Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1858-09-16
Original 9rtitle,
For the 'Yorkville Enquirer.
FOR "a PREsBYTERIAN."

For the lorkfihe enquirer.
FOR "a PRESBYTERIAN"
Mr.. Editor LIN your issue Of Sept. 9th,
I find an article captioned "God's essential
holiness denied" and signed GA Presbyte-
rian." By the change in caption, I under
stand change of subject in debate. GA
Presbyterian" here has made second attack
on me from behind a tree. And the sub.
iect here is not "the rule of moral obligation
on man" as heretofore5 but, is THE GROUND
on which uirtue rests. Whether virtue rests
on the wiU of God; or, on his holy aciN-.
ahis will, regulated by righteousness"
On July %, ga Presbyterian" did first
lay down his platform for me; on this I have
done all my work. Among some other things,
he then said as part and parcel Of his plat
form, and in allusion to the doctrine OF some
Minister: "The moral law is to be obeyed,
because it is right; and not because it is
commanded" Here stands!Me rule of right
action for mans obedience to God; and the
reason for his obedience to said rule, viz:
'it is right, and not because it is command
ed" of the Lord. To this ] said on July
29th, IF there is one eminent Minister Of
Christ, who teaches that the moral law is to
be observed or, binds man in obedience to
God] because it is right, outside of bis will
in the nature or fitness of thiDgs] andnot
because it is commanded of God, as,his will;
thai eminent Minister is mistaken. If there
is one eminent Minister of Christ, who
teaches that it is right, lin the nature and
fitness Of things, outside and independent
ly of the will of God, that the creature
should" &c.
On the next week, Aug. s. ga Presby-
terian" altered his platform little, andsaid,
1.-The moral law x x isis right, not merely
merely, notice i'll because it is commanded !;
but it is also Ealso, notice this tool right in
ITSELF &c.. Of this his last proposition here,
I said no more. Nor has it held place iu
this discussion on moral obligation as a
matter eontroverted. From Aug. 5, to Sept.
9, ga Presbyterian" has harped much about
it. He assumed that denied what he called
"tbe eternal difference between right and
wrong,"-virtue and vice-sin aud holiness;
aud be has written as though his assumption
was fact, and the realquestion to be issued
here; whilst I confined myself to discuss
"the rule-the only rule of moral obligation
on man." which is tho real question before
US.
Mr.. Editor: On Sept. 9th, ga Presby.
terian" changed his ground of attack. He
ceased to write under the head "FATAL Err.
RoRs CORRECTED" and now he writes under
the head Goods essential holiness denied"
He is shabby enough to attack me second
time under masked name, and says, that I
in abstract proposition teach, "there can be
no moral right, nor wrong, without 'critten
rule;" when in fact I said, "there can be
70 moral right, nor wrong without rule"
in the relation to the obedience of man to
God.
ga Presbyterian" is here shabby enough,
to represent me- as making q de@iel Of sshe
essential holiness of God," when I have said
not one word about "the essential holiness of
God" from the very first. He began his
attack on July %, on "the rule Of moraiob
legation of man to God. He passed on to
nthe eternal difference between right and
wrong" andon Sept. 9th, he passed "beyond
the beyants," and has gone on to "THE Es-
sENTIAL HOLINESS OF GoD DENIED" Let
him 20, I will not'fellow him. The rule of
moral obligation is one thing; the eternal
difference between right and wrong is another
thing, and the ground on which virtue rests
is a third thing. Here he is now, and here
let him remain.
Mr.. Editor. utterly disclaim what here
GA Presbyterian" has laid unto my charge;
and I will proceed little further in my for.
mer course, then / will stop Of my own ac-
cord. Those who understand this matter
will aeeigh "a Presbyterian" in his preten.
sions. I further say. It'll my opinion, that
I will neuer engage with ga Presbyterian"
in controversy again. He is too eccentric
too ignorant of his present subject to make
him feel the force of adefeat think that
many men have forgotten more Theology
than ever he has known ; yet, here he stands
up to neutrality-suspicious. man! Has he
forgotten the hole of the pit whence he was
digged? E. A. CRENSHAW.