The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1878-08-07
CONSCIENCE.
A Defense.

An essay upon this subject appeared in
the issue Of the Herald Of July 10Th, in,
tended only as a matter Of news. but some
friend has grsciously assumed the respon-
sibility of correcting the authors "erron-
onous" las he calls them) ideas respect
ing the functions Of that part OF the or
ganism Of man called conscience, and
in the issue Of the 81 Of July appeared
very elaborate analytical criticism Of said
essay. We regret being compelled to re-
ply, but seeing ourself so palpably mis-
represented we deem it our duty to do so. |
We are not newspaper controVersialist
or an admireT OF one, but wish to rectiiy
some erroneous stat ments, and should
we be adjudged too persistentwe wish that
to be our excuse. Our critic remarks IL
rant to say few things about an essay
on conscience" etc; his subsequent re-
marks would seem to indicate this. Beg
pardon, "Amicus." but you say ''when
man puts himself in the newspapers he is
public property" thus meriting public
criticism, vide def want" lie Gays it is
well written" etc. Thanks, Anxious"
for the com-assurance, but we think you
are inclined to fiatter us. We cant notice
the criticism in detail; let US hasten. He
objects to our word opinion" and would
substitute ',judgment;'s reference to the
dictionary for the definition OF opinion
will correct his error as regards that. lie
has a peculiar meaning for opinion, and
from it attempts, Ivy logical deduction.
to prove our argument inconsistent; the
premise Of his argument is false. hence
the conclusion is necessarily so. Logi-
clans especially caution US against ems
ploying such sophistry, and advise one to
clearly understand question before ad~
Vancing argument upon it. Should our
critic have observed this advice, his la
bored criticism should not have APP
peared. Our affirmation is that opinion
Gudgment) determines our course Of ac>
ton, but conscience does not approve Of
it in any case except it be right, and that
conscience has no control over our course
Of action, and does not affect it except il
influence our Judgment That" 1--WE may
have an incorrect opinion and our con-
science will or may approve OF it is as
contrary to our doctrine as it is to reason,
nor do we promulgate any such doctrine
we acknowledge the inability of con-
science to control opinion. and therein
consists mans free moral agency. Again
our critic says that according to our
doctrine a man can not hold an incorrect
principle or be in error, unless in oppo>
siIion to his conscience" etc. We deny
this. we say that the conscience does not
cOntrolaopinion, a man may disagree
with another in regard to a matter Of
opinion. still. the conscience has ~
agency in those diversities Of opinion. If
our critic will literally regard my asser-
ton that conscience does not control
opinion" he can not possibly misconstrue
me. A resort to the Bible by our critic
is vain, as this subject does not cOmpre>
bend any but plain, moral reasoning
But, even were it proper to consider this
from a Scriptural view, he signally fails
to mack point there. We admit, for the
sake Of argument, the Bible into the con-
sideration ofthis subject, he says "were it
not to instruct the conscience the Bible
would be vain" Now, would not its mis-
sion be equally as important to instruct
the judgment, that it might respond 10 the
promptings Of conscience; is not this more
reasonablei So this argument is non est.
He thinks to make great capital out oftbe
sectarianism OF the church, and says that
we would make churchmen out "notori>
GUS hypocrites." The transparency Of this
sophistry is self-evidenL Does a few diff
ferences of opinion respecting some I'M
material points ofdoctrine affect the gem
eral orthodoxy Of any churchman 2 Ger
tsinly not; they all agree as to the funda-
mental principles Of religion, the Great
Head OF the church, Savior, etc., 30 what
can a slight disagreement as to whether
sprinkling or immersion is the proper
mode of baptism amount to. since the one
grand object of religion and the Bible is to
save souls, so these differences can not be |
Of conscience but Of opiniou, and we in
struct Judgement not. Conscience. We
might proceed further, but this sufficient-
ly exonOrates us from charge OF incon>
sistent ratiocination.
We know not to whom we are indebt
ed for that friendly criticism, but from
his remsrking that We were probably
unaccustomed to promulgating our views
through the medium Of the press, we
would infer that he is either an old and
experienced newspaper writer, or more
probably D. D, either Of which is for
midable TO us; but occasionally such are
mistaken as he is at present, and we
hope our "Amicus" will not consider it
presumption in US to correct him. as they
say at is never too late 10 learn" This
will end the discussion so far as we are
concerned 10 the papers, and hope entire
ly so. If our "Amicus" is not yet satis>
fed, we will be pleased to discuss the
question privately with Jhia. Very
-ri II. B KINsoLvINo.
-
How 10 Make Ones wife Perfectly
HapPy--ANeVeF Failing PreserIP-