The weekly register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, Va. [W. Va.]) 1862-1909, 1880-02-18
INVESTIGATOR investigates.

an article appeared in your paper,
on the fourth page, to which attent.
ion was called in the local column.
Attention was given, and the article
was read. In it the writer made
certain statements about the weak
ness Of the church, and attributed
that weakness to the holding Of GER
tain doctrines-the first Of which
was the doctrine OF the Trinity,
which he explained to mean athree
Gods in one" The following week
four questions were propounded by
Querist, and the succeeding week,
three answered appeared oyaqs Old
signature Of investigator, which was
followed by communication over
that of Querist, looking into a.he
creeds" which Investigator charged
with teaching the doctrine of "three
Gods in one" In this same paper a
short article appeared over the sig.
nature Of Christian, striking at the
editor and the two correspondents
above named.
Last week Investigator appeared
before the public again, and levels
his battery atQuerist, Christian ct i'd
genus omne. Christian and the edi-
tor must take care of themselves, but
| purpose now to say few things
and with them close the discussion;
and the reasons therefor will appear
to the thinking.
1st. Investigator has mistaken
the name to which he is entitled
He has been pressed twice with a
question like this: "What part or
parts Of the Bible do you accept as Of
binding authority? And he has not
given a categorical answer. In fact,
he has evaded it. He should there
fore have called himself Euador. A
careful reader could detect in his ar
ticles, just a little timidity, if moth
ing more, in his evasion-a kind of
fear cfcOmmitting himse!t-to any par
ticular part of the bible. Would it
be too strong to say there is n name
which he should have appended to his
article, which is not very reputable,
the name is COWARDi afraid to
come out boldly and say: this l accept,
that reject.
Butinasmuch as he virtually states
that Chez Investigator, is to decide
what God is to reveal, or in other
words, what is to be of binding au-
thority by accepting that alone as
such, which he can comprehend, and
which is agreeable to his reason-he
appears to be very bold. Instead Of
coming to the word of God, with the
tractable disposition of a child-say-
ing, "teach me Thy will, o Lord" p
he comes with the air of dictator,
virtually saying to God, eff you do
not teach what l think you ought to
teach, l will not accept it." From
this stand-point-what name ought
he have appended Let me suggest
one or two, and you make the select
ion. BIasphemer-Arogan Dtcta-
tor to God. Lording is over Gods
heritage.
I'd. In the popular puritanical but
expressive meaning Of the word a
Dogmattst, is one who makes posi-.
tive and dictatorial statement with
out giving satisfactory reasons for
the same. Look back now over In
vestigator's articles-and who can
fail to see the Dogmati5t almost every.
where. Let me give you an example:
The very first sentence, "The church
as an organization, is without con-
|
troversy, an institution gotten up by
man; and this subsequent to the days
of the day of the Great Teacher"
Not one single particle of proof is
adduced. 1t is stated as if it is to be
believed, just because Investigator
said it. Is anything more Dogmatic
than this? Is itnot much more over.
bearing and much less reasonable
than what he so arogantly calls
"these foolish and absurd dogmas."-
What great pity Solomon had not
had the benefit of Investigators
Dogmatics. There is proverb,
which runs thus: "Answer not a fool
according to his folly lest he become
wise in his own conceit." But to
some people this has no application.
Sd. In the article of last week, our