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

and protesting 10 be servants and MINIS
ters of Christ, tell US that "there is MOTH
ing in man which constitutes tendency to
SIM" which forms any more certainty or
probability that he will exercise that species
of action which is ecil, than that which IS
morally excellent and that " sinful actions
do not imply slnfu! nature"
The Saviour furnishes severe reouke
this nonsense, in his reply to those who at
tributed his casting out devils to The agency
of Beelzebub, the prince of devils. After
showing the absurdty Of their charge, ne
saws -" Either make the tree good, and
his fruit good; or else make the tree cor.
rupt, and his fruit corrupt; for the tree
is known by his fruit. O generation
of vipers! hop can ye being euH speak
good things? For out ofthe abundance of
the heart the mouth speaketh. A good
man out of the good treasure of his heart
brinseth forth good things; and an evil
man out of the evil treasure of his heart
brngeth forth evil things"
Who does not perceive that the doctrine
and distinction we oppose destroy complete
" the Savour's maxim, "The tree is known
bv its fruits and contradict all his reason
ings! They make the evil quality pertain
exclusively TO the fruit. They are atvarl-
ance with the whole tenor of Scripture,
which constantly affirms depravity OF man
as tine source, the author of his actions.
Apply this distinction to the perpetrator
Of crime. in anv of It's varied forms; and
while It predicates depravity Of his actions,
it leaves himself without condemnat'on.-
Take, for instance, the manufacturer and
traficker in ardent spirits as drink, who
is fully apprized Of all the mischief ne is
doing. His business may be pronounced
immoral, but it does not follow that he Is
immoral or deprayed. The immortality
belongs exclusively to the business. This
distinction was actually so applied, and this
doctrine maintained, in the Pennsylvania
temperance convention in the spring OF
1885, by one of the authors referred to in
these numbers.in the debate on the resolution
asserting the immortality of the manufacture
and sale of ardent spirits as drink.
According to this doctrine, we have only
to contemplate the murderer apart from his
actions, we must pronounce him perfect
" free from depravity. Let his voluntary
exercises be suspended by sleep, for instance
and this is undeniably the case. Let hIm
die in this condition, and dies free from de.
pravity, although the blood may yet reek on
his murderous blade Or let him wake
from his sleep, and whether he has any de,
pravitv after he wakes or not will depend
on his voluntarily performing depraved ex-
ercises, which he has a natural ability to
decline. This is specimen of the moral
philosophy which grows out OF New School
theology. =.
It has been objected to this theory, that i
is at variance with the doctrine of total de.
pravity, and its advocates have endeavored
to remove the objection. One thing, how.
ever. is certain, that it admits Of no such
thing as partial depravity. There must Ell.
,her be total depravity, or none at all tor
as the depravity of man consists solely IN
his actions, his present action must, at any
ciyen period ofhis life, constitute his present
depravity. Whether it be total or patlal
viii depend on whether the voition as par.
tiallv or wholly at variance with the law It
transrresses. Now the volitions otthe mind
are successive, and no matter how rapidly
they may succeed each other, the mind puts
forth but one volition at time. Whether
that voition is partially in obedience to, and
partially at variance with the law, will de.
pend on the demand of the law with respect
to il. If the law partly enjoins, and partly
forbids it. this will be the case. But such a
supposirion respecting the law of God would
be absurd. 1t would makelt grossly contra.
dictorv. Buff the law is totally at variance
with the unholy volition, it must constitute
total depravity. The moment there is the
least variation from total depravity, it is TO-.
tally absent.
Ifit be objected to this reasoning, that one
single totally depraved action does not con-
stitute total depravity. we would ask how
many totally depraved actions ittakes to con.
st;tute total depravity !
PERHAPS it will be said, that tits not every
unholy voliton that constitutes total dePravl-
tv. ifthere be some particular volitlons
OF which alone total depravity can be Pred''
Gated, it will he necessary to know what
they are in order to determine whether an
individual be totally depraved or not, as his
character in this respect will depend on his
having performed or declined them.
Take this theory of depravity then along
with the doctrine of natural ability, from
which it springs, and it will follow lnfalhbly
that a man may change from total dePravl.
iy to holiness, andfrom holiness to total de-
pravity, twenty times day, and as much
oftaper nc no nleaSeS