Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1837-03-28


ever made up for man: you must govern
your children. and keep them away from the
contamination of vice, or you must expect
to spend your old age in mourning over the
ruins of your family.-Abbolts Lecture.
From The S. C. Herald.
Letters on the Origin and Progress Of Pc.
Hgan Views in Nev. England, from
distinguished Nep- England minister OF
the Gospel, TO one in the South.
LETTER w.
February 2l, 1887,
My DEAR BROTHER
DR.. Tyler published his Structures Dec.
1929. He says in his Preface,
Ihe writer of the following Srictures,
istonscious Of no unfriendly feelings to-
wards the conductors of the Christian Spec.
tator and especially towards the individu.
al who is generally known to be the writer
of the Review. He has ever regarded him
with the highest respect, and cherished to-
wards him the warmest sentiments Of per-
sonal friendship. Until recently, he has
had the fullest confidence in the general
correctness of his theological views. But
recent publications, and particularly the
articles noticed in the following sheets, have
produced the conviction, that in some things
he has swervcd from the faith of our Pilgrim
frthers. Not that he has formally denied
any one doctrine of the orthodox system,
but, it is believed, that in his statements and
explanations, he has adopted principles
which will lead, by inevitable consequence,
to the denial ofimportant doctrines; and that
his speculations will pave the way for the
the gradual influx Of error upon the Amer
lean Churches, disastrous 10 the interests Of
evangelical religion. Nothing but the full.
est conviction of the dangerous tendency Of
these speculations, and the necessity of some
! counteracting influence. could have induced
the writer to appear, in this manner, be-
fore the public. But personal consldera.
.ions are to be waived, when theinterests of
truth and piety are concerned"
In prosecuting his object, he in the first
place, attempts to correct some errors in
regard to the meaning and explanation of
terms. He objects 10 the meaning which
DR.. Taylor attaches to the term regeneration.
He uses it to denote 'that act of the will or
heart which consists in preference Of God to
every other object" making it of course, an
act of the sinner, and not exclusively the
work of God. He objects also to the dis
tinction which DR.. Taylor makes between
the popular and theological use Of the term
regeneration. In the popular sense, DR..
Taylor supposes it to denote .proscess, or
series ofacts and states of mind, and to IL
clude all those acts which constitute, using
the means of regeneration. He objects also
TO the sense in which DR.. Taylor uses the
term seltishness. According TO him. SCI
fshness consistst not in supreme regard to
our own happiness, but in the love of the
world. or in prelerring the world to God, as
our portion or chief good. He makes a
distinction between selishness and self-love,
and supposes that the former may be sus-
pended in the unrenewed heart, and that the
sinner, influenced by the latter, may use the
means of regeneration with motives which
are neither sinful nor holy. An uti.
innate regard to our own happiness, &C.
cording to him, is not selfshness, but self
love, principle by which all moral beings
of Whatever character, are actuated. He
says, indeed; "Of all specific voluntary ac-
ton, the happiness of the agent, i'll some
form, is the Ultimate end;" thus confounding
as DR.. Tyler shows, all distinction between
holiness and sin, making both proceed from
the same principle of action.
In regard to the suspension of the selfish
principle, DR.. Taylor asks, "But how is the
selfish principle suspended? Is it suspend
cd by the interpositon of God, or by an act
of the sinner? Not by the interposilon Of
| God, for, if | understand the Review, he sup
poses that those mental acts which const-
tute using the means Of regeneration, pre-.
cede the act of divine interposition. Be-
sides, if God by an act of his grace, sus-
pends the selfish principle, what is this but
regeneration? Does the sinner while un-
der the control ofsupreme selfshness, and
consequently from selfish motive, resolve
MOTTO be selfish This would seem to
representselfshness as divided againstitself,
IAN absurdity sufficiently palpable to silence
even jewish caviling.' Isthe selfish princi-
pie suspended without any act of the mind
What is the cause ofthis wonderful phenom-
enon? Or has it no cause? Is ii. an ac-
cident which may, or may not happen, and
which, nevertheless must happen in regard
to every one of the human race before he
can be regenerated"
He elsewhere shows that there is not, and
cannot be, any such thing as the suspension
of the selfish principle in the unrenewed
heart.
"It is admitted" he says, "that there is no