Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1858-09-23
For the Yorkville Enquirer.

49,. ..' ]. W. KELLY.
o.. o.. FRO BE ooNTrsUEu.l
For the Yorkville Enquirer
ERRORS ExAMNED.
Mr.. Editor Having established "the will of
God as revealed In the Bible, to be the rule-the
only rule Of moral obligation on man." and hav.
ing shown by circumstantial proof, that "a Pres.
byterian" is Col. -, and having shown that 10
my teachings have been much abused by him in
his productions, I now proceed again to show his
error in his doctrine on conscience in man; and
the practical tendency Of his teachings as q rule
for moral obligation.
Mr.. Editor When reflect little, before en-
ter on my work, fear that we both are too little
taught ourselves, to teach such matters as We now
pretend.
On July %, ga Presbyterian" taught thus -
God has given TO all his creatures, laws in forms
other than written in the Holy Bible These laws
are written in the light and law of nature-in His
Providence reason properly exercised. and in
conscience" ."These are as much the gift Of God
and Law also, as is his revelation in the Bible.
On July 20. replied to all these, and denied
the truth Of each and every one, as laws Of God
for moral obligation on man, on parity in au
now in his rejoinder. abused my teachings much,
in bis making inferenees from premises which are
false. He hns alleg, d, that I deny God rs the
moral creator, preserver, governor, and judge of
this world; be says, l "put reason and conscience
in strait Jacket" and made them "blanks, and
dolts." He even has alleged, that deny the ex-
istsnce, essential qualities and characteristic in
fuences of conscience; and he represents that
kLo e in fho tMar-
ence between "him and myself is "marked, and
unreasonable"
Mr. Editor Enough has already been said by
me upon these matters, to free me from his abu-
ses; and will not here reconsider these things,
but will only here disclaim utterly one and oil
these allegations of his, as having one word Of
truth for their foundation. His interenecs from
false premises arc his sort Of facts. Let this suf
fee
The three first points in the platform Of "a
Presbyterian of July 22nd, have been already
found to have no pretensons to the claims OF laws,
or rules at all much less az laws for moral obi.
cation on man, equal in authority with ths writ
ten Bible. But because, on September 18th, he re
considered conscience in man, as law for moral
obligation, I feel constrainea here TO devote some
space in examining this matter. Let it be distinct
ly known, and understood by you Mr.. Editor,
that on July Goth, said, "conscence in man,
when unenlightened by moral rr.ie. variously
decides on moral duty in given case" And this
said in reference to practical duty, in the mat
ter Of moral obligation on Christians, to become
members Of temperance Societies.
On September 18th, "A Presbyterian" had the
bald faced hardihood to say in my presence, and
in the face of all which had written to the con.
,rary on July Goth, that denied the moral nature
uo o1o nj r. ohow
ly and expressly mot impiedly] denie, the char
acter of conscience in its recognition Of the differ
ence between right and wrong in u word, he in
substance holds, that man has no conscience
He holds this infdel dogma consistently Mr..
Elitor, this s too hard to take. II about as far
as he shall so.
However, my teachings show this faisehood.
have never been an infdel, nor ON now an in.
adsi, nor do need bis iofdel philosophy, nor in.
6del dogmas, to aid me in my course. AS for the
difference between us on conscience, being "marked
and immeasurable" as he hasit, take this example:
Or July 20, taught thus Conscience in man,
when unenlgbtened by a moral rule, variously
decides," &c. On Sept. 16, "a Presbyterian"
said, 20 make '.poliey," no matter how "good," ir
respective of the dictates of an enlightened CON-
science our standard Of moral rectifude, is pro
crossing to the utmost verge Of q corrupt and in-
idel philosophy. Here. Mr.. Editor, two things
may be noticed. 1st. required on July 29. an
enlightened conscience for q rule, or arbiter, in
moral duty. On Sept. l6 "a Presbyterian" re-
ouired an enlightened conscience for standard OF
right. Now I demand. Where is the 'marked
and immeasurable" difference between US. He
here has come over on my ground Of July 20 at
unswares, bat he will not stay there, simply be-
cause il 10 my ground. End. "a Presbyterian
here seems to take special pleasure in misrepre-
senting me, in order to get some apology to hold
me up TO disadvantage in my religious opinions,
before your readers, in his talking about my "pro-
crossing to the utmost verge Of ifael philosophy"
Happily for me. that although inidel dogmas,
and infdel philosophy, may be his old acquain-
tanccs. never yet have made acquaintance with
them. And if his denial of the revealed will of
God as the rule-the only rule of moral obligation
on man. is not the offspring Of old iufdel dogmas
and infdel philosophy, then know not what is
infdelity. Nor do care, whether "a Presbyte-
rian'' remain on my ground in the matter of con-
science, or not he has been of it since July %,
until Sept 18, as showed above and so.soon as
he bethought himself, be stepped off again.
ga Presbyterian" has often spoken Of conscience
as O rule Of moral obligation on man, binding him
in obedience to God but Arrays without quali-
fcation, except in the single instance as above
stated, when it slipped out of him, l take it, at
unawares. He did say ian enlightened conscience"
once, but his constant doctrine is q natural, an
conscience as O rule for moral obli
CATION. And judging from what see of the
workings of his conscience in this controversy,
this is what he always means.
"A Presbyterian" would have US to believe, that
st.. Paul took pleasure in appealing to his con-
science as rule for moral obligation; and as
usual, he quotes pretty nearly his words but he
tells US not what Epistle, chapter, nor verse; l
find these for myself. As quoted by "A PIesby-
terian," ST. Paul is made to say, 81 always exer-
cisa myself, to have Arrays conscience, void of
offence towards God and towards man." whereas
81. Paul said, "And herein do exercise myself"
SC. Acts "a: 16. Again. He quoted Acts %; l
in order to prove that st. Paul always made his
conscience his rule of action, and not the Scrip
lures whereas St. Paul taught his hearers, that
his constant work and daily toll, was so to order
ais life according to the ,riN Of God, as to have
The testimony of good conscience. Besides, St,
Paul being inspired to know the will Of God, his
being enlightened, and his heart
,anctifed, be could not fail to have conscience,
such as uninspired men have not.
Major D. n. Hill has we'll said: "In order that
conscience may be an infallibls guide in duty. it
8 necessary that th" understanding be enlightened,
Ind the heart be sanctifed." Just here lies the
mistake of fanaticsm. The fanatic places his
ahove the Rihla, vaa ahnva God him 4