The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1883-01-17

then [ say deliver me from my friends.
He tenders his kind offices again to
rescue me from the absurdity of making
unsupposable" suppositions, for he says,
could not believe that he CD intended
to give your readers such propositions as
the following: If man were omniscient, ;"
etc" such attempts to suppose what is
forever indispensable, violate the bottom
principles of sound reasoning" Here
again he evinces singular confusion. lie
fails to distinguish between the suppos-
able and the possible, and confounds the
two as if they were synonymous. But
does he not know that many things are
quite supposable that are by no means
possible? Possible things are such as
may be effected, supposable such as may
be thought or conceived. Now, with due
respect, L submit that the propositions l
stated, while admitted to be impossible,
were not unsupposable. May we not
suppose man to have infinite knowledge,
though it be admitted to be impossible !?
Besides my whole argument was hypo-
thetical-' SuppoSing such knowledge
possible for man" If man knew God, +"
etc. 1 admitted the impossibility and
only made the superstition. His entire
" rejoinder" on this point, therefore, be-
ing based on misconception of the form
of my argument, goes for nothing. 1t
was an fgaOrdtio elench1.
But the cream of his rejoinder comes
up in the paragraph where he afirms
that in restating my views I abandoned"
my former ground by substituting the
phrase partial knowledge" for "ignor-
ance." This he calls giving up" the
doctrine, for he says partial knowledge
is as different from ignorance as truth is
from falsehood" Was ever statement
more apochryphal? Would any one
have supposed that an astute philosopher
and metaphysician like 4" R. R. H., and
one who understands so we'll the nature
of faith and knowledge, could have made
such an inaccurate declaration But we
must not forget that even the sun has
spots, and Homer himself sometimes mods
Now leaving out of view the plain fact
that partial knowledge" is an exact
synonym for the term "ignorance" as
used by me in every part of this discus
sion, and was so understood by every
candid and impartial reader, A." R. R. II"
contends that the two are as different as
truth and falsehood. 1 only suggested
the equivalent phrase, partial knowledge,
as a concession to his taste, knowing his
repugnance to the term ignorance, and to
facilitate his comprehension of my point !;
but, to my surprise, he catches at it as an
abandonment of my whole doctrine Not
so fast, my brother, only meant to sim
Mi ~ u ~ Ill., -
kindly rendered, has not yet had the de-
sired effect.
But now we come to the most danger
Gus and Iurtful germ" of error in this
singular A9oncatenaton of errors proposed
to the leaders OF the Central by "R r.
H." 1t IS found in the conclusion which
he reaches in his disquisition on ignor-
ance, considered as positive and negative.
1t is in-these words To the extent that
man is ignorant of God, to that extent
will he be superstitious or impious. 1"
This sentence contains germs" that are
worse than dangerous and hurtful-they
are positively blasphemous Of course
my excellent and devout brother must
not be charged with anything blasphe-
nous. His pious soul recoil5 from all
such thoughts, and it is Only meant that
he did not weigh this sentence before he
penned it. And l will not initiate his
example by insisting on my construction
being what he meant by it, nor will in
woke the aid of "grammar" or the laws
of language to compel him to accept a
disavowed construction.
All orthodox writer's upon theology
admit that we can know God only in
part. Our knowledge of Him is limited,
and beyond that limit we must be ignor-
ant. This limit is imposed onsour fac
ulties by the Creator, and is imbedded
in the constitution of our natures as
finite and dependent creatures. We are
necessarily ignorant of God, therefore, in
a great measure. We cannot by search
ing find him out. Now this ignorance of
God, resulting from the very constitution
of our nature, is necessary and unavoid-
able; and if we say superstition and i'm
piety are In exact proportion to this ig-
norance, then are they also necessary and
unavoidable, and man is not responsible
for them The conclusion is inevitable
God Is the author of sin i The syllo-
gism is brief, but impregnable: supersti-
ton and impiety are in exact proportion
to mans ignorance of God, that ignor-
ance, however, is in a great measure ne
cessary and unavoidable, therefore super
stition and impiety are to the same ex-
tent necessary and unavoidablel Such
is r. r. H. antidote The remedy is
worse than the disease. If l was suffer