Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1857-07-16
For the Yorkville Enquirer.

Of some facts in relation to the Independent
Presbyterians, to correct an error into which
many will doubtless be led by the remarks Of the
Rev. DR.. LELAND, in the late General Assembly,
on the Overture of Bethel Presbytery, in regard
to union of the Independent Presbyterians with
the Presbyterian Church.
need not remind your readers that very great
injustice is sometimes done to people when some
facts in their history are stated, and at the same
time other facts suppressed, which are inseparably
connected with, and explanatory of those that are
published. And it is doubtless true, that great
and good men sometimes unintentionally do real
injustice to Others from want of correct inform
alton on subjects of which they speak. Now, we
have charity enough to conclude, that DR.. LELAND
did not intend to misrepresent the Independent
Presbyterians in the remarks alluded to above
But it was with regret and surprise both, that
read his brief address; for had supposed that DR..
LELAND had enjoyed the opportunity, at least, of
learning the correct history of these Independ-
ents. He states that the Church had its origin in
secession from the Presbyterian Church by the
Rev. WIN. c. DAv1s-and that is fact; and that
Mr.. DAVIS published in the "Gospel Plan" some
doctrinal errors--and it is certainly true that Mr.
D. published what the General Assembly did con-
denim as errors. And be further states that "the
then Concord Presbytery took him up, under in
structon from the General Assembly, and that
when he found his case was hopeless, he with
drew, and became independent; but the Presbyte-
ry proceeded against him and deposed him" IL
Now 1 am sorry that this should go forth to the
world, under the high authority Of DR.. LELAND,
as the early history Of the Independent Presbyte-
rian Church. And you will permit me to call the
DIS. attention, and the attention of "all whom it
may concern" to the following statement, which
may be relied on as the true history, and which
can easily be substantiated by clear and reliable
testimony:
Rev. WM C. DAVIS was, in the first place tried,
and acquitted by his own Presbytery, the First
Presbytery of South Carolina-the Second Pres.
bytery of South Carolina appearing as his prose.
cutor-after which the Synod Of the Carolinas
took up the trial. aithout any reference or appeal
from the Presbytery, and referred the case to the
General Assembly, against which reference Mr..
DAVIS protested, and appealed to the Assembly.
His appeal was sustained, and thus the judgment
of the First Presbytery of South Carolina was
virtually approved and sustained. And although
the Assembly, at the same session, did pass o
vote of condemnation on some Of the doctrines Of
the s'Gospel Plan," there was no charge against
Mr.. D., and he hoped that he might, bya pruden,
course, enjoy peace, and degree of harmony
with his brethren. But his opponents being still
dissatisfied, the dissolution Of the First Presbyte-
ry was effected, throwing Mr.. DAVIS, with some
others, under the jurisdiction of Concord Presby.
terry in order that they might take him up and
try his case de moro. But Mr.. D. being fully sat.
isfed, from the past, that he would experience
neither cemency nor justice from that source
deemed it his duty to withdraw from the Church
and accordingly sent in his Dsclinature, being en-
tirely free from censure or charge. After which tht
Presbytery did proceed against him, and pro
nounce the sentence of deposition. But should
think that any unprejudiced person can see thai
the action of the Presbytery, undsr the eircum.
stances, was both unreasonable and powerless.
These are the facts in the case, history OIL
which was published soon after they occurred
and has remained uncontradicted.
would here leave the public to decide, as to
the fairness of the history given in the remarks
under review, but jnstice to Mr.. DAVIS, and to
the Independents, requires brief notice of DR..
LIS version of the condemned, and reserved
doctrines. He says certain doctrines of the Cos.
pei Plan were condemned; e. 6. That the active
obedience of Christ, possesses no justifyng right.
eousness-that the first act of faith, is not holy
act-aud that man is naturally not subject Of
moral law.
In regard to the first doctrine named, have
only to say, that Mr.. DAVIS believed, and the In
dependents still believe, that whilst the active obe-
dience of Christ is ndspensably necessary, in the
scheme Of human redemption as completely "jus-
tifying" the sinners substitute, and eminently
qualifying him to make an atonement for the sim
ner's guilt, it is only his passive obedience Pc
nal and vicarious suffering, which is imputed to
the believer, for his justification.
As to the second doctrine, have no objection
to offer; but it may be proper for me to make q
single remark explanatory. Mr.. DAVIS taught,
and the Independents believe, that "the first act
of faith is not holy act" for it is by faith that
we become interested in Christ, and the sanctify-
ing spirit is not given until we become new crea-
lures in Christ Jesus, and therefore, the sinner can
not perform holy act until faith gives him to the
Saviour, and secures for him the renewing and
sanctifying influences Of the Holy Spirit. But it
should be borne in mind that we by no means re-
gard the first act of faith as an dnholy act; for
there is manifest, and very important differ.
ence between on act which is simply not holy, and
one which is really unholy.
But as to the third doctrine, viz: that man is
naturally not subject of moral law-I know the
Independents do not believe such doctrine; and
I think, can exonerate Mr.. DAVIS from the
charge of ever teaching such thing And I can
hardly think, that the General Assembly was ever
guilty of so great folly, as to condem book for
teaching doctrine, when the very opposite of
such doctrine is taught in it, as clearly, and as
strongly as Gun be done by human language. In
fact, received from DR.. LELAND's address in the
late Assembly, the rsry first intimation that ever
Mr. DAVIS, or the Independent Church was charg-
ed with holding this doctrine. Mr.. DAVIS, uni
formly taught, and think, in strict accordance