Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1879-03-16
THE sUNDAYERRORs OF TRUTH.

Last sunday, IN our desire 70 d4m't JHOse
who differ from US in opinion to have the
Same rcccsss 70 the public vyo haze ourselves.
unpublished a communication from Truth, >
who does not agree with US on the orders
issued by the authorities Of this place respect
ing the Sunday observance. We wall 20 still
further, by meeting the arguments Of cur cor
respondent, so that he may have full oppor-
tunity of understanding what his views
p. amount to in our opinion. In MS communi-
cation he very properly desires that no per-
sonality shall enter the discussion. We agree
with this proposition, and desire that be will
understand that we regard him rs simply the
mouthpiece of an erroneous theology, and,
when we donounoe, it is not him we lave In
view but the errors into which he has
beer bred. More than this: we view the
question we are discussing as purely a chris
tan one. If the Sunday Is the Sabbath
f'Truth" calls it, it was Christ that made it
g.. What the law taught by Moses was for
the Jews, we are the descendants Of Gentle
converts, and on rs The Mosaic law lhas no
claim as a rule Of faith or life. We say no
claim; for, if we are debtors to the law on
one point, we are debtors to the whole law.
These things promised, we turn 30 Truth 5"
last Sundays statements, and we re-
gret to say that, though assuming the
name of truth, ne commits errors.
He speaks of Jour 'frst objection to
the Sunday laws" We have not discussed
those laws; we, in the article Truth" replies
to, were animadverting upon the Sunday
''order, " issued by direction of he Memphis
authorities, which forbid AL persons from
keeping open their places Of business, or 9TH
erwise pursuing tho avocat,0ns of trade. "
We SAID that order could not bee enforced, for
the needs and customs Of CIVILIZED life require
the pursuit Of certain trades and avocations
on a Sunday, and that authority puts itself in
a bad position when it issues orders it cannot
auforce. The object OF Truth s" comment
cation was to show that our statement that
cone OF the things that is disttsteful about
this order is that It cannot be carried cut, " is
incorrect. Does Truth show that We were
in error in saying this, as was the thing that
| ay upon him to do? Quite the contrary, he
acknowledges, though uude gncdly, that
our assertion is correct, by saying Of the re-
salt OF that order that half a cat is better
than no bread, that the Law is not thor
ouqhly enforced. In short he said, after Sun
day. what we had, by anticipation, said be-
fore &c. In so doing, Truth has not con-
futed our allegation, but confirms it; for he
himself acknowledges that, although there
was improvement, there was only half a
loaf" and that the Law is not thoroughly en-
forced. Truth" errs from truth, also, when
he says our objection applies not to the law
itself, but to its enforcement. 1t applies to
the "order" itself, as that order enjolns
what the authorities are powerless to
Is, it prohibits the keep
ing open of places of business and the
pursuit of trade avocations, " making no ex-
ceptiens. When authority issues orders it is
unable to carry out, it IS gui.ty-to use a
common saying, "of making a fool of ITSELF,
and authority should not bring itself into
contempt; and when it issues an order it
cannot carry out, that order per- Sc, ''the law
Itself. as Truth" styles it, is wrong and bad.
.eTruth" winds up with concluding error
He SAYS he will present our reasoning in its
logical form, and accuses Us Of having for
,nr major premise ANY law which cannot be |
perfectly enforced should not be enforced at
all" We laid down no such premise as
in error-supposes. We used |
m sneh word, in the connection above, as |
snerfection, nor any equivalent 70 that |
cord. If Truth uses prop sltion as
,ren,ise. and attaches 10 it a qualification not |
,cl,ded in the original proposition, his in
.Ir,otor in logic, whether Watts, /
Wbatelv. or another, will tell him
I becomes a new premise for which
he original proposition is not responsible.
'Truth's', formidable syllogism, that huge
that brushes walls and sends
ociety to Tophet, is, therefore, ouly like the
nan the school boys construct Of snow, and
hen proceed to batter down with snow
alls. Syllogisms are slippery weapons in
nwary hands, by introducing an equivoque
hers Truth" qualified proposition, it can
proved that Truth" never wrote his own