Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1858-09-16
For the Yorkville Enquirer.

E. A. CRENSHAW.
TO De CONTINUED.
->o~>----
For the Yorkvile Enquirer.
."rHAT MESSENGER OF GoD.n
Mr.. Editor Among the differences which sep
arate +. A. Crenshaw and myselfis our respective
view of the existence, essential qualities, and char
acteristic influences Of Conscience. On this impor-
tant subject the difference between US is marked
and immeasurablc. Like various other doctrines
which divide us, I connect conscience directly with
the Creator and find support for my belief in the
revealed will of God. II is declared to be "the
candle of The Lord" But E. A. Crenshaw, on his
part, scouts and contemns this idea Of connection
between God md conscience and wrong
command and duty and in so doing, disregards
the most plain and literal teachings of the Bible
on this momentous doctrine, which underlays and
supports all morality and oil religion.
Man is the wondrous workmanship of m omni-
potent and gracious God Every power and pro-
pensits bestowed by God on man is In itself good,
and was conferred for wise and holy purpose.
The moral nature Of man, call it by what name
you may, whether conscience, moral sense moral
obligation, or sense Of duty-being the gift Of our
Almighty Maker-'that messenger Of God in the
breast" Ito use the language of DR.. Thornwell)-
is IN indestructible link connecting man with
God. Abolish this nature, and mans condition
aud destiny become superlatvely worse than that
of the beasts that perish Among the faculties of
the human soul, the conscience stands forth the
very impress of the Holy One, its fashioner-the
only arbiter in man Of moral right and moral
wrope-the vice-gerent in the bosom Of man Of
heavens eternal King. "a being" says DR..
Thornwell, as we have heretofore seen, "wthout
the sense Of obligation, and spontaneous rsoo3ai
ton Of the fundamental differences Of right and
wrong could, not be responsible. He could not
form the remotes notion Of duty, and the language
Of authority and law might as well be addressed
to stocks and stones" E. A. Crenshaw clearly
and expressly denies this character to conscience.
He donles explicitly the fact and existence Of any
faculty in man, which gives "spontansous rsoogDi-
ton of the fundamental differences Of right and
wrong"-in word, he in substance holds that
man has no conscience. He holds this infdel dog
ma consistently for, beyound all denial, he asserts
that the works Of creation teach no moral duty in
uuy given case-that the providence Of GOD teach
es no moral duty, and consequently that God is
no moral Qovernor-ho maintains ropndly and
boldly there oan be no moral right nor wrong
without written .rule-that duty implies writ.
ten rule, and consequently that Gsntles, in Rom )
+,
right only because it is commanded, and cofse.
nuently there is no eternal difference between
right and wrong, holiness and sin, and hence God
is not essentially and Inherently .holy-and. he
even asserts that reason, which SO plainly distin-
guishes man from every earthly creature, isa COM
plete blank and entire Yoid, without any funda-
mental axioms. until BY soIie process unexplained
and inexplicablo, 1t Is set to work and taught by
some written rule. -.
A denial Of the existence, nature, and attrib-
utes, of conscience by E. A Crenshaw well accords
in consistent error with such corresponding falla
cics, as given above. To deny the proper proper
ties of Conscience ia denial of conscience itself
and to hold the doctrines here detailed leads to
notous of O God, and establishes God not known
to the Bible, nor recognized by Christian faith. If
conscience have not the property of determining
right and vrong, and this property 2. A. Crenshaw
denies to it, the conclusion irresistibly follows,
there is no such thing rs conscience, Indeed,
this is the theory which the gentleman furnishes
us and "all Christians" and We are informed out
Of. his own mouth, that holding conscience to be
utterly worthless as an arbter Of right and wrong,
he reduces his theory to practice in his intercourse
with his fulloE creatures In his view, conscience
never having been designed by his Creator as
"that messenger Of God in the breast" he thrusts
aside its suggestions as those of q deceiyer and
officious intermeddler, and leaning to his own nn-
derstanding, which he Is commanded not to do,
and governed exclusively by feshly wisdom, con-
fesses '.he has often been member of various
temperance societies, gQt for coHScece sake, 6utJor
qood policy IN The caasS"-a practical demonstra-
tion of the state Of his conscience, and a most
startling confession.
The understanding or reason judges of truth
aud falsehood; but is the province Of conscience
to rs-sala from within, and proclaim to the crea
ture the eternal principles AZ right and wrong.
Denying the authority Of conscience, and disre-
parding its sanctions, E. A. Crenshaw can have
no divinely appointed mean Of knowing what is
ight or what is wrong. Conscience IS the chief
element in mans sense Of responsibility. Blot
out conscience, and mans. responsibility to his
1od is tale told by an idiot; and to make 'poli-
ca" no matter how 'good," irrespective of the
dictates Of an enlightened conscience, ourstandard
Of moral rectitude is progressing to the utmost
verge Of corrupt and infdel philosophy. With
out recognition of the sovereign behests of con-
science man soon becomes an utter rebel against
the authority of his supreme Judge, and an out.
cast from the pale of civilization. With good
md unde6led clpsuiense, man is allied to God and
oil holy creatures but scared and contemned
conscience only atsits possessor for regions of woe
md the company Of lost spirits. Paul took pleas
ure in appealing to his conscience. When ar
raigned before Roman Goyernor-and surround
ed with enemies thirsting for his blood, he could
say, 81 alcays exercise myself, to have Arrays
conscience void of offence toward God, and toward
men," When hef9re the Sanhedrim, Paul again
could declare, "l have lived In all good conscience
before God until this day" On this Henry re-
marks ,AHe is uniuersally conscientious; and
they that are not so, are not at oil truly conscien.
tious." Paul did not act in reference to his con-
science, as ACCIDENT, or chance, or worldly policy
might suggest, 1t was always conscience. "Ths
in man," says McCosh, as seen in your
last issue, sis the representative Of this, the holy
,piH of hi, Gorernor p and so thought and acted
Paul. II the moral nature in man be notthe rep
resentative of the holy will Of God, where else can
it be found The intelligent and orthodox theo-
logan knows of no other judge Of right and
wrong in the soul of man but conscience. The
says it is not tin me. The will says
it il not in me. The affections say il is not in
me. 'Each Of these sttribItoa have other and dis
tinet departments Of operation, connected Of
course in degree, yet still in the main implanted
with o different adaptation. Where then is the
arbiter Of right and wrong? It is in the con-
spience, Here we find the great element Of mans
moral nature, witnessing the purity, goodness and
holiness of its mighty Maker, LaWgiver and Judge,
md declaring authoritatvely the creatures de-
pendenoe on Q Superior Will, its need Of His mer-
cy, and the duty due and to be performed to the
Kant (which the oftener and the more stead
4 H. Ixp,th IN