The obligation to wor-
ship would be completely destroyed by
such knowledge. So with the fear OF
God. Perfect and absolute knowledge
would sweep that away, inasmuch as
man, being Gods equal, would have moth
ing to fear. Among men we see that
equality removes fear. 1t promotes
friendship and love, but takes away all
occasion for fear. So man by absolute
knowledge, which is power, being made
the equal of God, might admire him as a
friend but could not worship him as a
superior being.
Mans ignorance of God, or if the term
Ignorance" be Objectionable, let us say
mans partial knowledge Of God encour-
ages and strengthens the instincts of
worship. He knows that there IS God,
but aOhat that God is, the plenitude of
his being and the glory and splendor of
his attributes he cannot fully compre-
bend, and that Uery limitation which is
imposed upon his faculties quickens and
stimulates reverence. All he can do in
his dependent condition is to fear and
worship that Being whose immensely sur
passes his utmost powers Of thought. He
knows that he is and that he is mighty,
Just, and merciful, but utterly incompre-
hensible, and what therefore is left for
him to do but to obey his laws and adore
his infinite majesty? If he were abso-
lutely ignorant of God he would be as
completely incapacitated to worship him
as he would be if he absolutely compre-
hended him. Absolute ignorance and
absolute knowledge alike, destroy all the
grounds Of worship. Midway between
these two extremes, between perfect ig-
norance on the one side and perfect
knowledge on the other, is located the
foundation for worship. We know enough
Of God to elicit our love and confidence,
but not enough to justify us in regarding
him as altogether such an one as our
selves, or in treating Him as an equal.
This is the ria media along which the
Scriptures teach us to travel in shaping
our corcepfione Of God and reoulatino