Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1837-04-12

| by the public, that tho letter OF Or. Iayiol
as it appeared III print. contained the "fldnh
| AID !ull statement" which he had made Il
DR.. Hawes at his particular request; bu
it was afterwards usccrialned that some
part of lile original letter was suppressed
| When DR.. Hawes was inquired OF in re-
gard to this fact, he acknowledged that the
letter contained some things, which he
deemed 1t not prudent 10 publish, and thai
he wro;e TO DR.. Taylor and obtained per.
mission to s:rikc out the Objectionable
parts. Thus It happened, that the great
object OF this correspondence, was, not Sc
much to obtain from DR.. Taylor "a frank
and luIl statement OF his religious views,
as 10 obtain such statement It's should re.
move from the pnDlc mind the suspicious
whlcn naC been crelted by Ills previous
publications.. Lac plan however, did moi
succeed. Inc le,ter Us /; was published,
wdS Tar from giving Satisfaction. 1t would
probably nave Dcen Still less satisfactory, Ii
II nad been published enare; ior | nave
understood IRON All Individual VINO saw the
nlanuScrip, tha: those parts which were
supuressed, contained the most "frank End
I.a statement Of DR.. =. Taylor's peculiar
views.
ru.s letter contained creed Of eleven
articles, expressed tor the most part, IN un-
excepuoraple language. But 20 this were
sIponcd CERTAIN. explanations which SEEM
ed 10 many directly 10 contradict the ar'l-
ces OF me creed: or at least, 10 make 1t
evident. that while DR.. Taylor employed or.
,I,odox language, he must atlix to that lam
guase a meaning. entirely different from
tnat IN which it Is commonly received.
Some remarks on this letter were pub.
lshed by DR.. Tyler IN tine Spirit OF The
Pilgrims, Periodical published IN Boston.
| will insert few extracts from these re-
marks. He says
have always supposed that DR.. Taylor
would be willing OF subscribe just such q
creed us that winch Inc has given US IN this let
ter. Is it asked, then, what are the grounds
OF my fears! | will frankly state them. Any
one at all acquainted with ecclesiastical
history, must have observed that the great
errors which have infested the Christian
C..urch, nave usually crept IN unawares.-
They have originated III specuiaionS, and
" philosophical theorles," winch, al first,
were not intended TO call in question the
commonly received doctrines, but to eX-
p,;,iu tl,cnl, and relieve them Of difficulties.
The process has been a gradual undermI-
ming process; and such, /: has appeared
to me, is the tine tendency Of DR.. Tuylor's
speculatlons." THAT his theories 10
involve principles subvcrslve OF some OF
the most prominent and important doctrines
of his creed, shall endeavor to show in the
following remarks:
"THe doctrine of Original Sn. .
"Dr. Taylor says, 81 believe that all
mankind in consequence Of the fall OF
Adam, are born destitute of holiness, and
are by nature totally depraved; IN other
words, that all men from the commence
ment of moral agency, do, without the IN
terposition Of divine grace, sin, and only
sin, in all their moral conduct. | also BE-
lieve, that such is the nature OF the human
r,ind, mat it becomes the occasion OF uni
versal sin in all the appropriate cIrcumstan-
stances of their existence, and that there
fore, they may properly be said, to be sln'
ncrs by nature"
To these statements, understood accor-
ding to their plain and obvious import, |
can most cheerlully subscribe. But how
are these declarations to be understood
when taken in connexlon with other things
which DR.. Daylor has said on this subject!
| have always supposed that when It's said,
that in consequence Of the fall of Adam,
all have become sinners; the language is
intended to convey the idea, that there is a
real connexion between the sin Of Adam
and that of his posterty :-ano that when
it is said, all are By nature sinners, the
meaning is, that there is something in our
natnrc, which is truly the cause or reason
WHY all men become sinners. Consequent.
", that human nature is not what it would
have been. if sin had not existed, but has
undergone some change in consequence
of the original apostacy." snow the
question is, is the nature of man different
from what ii would have been, if sin had
never entered the world? Is there any
thing in human nature which is hereditary,
and the consequence Of the original aposta-
cy? Or is every thing pertaining to the
nature of man, the immediate production
of creative power? And do mankind
come into the world now, with the sumc na-
ture as that with which Adam was created,
and which the child Jesus Possessed? II
so, then, mankind are moi 0y nature sim
ners. Their nature is in no sense the
cause or reason of their SHINING; Tor Adam
was not by nature a sinner; nor was the
child Jesus. They were by nature holy.
Nor is it possible 10 perceive, according TO