Without taking part in the discussion between writers on logic as to whether it is a science or an art, or a combination of both, we shall, for the present, consider it in its application to discourse as the art of correct reasoning. Every one uses logic, even though many have never looked into a textbook on logic. Perhaps no one has so mastered logic as to always reason correctly. But the more a person knows of the laws of correct reasoning, the easier it is for him to avoid fallacies in his own reasoning and to detect them in the reasoning of others. Not enough attention is given to the study of logic. In this matter our educators do greatly err. There is no excuse for compelling a student to wait till he reaches the university to acquaint himself with the laws of reasoning. No preacher should be satisfied to go through life without studying logic. It might be a good idea for religious journals occasionally to give a series of logic lessons, because reasoning is so intimately connected with studying and teaching the Bible. One should be able to reason correctly both in learning and in teaching. And a knowledge of the laws of correct reasoning will save a speaker or writer from being put to shame by a shrewd critic. To make a fallacious argument, even in support of the truth, gives an opponent an opening for attack. The pity is that in showing the fallacy of your argument he is likely to make many think he has disproved your position. Also, a fallacy in your sermon may be detected by some silent listener. If so, your sermon loses force with him.

      But some arguments are classed as fallacies that are not always fallacies. Hill's Jevons puts the argumentum ad hominem down as a fallacy, but it is not always a fallacy. It may be as valid as any other argument. The [p. 65] ad hominem argument is an argument to the man; it is an appeal to his interests, his pride, his sense of justice and right, or his passions, etc. It depends upon the circumstances and the motive as to whether it is a fallacy. If in trying to save a man from disgraceful conduct, I appeal to his family pride and to his self-interest, I am using the argumentum ad hominem, but there is no fallacy. If your opponent is practicing some things that in principle are exactly like the thing he opposes, you may charge the inconsistency upon him with the hope of getting him to see the point and abandon his opposition. That is the argumentum ad hominem, but where is there any fallacy? If a man is opposing one thing and practicing a similar wrong, you may show him his inconsistency, and thereby induce him to abandon the wrong that he is practicing. Some one opposes the use of printed helps in teaching the Bible. You charge him with inconsistency, in that he uses songbooks and the marginal references in the Bible, which in principle are like the helps he opposes, hoping to get him to see the point and abandon his opposition. You are not appealing to his prejudice, nor his passions, nor any other unholy feeling. There is no fallacy in that sort of argument, yet it is the argumentum ad hominem. But the argumentum ad hominem is fallacious when it is an unfair appeal to personal opinions, or to one's vanity or prejudice or passions. Much of the flattery from the pulpit comes under this head. It is also a fallacy when an appeal is made to a person's hatred of sectarianism to induce him to do or not to do a certain thing.

      Noah K. Davis does not class the argumentum ad hominem as a fallacy, but puts it under the heading, "Modified Forms." Concerning it he says: "The argumentum ad hominem is arguing from the premises of an opponent merely to defeat him. We accept his principles on which to base a counter argument, even if believing them false, our argument being directed against him personally, ad hominem. It aims to convict him of ignorance, bad faith, inconsistency, or illogical reasoning, and so to put him ex curia (out of court). Usually it attempts no more . . . Criticism is mostly in the form of ad hominem, and should be distinguished from proof of the opposite or controversy."

      Henry Coppee, page 147, says: "The argumentum ad hominem is not a fallacy when the design it to teach pure [p. 66] truth, and when no unholy passion or emotion is appealed to. In this application it was used by our Savior himself to the Jews on many occasions with great force and beauty. His touching and yet searching appeal to them for the woman taken in adultery sent them out one by one before his power. Each one felt the argument and admitted the conclusion." But some one may say: "To charge her accusers with the same crime did not prove her to be innocent." Certainly not; neither did the Savior intend that it should. But he intended to stop the unholy mouth of her hypocritical accusers. He knew these men cared nothing about the woman's guilt. He knew they were after him, and not her, and were using her in an effort to get him to commit himself in such a way that they could make out a case against him. The woman's guilt was a mere pretext. And the fact stands out clearly that Jesus stopped their mouths by charging they were as guilty as she.

      Again Jesus used the argumentum ad hominem. He healed a sorely afflicted woman on the Sabbath. The ruler of the synagogue became very indignant. Jesus replied: "Ye hypocrites, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound, lo, these eighteen years, to have been loosed from this bond on the day of the Sabbath?" Jesus virtually said: "If I am guilty, you are even more so, for you do a less needful thing. If you are justified in what you do, I am even more so."

      Other instances could be given, but these are sufficient to show that the Savior frequently used a form or argument that is now condemned by some Christians. And yet some who condemn it use it in its fallacy form. To create the impression that all ad hominem arguments are fallacious, and then to seek to create prejudice against an opponent by calling his argument ad hominem, is an argumentum ad hominem fallacy.

      After all, text-books on the rules of logic and argument are not inspired and represents the author's own opinions on how a question should be argued or a proposition discussed, and it is not charging consequences to a man when the evidence is adduced that the consequences exist. The apostle Paul did just that when he declared, "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that [p.67] judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (Romans 2:1) Again, "Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that he alloweth." (Romans 14:22) In both of these references the apostle employed the argumentum ad hominem procedure of exposing inconsistencies. It has been markedly noticeable that objections to such exposure have come from disputants who run for cover and seek refuge in a stereotyped set of so-called rules of logic and honorable discussion.

      The design of this treatise is to show that the doctrine of pacifism is a hiding place of false teaching, and to answer with logic and scripture the claims and the creed of this nondescript religio-politico cult, showing the views to be unethical and unbiblical and in all respects untrue. In so doing it is not our purpose or intent to derogate any man or reflect on anyone, but rather to let it be shown that the cognomen pacifist does not carry with it the necessary connotation of hatred of war, a thing abhorred by all good people. But hatred for crime could not justify the abolition of the law enforcement agencies which are at war in time of peace against all the criminal elements of society. Neither does the phrase conscientious objector connote a monopoly on conscientious scruples or an exclusive conscientious group. The word conscience has been defined as the "moral sense within oneself that determines whether one considers one's conduct wrong." We also lay claim to good conscience before God, and in the words of Paul "I herein do exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men."

      The pacifists groups have a planned program of propaganda, including not only what to believe, but a well defined course of action in the execution of draft papers and other methods of obtaining exemptions from the responsibilities that their fellow-citizens must carry in the military services of our government for the defense of our nation. In many instances there is no conscience exercised by a member of a pacifist group in the course pursued--he merely submits or accedes to, and is misled by, his pacifist superiors as his instructors. Such an organized party with our society will raise up a generation of rebels against government, a generation of anarchists. The real orthodox [p. 68] conscientious objectors who apply for detention in time of war have said openly and without shame that in the C. O. camp they "live and work and play with choice men," while other noble young men as brave soldiers strive on the field of battle in defense of the society that guarantees this freedom of conscience. Much stress is put on praying for the C. O.'s in concentration camps, rather than for the soldiers on the battlefield. But what about the soldiers on the battlefield? Are they not conscientious, too? Do they not have the same right as others to live honestly in all things, who fight our battles? (Hebrews 13:17-18) All the statesmen, coupled with wisdom and counsel, with all the might of resources and money, without the valiant young men of our armies and navies, would be as nothing. The mass teaching on theoretical pacifism is always simultaneous with recurrent national crises. Mortal fear and lack of trust in the cause of right make cowards of men, and this is mistaken for conscientious objection.

      In the case of so many who have been emotionally mislead into the deception that it is a "for and against war" issue, the attitude is not an argument, but a sentiment, and is all the more powerful for the wrong side of a question, for like that which is "better felt than told," no reasoning can penetrate the mind that makes feelings his evidence. There can be no answer when argument is ignored.--R. L. Whiteside, in the Gospel Advocate.

      [The following is brief commentary by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. on RLW's article and his estimate of him as a person. The reference is The Christian and the Government, p. 68.--B. V.]

      The forgoing and following passages are from the pens of men among us from the beginning of the church on the American continent. There has never been a man in the church in all of its generations since the age of inspiration who possessed a deeper and truer insight into the inspired scriptures than R. L. Whiteside, who was "not a whit behind them all" from Campbell to Lipscomb. To be in the company of the men whose comments are herein quoted instills within me a confidence in the current controversy that the critics of the opposition cannot overcome or conquer.