Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1858-09-09


ilton in very short extracts.
answer 1t is unheard of uutl now, ii
the history of the Protestant Churches, tina
the opinions of men, Synods, or Counsels
even when expressed at full length, in plail
and unequivocal language, be set up as
warrant, for a rule Of moral obligation, in
dependently of the Holy Scriptures; and o
equal authority with the Scriptures. The
Scriptures declare against it. See l. Cor
ass; 2. Cor. 1:24; Eph. 2:20; Actl
17:11, Every reformed Christian Church
on earth declares against it. (See all Con
fessions.) The Confession of Faith of the
Presbyterian Church says of this, "The su
preme judge, by whom all controversies in
religion are to be determined"
"doctrincs of men, and private spirits are te
be examined" &c., = "can be nc
other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the
Scriptures. Chap. l :sec. 10; chap. 81
sec. 3, 4. Romanists only tolerate the con
trary. So then, the works of these authors,
even thcug ga they plainly taught the doctrine
of GA Presbyterian" are incompetent on
their own authority to erect rule for moral
obligation, not acritten in the Bible.
Moreover. In all controversies, to be de.
cided by appeals to books, the titles of the
books, the names of the authors, chapter, OF
page, ought to be quoted, so that cross.
examination may be had of them; otherwise,
extracts from them are only here-sny, and is
no testimony. In this case, GA Presbyteri-
an" has given in the titles only in part of the
books, and he has given in the names of au-
thors for the most part only, without the titles
of the book, or chapter, Or page, whence he
derived his extracts; his readers therefore,
have not his witnesses made competent to
prove; nor can they verify the extracts he
has made. They do not know often times,
nor can they find by his showing, whether
the authors quoted do speak in their own
books, what they are made to say in your COL
umns Mr.. Editor. Remember Mr.. Scots
case on Eph. 6: l, where he was made by
ga Presbyterian" to prove what he does not
prove. No reliance, therefore, can be placed
in his showing of the authors, whom he has
quoted in short extracts in this matter
Mr.. Editor, when GA Presbyterian" was
most in need of Scripture proof, and needed
aid from the Confession of Faith to prove for
him, he said in good faith to you sir, 81 will
not at this point in my examination Of the
extraordinary avowal [of f. A. Crenshaw,] j
adduce any passages of Scripture, embarrass-
ing only for their number 1even to be cited,
to confirm the reverse ITO f. A. Crenshaw's
proposition;] or, refer to the Presbyterian
Confession of Faith, and Catechism; but,
will give only single remark from Bishop
Butler"
7 answer. Well done! Bishop Butler
Bishop Butler!! Amazing. He did choose
to pass by Scripture, and the Confession of
Faith, Mr.. Editor, for proof for rule of
moral obligation not written in the Scrip
ture; and that too when combating one who
is Presbyterian, in order to introduce ia
single remark from Bishop Butler" who is
an Episcopalian, and when writing on diff
ferent subject. How do you knoU Mr. Edi-
tor, that what CA Presbyterian here profess
ed to have extracted from the book, or books
of Bishop Butler, is in fact his language to
you in this matter? Bishop Butler wrote
more books than one, yet ere GA Presbyte-
riau" has not afforded to you the title, page,
chapter, nor any thing else about it. True
you have his word for what he says of it;
and so you had his word for what he said of
Mr.. Scott. You cannot kno~ by his show
ing here, whether that "single remark from
Bishop Butler" stands in his ANALOGY,
his SERMONS, or where else or whether ga
Presbyterian" has made to you showing
of his orn composition, or whether he ex-
tracted this out of some Almanac. Mr.. Ed
itor, do you believe him about his "passages
of Scripture, and about his "Confession Of
Faith, and Catechism ?" lido not believe him
here. Had he had one text of Scripture, or
one sentence from the Confession of Faith to
prove for him, he was bound as Christian,
and as Presbyterian, to give in these, rath-
er than ga single remark from Bishop But
ler" in this case.
Besides. As for picking, eulling, and
garbling extracts from aon-cited books, l
can 80 extract from books, as to affirm for al
most any thing at all. Thus in Mat q: 5,
it is said of Judas that he "went and hanged
himself" now put this to the words ego and
do thou likewise" Luke 10: 37,) and We
have better made out rule from Scripture,
for the crime of suicide, than "a Presbyteri-
an" has with his garbled extracts, for his
moral rule not arritten in the Scriptures
Here we have even the means of finding out
this error for suicide in crosse examination
but with his extracts we can do nothing, for
want Of kno'0ing where to find them; at least
in almost all the cases. And that is about
the sum and substance of the manner OF
proof he has afforded in his extracts.
4. Preamble. To cap the climax of wit
nesses, ga Presbyterian" has introduced
here, certain Preamble. to Constitution
of Total Abstinence Temperance Society,
dated about 1880. Unto what end ? 1 ans.
wer. In order to set up rule for moral OBJ
legation, not sorttten in the Scriptures. He
plays off largely on the word "duty" as con-
tanned in the said Preamble, and calls it
"n'oral duty, moral obligation" &c.
Of this I have to say. This is imcompe'
tent To proye a moral utilization. ON men