Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1837-05-10

its advocates. But it Is not. They have
seen the consequence, and frequently as
serted II. 1t is included in many OF their
statements Of the doctrine. Mr.. DutfeId
plainly asserts il, when he says. 1--WE are
infsllibly directed, in making our estimate
ofhuman dcpravity, to have ercluslre re-
gard 10 the acts and exercises ofthc human
soul" Here distinction is made between
the soul and its acts and exercises; and 1t
is affirmed that, in making an estimate OF
depravity, the soul is to be excluded from
the account, and the +" regard" confined to
its actions. Again; he says, "Thcre shall
take place those acts, of which alone we can
predicate moral depravty." In his chap'er
on "the original Of human dcpravlty," ne
charges the advocates Of the opposite doc
trine with predcatng depravitv OF 81 beng"
or" simple existence ;" and affects to prove
that it cannot be affirmed Of being" and
expresses his surprise "that il should be
made question, whether sin may be predI-
Gated of being, or simple existence. 1t
would be silly enough, to DC sure, to affirm
depravity of simple, abstract being, for tha;
would imply all beings are depraved. But
this his opponents had not done. They
had not even started the question which cX-
cites his surprise. They had affirmed de-
pravi,y of human beings, and this is obvi-
ously the doctrine against which his objec-
ton is aimed. 1t is not to be wondered al,
however, that he involves such 4 sentiment
in the mists Of ambiguity. by contoundlng
a particular class of beings with being it.
self.
MIR. Finney says, "From this subject, YOU
can see, that the wicked conduct of sinners
is no proof that their nature as sigtut."--
The author of " Views in Theology" af-
firms it broadly, when he says, No dcpra.
vi,v, stain, corruption, nor any other defect
whatever of that nature, pertains to the con.
sttution of man.
MIR. Barnes makes this distinction appear
very conspicuous in his comment on ST..
Paul's declaration, that "the carnal mind is
enmity against God" &c. ut does not
mean," he says, "the mind itself, the Intel.
lect, or the will; it does not suppose that
the mind or the soul is physically depraved,
or opposed 10 God; but it means, that the
miading Of tir things the flesh giving
to them supreme attention, is hostility to
God. For it. The word 1t here refers to
theminding of the things of the ilesh.-
1t does not men, that the soul Itself Is not
subject TO his 1nc, but that the mlndIng OF
those things is hostile to his law. The
apostle does not express any opinion about
the metaphysical ability Of man, or discuss
that question at all. y
1t is not necessary to question the cor
RICHNESS of this criticism. The language
ofthe apostle may signify" the minding OF
the things of the flesh" But if he does not
expressly predicate depravity and inability
Of the "mind ITSELF" or Of man, IN this
place, he does in other places, and what he
here says clearly implies the depravty OF
the "mind ITSELF" &c. Can that mind or
soul be otherwise than depraved which is
constantly performing depraved actions =
Can it be otherwise than at enmily with
God when al! its intelligent, voluntary eX-
ercises are at enmity with him? But the
design of the commentator is obviously to
restrict, as question Of doctrine, the de-
pravity and inability to the actions OF the
mind. lie tells US, that the language OF the
apostle "does not suppose that the mind or
soul is opposed to Gcd. the apostle does
not. express any opinion about the metaphy-
sical ability of man." This Interpretation
is adopted by New School writer's general
" to guard the doctrines of natural ability,
and de2ravitvas consisting solely i'll action,
to which the text is equally fatal, whether it
expressly affirms, or merely implies, that the
"mnd itself' is carnal, and at cnmlty with
God.
We shall endoayor to make good our
condemnation of this consequence, and the
theory to which it belongs, by first bringing
it in contact with the Scriptures. The
apostle writes to the Philippians -" For
many walk, of whom | have told you often
and now tell you, even weeping, that they
are the enemies of the cross OF Christ;
whose end is destruction, whose God IS
their belly, and whose glory is their shame
who mind earthly things" Here depravl.
ty is prcdcated not only oCmiuding earthly
things, but of those who mind them-of
the "mind itself"-the man-the being
The result of an attempt to conform this
text 10 the doctrine, that depravity belongs
solely to action, would be strikingly lud-
crous. Again; the apostle says TO the Cor
nthians, care ye not carnal, and walk as
men?" How ridiculous would be the al
tempt to Interpret this text OH the theory
which predicates depravity solely OF ac.
ton!
This theory is most unequivocally con-
tradcted by the reasonings Of the Saviour
1 II