Morris tribune., 1884-02-20
CORRESPONDENCE.
The Rev. H. Johnson's Repeated
Query Answered.

|
Query Answered.
I2deed the Rev. Mr.. Johnson coult
not have done better than call his
last letter "my repeated query" n
one who conlesccnds to read our let
ters carefully could justly blame me, i
| would refuse to answer this last one
for the reason that it is repeated
query. 1t is rather too much to asl
u second answer to the same question
before the first one is shown to b,
wrong.
In his first letter the Rev. gen tlemar
has bluntly charged me for having
made IAN attack upon Professionalism
as vague and contradictory teachings
and entirely unfit to cure skepticism.
must say that these were not my
words, but give him credit for hav'
ing caught the meaning of what die
say. l do not deny either that ment
what he made me say. On the con
trary, l proved by means of syllo
gism that my assertion was correct
For the benefit of those who may have
forgotten or who may not have seen
the argument let me repeat it here:
Vague and contradictory teachings
can not make u believer Of q skeptic ;
The teachings of Professionalism are
vague aud contradictory.
Therefore the teachings of Protestant
tism can not make believer of a
skeptic.
Iattach all Importance to this argu-
ment, and confess that the truth OF
my assertion stands and falls with the
same. I asked my Rev. opponent to
point out, if he could, the defects OF
my syllogism. 1t was and still is his
duty to show me where the error is, il
there is any. Is the first or second prem
Use wrong, or are they both wrong?
Does the conclusion not follow neces-
sarily aud truly? | do not wish to re-
mind him ofthe rules laid down by To-
gicians, and which must be followed in
arguments like the above. He did not
mention a single defect or error in the
whole argument, but candiGly adj
mitted the truth of the same by say
ing: "Your syllogism is all right"
In the sentence Immediately follow
ing this, however, he again questions
the truth of the second premise! In
the name of common sense, is not that
sheer contradiction to admit the cor
rectness of Il syllogism, and deny one
of it's premises. Who can argue with
a person who is able to admit and
deny one and the same thing at one
and the same time2
Now say: "My syllogism is either
all right or it is not.' If is all right,
as he admits himself, how can he be
justified to demand from me second
proof? Is not one undeniable demon
stration sufficient to establish the
certainty of all assertion beyond any
doubt? And If it is not
all right, why did he say it was? l
must he allowed to say that in either
case he is evidently wrong.
He asked me 70 clay the syllogism on
the shelf until l may haze use for It, {"
But is that not asking a little too
o T,,,.lo , ~ 81 ccartfon ba aSiya6
me to prove it, [ did SO. And now he
would ask me to hide the argument,
by which did justify myself. Twill
not and can not put it on the shelf,
but if he shows me that'it Is wrong,
I will deliver it to the flames, and
recall what / have said.
He wishes to call my attention Hto
the fact that the so-called Protestant
church is divided into two separate
bodies, the Reformed church and the
Lutheran church," and wishes me to
show him how the teachings of these
two churches are contradictory. This
gives me new idea of Professionalism.
But I can not believe him. If SO,
what becomes Of the Baptists, Meth
odists, Congregationaiists, and all the
ipnumerable other sects who claim to
be Professionals? Have they no right
to protest against the doctrines Of the
Roman Catholic church? never as
much as mentioned any of your 1.-TWO
separate bodies,n and do not wish to
question the merits of any particular
Protestant CHURCH. But II the teael-
ings Of these ''two separate hodies'
do not contradict one another, why
are they not Zone body"? Was it
not that very disagreement in points
Of doctrine that caused the separation
Of all churches one from another?
AS to the phrase "good old ways
which is indeed growing old Itself, |
would say that I deem my former ex-
PLANTATION sufficient. AS soon, how
ever, as the present question is settled
satisfactorily, will state explicitly
what is meant, and prove it too, if il SO
pIeases my Rev. opponent. Before
I will write another word, however,
ON the subject, l want him to refute
my argument or admit 1t to be true.
Arguments are wasted with persons
who have not love of truth enough to
do one of the two
Yours,
F. WATRY.
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES